Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) Link to this

It is a privilege to take a brief call in support of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I acknowledge and thank my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay, the member in whose name this bill has been brought forward. I acknowledge the very many people who have gone before, to bring this bill to the House today.

Work on this bill started some 30 years ago—30 years ago—when the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, Tony Randerson, now Justice Randerson, and other members of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society recognised that Auckland was growing fast and creeping stage by stage into the beautiful, unique area that we know as the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. They had a vision then that if our law did not catch up with the pace of change, and if it did not find some way of bringing together the long-term needs of future generations with the short-term pressures of subdivision and property development, then we would all be the poorer—we would all be the poorer.

This is absolutely the right thing for this Parliament to support, for several reasons. Firstly, it is an expression of the national significance and the nationwide uniqueness of this area, not just because it has beautiful bush, not just because it has significant biodiversity, but because it is one of those very rare gems of a natural ecosystem that is directly proximate to a major and growing urban city, and in that it is relatively unique. This bill is the right thing to support because it breaks new ground in dealing with the problem of incremental effects—the fact that each consent assessed on its own may be reasonable, but the combined effect of consent after consent being granted is such as to lead to an irreversible degradation in our natural heritage and the amenity values of the area.

I welcome my colleague Dail Jones and tell him it is good to see him back in the House. He raised the issue that this bill would somehow abridge private property rights and would be socialism by stealth. I would like to think so, but I doubt that 81 percent of Aucklanders are in favour of socialism by stealth. In a scientific poll, 81 percent of Aucklanders voted in favour of this bill, as did 77 percent of Waitakere residents. It does not trammel any existing property rights, nor does it change in significant measure the consenting process. What does it do? It ensures that the consenting process takes place with a set of objectives and a legal framework that provide for the long term as well as the short, and that is absolutely the right thing to do.

I said that this bill has been a long time coming and I have acknowledged some of the region’s tīpuna who have supported it over many years. Let me mention some others. I acknowledge the good work of Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki, who have been wonderful kaitiaki of this area and have engaged with local councils, and whose support for this bill is vested now in the Supplementary Order Paper that our colleagues in the Māori Party have put forward, as well as in their earlier consultation with the proponents of the bill.

I am happy to say that this issue was one of the first regional issues I embraced as a first-time candidate in 1998. In my first campaign in 1999 I travelled to the UK to look at the British national park system and at areas of unique national importance, and I brought some of that learning back into the discussion with my local and regional authority colleagues, working of course with my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay.

This bill has been a long time coming, because it has been the subject of extensive local consultation over many, many years. It has broken ground in cooperation between territorial authorities and the regional authority, which have all stood behind this bill. If anybody was in any doubt about whether supporting the bill was the right thing for this Parliament to do, I simply ask them to reflect upon the fact that the processes of local democracy, operating freely and through their democratic system, have seen all of those local representatives join together to bring this bill to the House.

PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this

I stand to speak on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, which is being promoted by the Waitakere City Council. First I will address the way in which the community has had to deal with this issue. Although differing opinions are a good thing, and it is good to come at things from different angles, there is absolutely no doubt that this bill has split the community to its detriment. That is a fact. The member speaking previously, David Cunliffe, spoke about surveys being put out that show 81 percent support it, but we need to ask what question the people answered on that survey. Is there any doubt from members of the public living in Waitakere that they want to see those ranges protected? There is none. I have not yet met one person who does not want that protection. Certainly members of Parliament from this side of the Chamber can stand proudly and say they wish to see those ranges protected.

The preamble to this bill talks a lot about what those ranges mean not just to the Waitakere area but also to the wider Auckland area in general. Yes, for those of us who live there and look at the ranges, we do think they are jolly special. The National Party stands up and says that if we really think the ranges are as special as that, then we should protect them, and we should give them the highest protection in the land by turning them into a national park. There are no national parks north of Taupō, and if we are serious about seeing the Waitakere area truly protected, then there is no greater protection that we could give the ranges and the regional park than to turn the area into a national park. That is what the National Party puts on the table. It is not the first time we have said publicly that we think that idea should go to the New Zealand Conservation Authority and that it should be given due consideration.

But this bill affects all those people who live in the area. The population was 21,000 in 2005, I say to Mr Jones, although I think it is more than that now. I do not have an exact number at this stage, but I think we are talking about significantly more people than that. As a consequence, this bill is putting a caveat over those people’s land, and if it is not, then why do we have the bill? It is as simple as that. If this bill will not affect detrimentally what people can do with their own land, then why do we have the bill?

Let us put a few other facts on the table at this stage, as well. This area is not being carved up willy-nilly for town houses and medium-density housing, let alone high-density housing. This area already has very strict rules about what can happen and the way in which it can happen. There are already rules about the land within the heritage area affected by this bill. People cannot just build a house right next door, and they are restricted in what they can do with their property. Communities within the Waitakere Ranges have spent not just months but years working on their land area management plans. They have consulted, talked, and met, and they have been in consultation with the councils and have decided what is best for their area. And now we have legislation coming along that says doing all that is not enough. That is fundamentally wrong.

What can happen in the land affected by this bill at the moment—the land mass and the boundaries that we are talking about—is incredibly limited. There are families on 8 hectares who would like to build another home for their families. That is the sort of stuff we are talking about; it is not mass land development. We are not talking about subdivisions like Henderson Heights, where I live, and places like that where some of us choose to live. We are not talking about areas like that. In the argument on this bill over the years, we have managed to have hysteria around mass housing and subdivisions, and there has been talk about the land being unable to cope with those things, but that simply is not true.

We are talking about development in an area such as Pihā, for example. I think I heard from the council just recently that something like only six sections are for sale now within the Pihā area. The development that can go on in an area like that is fairly limited. I would be one who would stand up to say that if we were to put any caveats on property, then perhaps that is the sort of area where we might do it. We might say that we do not want a lot more housing going into an area like that, purely because of the way the land is.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill. I note that the previous speaker acknowledged the Waitakere City Council, but I think it is important that we acknowledge the other two councils, the Auckland Regional Council and the Rodney District Council. I congratulate them on their vision, on the extraordinary consultation and community involvement they carried out in support of this bill, and on their ongoing support and energy, which has brought this bill before the House. I also acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee, led by Steve Chadwick, and the constructive recommendations made by the majority of that committee, which has brought this bill forward and recommended that it proceed before the Committee today.

I will speak very briefly about the comments made by Nick Smith, because, personally, I found them quite offensive. I would never dream of insulting the Committee by my Māori pronunciation, but I would like to give the translation of the words in the bill. The preamble states: “Listen all of the assembled tribes, to this talk of olden times, this land is a fish. The person who fished it up was Maui. I will remain here on it, indeed until I die:”. That was a Waitakere chief at the Kohimārama conference in 1860. It is acknowledging feeling, passion, and—even back in 1860—the desire to keep Waitakere and those beautiful ranges as they are and as they should be.

My good friend David Cunliffe acknowledged all those people who came before us—I think three decades ago—and really worked hard and attempted to get a bill such as this before the House. It was not successful. I will not talk too much to that; I will wait for the third and final reading stage. But I really want to acknowledge that this bill was supported by many. Dail Jones entered the House and hit the ground running, slightly losing the plot but being enthusiastic nonetheless.

In terms of Aucklanders, I agree with him in one place; Aucklanders own the regional park through grants and amazing goodwill. The Waitakere Ranges Regional Park is something we hold with great pride. I completely and utterly agree with Dail Jones on that. It is quite mischievous to suggest that the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park, and certainly it is a red herring before this House. But I do not agree with Mr Jones that, overwhelmingly, Aucklanders do not support the heritage area.

I will talk very briefly about the name of this bill. David Cunliffe and I, along with many regional counsellors and officials, plus iwi representatives, were on the committee, a working party that looked at this bill and really worked towards drawing it up initially. We decided not to call it a park, because of the perception that a park is something that is publicly owned. That is why it is called a heritage area. Every single consultation and poll taken with the people of Auckland and outside Auckland overwhelmingly supported the principle of having a heritage area.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this

The first thing I want to reflect on is the valedictory speech given earlier by Ann Hartley. I have to say, it was the most political valedictory speech I have ever heard. It was a disgrace.

I will move on to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I say first of all that the fact that the member Lynne Pillay was talking about 83 percent of the scientific poll that was carried out by somebody asking people whether they would like more protection for a heritage area is a bit like someone in the Labour caucus being asked whether they are opposed to Helen Clark. It is the same sort of question.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) Link to this

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the preamble of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. The first thing I really must do is compliment my colleague Mr John Carter on drawing the attention of the Committee to the very, very loose advice that clearly some officials gave to the Local Government and Environment Committee. That in itself should be a major warning sign to the Committee. When I look at the preamble, I find myself asking whether this bill is really necessary. Why are we doing this? Then I reflect on a couple of things. I reflect particularly on the comments of the newly admitted member, Mr Dail Jones. I congratulate Mr Jones, and welcome him back.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) Link to this

I am pleased to stand in support of this bill, although I am putting forward an amendment by way of Supplementary Order Paper 141. As an independent MP I have received many representations from concerned people both for and against this bill. Many of those people have given stark and passionate evaluations of the need for this bill and its effect on their lives, and on the future of the area. Consequently, I have examined this bill and the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee quite closely. I have visited the area, the foothills and the ranges, and I have talked to concerned people—to both promoters of the bill and those who oppose it. In addition, I have met with representatives of the Waitakere Pacific Board, who strongly endorse the bill, as well as received supportive messages from tangata whenua.

My first impressions were that those who opposed the bill had some valid points to make. They feared, for example, that certain wording, especially in the revised clause 13, would add to the complexity, time, and costs involved in gaining a consent under the Resource Management Act. They said that the bill would effectively prohibit reasonable development of their private land. On further investigation I found that such consequences were certainly not the intent of the promoters, or indeed of the select committee, and I was able to allay some fears by reference to new clause 10AA, which clarifies the “Relationship between this Act and Resource Management Act 1991”, to clause 29, “Preservation of existing rights”, and the “Transitional provisions” in clause 30.

However, some sense of alarm remained amongst sections of the Waitakere community, and that disquiet was coherently expressed by Mr Arnold Turner, a former Environment Court judge and a man whose family members have long associations with the ranges as landowners, farmers, and conservationists. Mr Turner is also a former member of the Auckland Regional Authority and chairman of the regional parks committee. He expressed concern about the consequences of the bill, and the possibility of ambiguity in terms of the way it was drafted. That related to the district plan and, in particular, to compliance with section 75 of the Resource Management Act. I know that National members give a lot of weight to Mr Turner’s views, and I say that Mr Turner and other opponents, such as members of the Swanson group, the Structure Plan Advocates Network, were passionate in their desire to see the area managed in a way that protected its values for the long term, and they were prepared to negotiate constructively on possible ways of improving the bill.

As a result of those negotiations, I agreed to promote an amendment to clause 13, which I believe will improve the bill, and the relationship between the bill and the district plan. It narrows the matters to be considered in assessing an application for consent to those matters that are relevant. I must say I was satisfied that there was strong consistency between the Waitakere City district plan policies and the intent and provision of this bill. The two are not in conflict and should work together very well. Their joint administration should add to the certainty and cost-effectiveness of the consent process and, certainly, appropriate development will obtain consent. My amendment will contribute positively, I believe, to achieving that outcome.

I said “appropriate development”, because from my inspection of the proposed heritage area I can see there are real constraints on the kinds of developments that are sustainable. Even in the foothills, high rainfall, steep slopes, and unstable soil make urban development unwise. The contrast between the intensive urban development of Waitakere City and the heritage area is stark and abrupt, but so is the landscape change and, particularly, the ability of the land to carry such development. My amendment, I believe, is also consistent with the views of Mr Turner, whom I quote: “I confirm that the wording of the amendment is satisfactory from my point of view, and if that amendment is made to clause 13 by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, I will no longer have any objection to the bill.” That comment is from Mr Turner, who was very much part of those who raised concerns about and objections to this bill.

I believe that this bill is appropriate. I thank the officials of Waitakere City, in particular Graeme Campbell, for the way they adhered to the need to consult the community widely. I believe that that work has paid dividends, by and large, in terms of unifying the community, despite the comments that have been made on the other side of the Chamber about splitting it. I believe that a significant majority are actually in favour of this bill, and I commend it to the Committee.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

Speaking to the preamble, I first of all say that I believe that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has clear historic significance. I am going to refrain from personal jibes across the Chamber, because I believe that the debate on this bill, through this Committee stage and through the remaining readings, is profoundly significant. We have to see it in context, as debates are being held on iconic areas abutting urban landscapes such as the English Peak District and the Sheffield and Manchester conurbations, Table Mountain and Cape Town, the Blue Mountains and Sydney, and the Dandenong Ranges and Melbourne—those iconic areas define those urban landscapes.

A member opposite talked about—shock, horror—socialism by stealth. I say that if we do nothing, we will have the destruction of this heritage by stealth.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

I enjoy having the chance to speak on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill before the dinner break. I wanted to speak in this part, because I am hoping some of the officials are still within the precinct. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee considering this bill, and it was a very long and a reasonably arduous process. For a Luddite like myself, for want of a better word, I am not good on the Resource Management Act, at all, and this bill was an education and a half on the Resource Management Act. It was also an education on how to rewrite a bill. This bill has been just about totally rewritten by the select committee. When we look at the changes that have been made, we see that they are quite comprehensive, and I think that the bill is better for it. The Parliamentary Counsel Office has done a sterling job on guiding us through that, and I acknowledge it and the other officials who have been involved in the process.

There is always an upside to everything. For me the upside to this one—and for this I thank the Auckland Regional Council—was that we had a stunning trip on a helicopter to view the Waitakere Ranges, which is something I had never experienced. Being a Wellingtonian, I did not fully appreciate the beauty of the Waitakere Ranges. They are stunning, and of course they are worth protecting. I can fully understand why there is passion in the region, passion in Auckland, about these ranges. I was also lucky enough to be sitting beside Marian Hobbs on the helicopter. It was a good thing they had shut the door on the helicopter, because there was a debate at the time about who would push whom out of the helicopter! That was the upside.

The downside is that I have found this to be very disturbing legislation—totally. There are a number of reasons why I found this legislation very disturbing. The first is that it came before us in 2006; it is now 2008. This took a heck of a long time to get through the select committee process. In fact, it took so long that I just about had to reread the papers to remind myself of a lot of the issues, because it did not get the numbers to bring it to the Committee of the whole House until just the other day. This is controversial legislation. For it to sit on the Order Paper for as long as it has means there was concern about the numbers. Obviously those have been rectified, but the fact that it took so long to come before the Committee was a concern.

For me the second concern is in regard to the council activities. I am uncomfortable with the way that the local community has not picked up on this local bill as with other local bills that have come before the select committee I have been on for the last few years. I would have thought that when local bills come before us, they actually have a pretty high degree of local support, but I do not believe that this one has. I think that is incredibly disturbing and sad.

There has been talk about the poll, and the sponsor of the bill rabbited on beautifully about how fantastic the support was. But as the deputy chair of the committee, John Carter, alluded, the question was a sop. When people were asked whether they supported protection, no one would have said no to that. The result was a bit different from the result of the poll I heard that Labour had in its caucus, and I must let people know about that. The poll on protecting the heritage area was a farce. To use that poll as the reason for assuming that the population of Waitakere supports this legislation is wrong.

But I became most concerned about the public submissions. Picking up from the commentary on the bill, we had 221 submissions, with the majority coming from individuals and groups in the Waitakere area. To quote from the commentary: “Submissions were almost equally split between support for and opposition to the bill.” I repeat what I said earlier: I think it is wrong that a local bill comes from the area and has that sort of division in it. The amazing thing about this bill is that neighbours were on absolutely different sides of the fence with regard to the arguments about this bill. Neighbours were arguing with each other as to what they thought the ramifications of this bill were. That is not good local government.

PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this

There are a few points I want to get through on the preamble, and one we have much concern about really is the vagueness of the bill—the fact that it is open to interpretation—and it is the opinion of this side of the Committee that the only winners out of the whole bill will be lawyers. We will see more litigation, we will see lawyers in courts, and we will see them try to battle out this piece of legislation that, quite frankly, is not succinct and does not accomplish anything. I would like to add that I think some good people in the community have gone into this with perhaps a good intention, and their intention, I think, has been to protect the very ranges and the heritage area that the bill lays out in the schedules. But, all good intentions aside, what we are dealing with in this Committee is the fact that the bill will be enacted legislation. The concern on this side is that we actually believe it will be yet another layer of bureaucracy, and we will see lawyers having to interpret statements a little bit like “natural and dynamic character;”, clause 8(c)(i).

DAIL JONES (NZ First) Link to this

In the preamble, as I have mentioned already, there are, clearly, two areas of land being considered. One is the 17,000 hectares that belong to us all in Auckland, and the other is the 10,000 remaining hectares.

When one reads the preamble and looks at, say, recital (9) we see that it is worded in a way to give everyone fear about what is going to happen to the 17,000 acres. Recital (9) suggests that it applies to the 17,000 acres, which, of course, it cannot. Recital (9) reads as follows: “The area is subject to development and urban intensification pressures.” Well, that cannot apply to the 17,000 hectares because it belongs to the people of Auckland and the Auckland Regional Council. Nothing can happen there.

Recital (9) goes on to state: “These pressures are compounded by the area’s proximity to metropolitan Auckland, and threaten to undermine the unique natural, landscape, cultural, historic, and community features of the area, including its farming and rural character:”. In so far as the 17,000 hectares is concerned its unique natural landscape and its cultural, historic, and community features are always protected because we in Auckland will make sure they are protected, and no law is required to give them any further protection, because shared ownership means that we in Auckland, as ratepayers of the Auckland Regional Council, will make sure that nothing will happen to that land.

However, where we are today, of course, is in dramatic comparison with the way in which the founders of the Auckland regional park area established it. They bought the land. As they required more land, they went out and bought it. They added to it, so, over time, the people of Auckland came to own 17,000 hectares of land. Nothing can happen to it. What is the contrast today? Today, instead of going out and buying the land—this additional 10,000 hectares, which has been in private ownership for a long time—the Waitakere City Council wants, effectively, to gain control as if it were the owner of the land and control the way in which people use the land. That is what I call socialism by stealth by the Waitakere City Council. The council has restricted one’s use of one’s own land. In the old days that land would have been bought, but the council does not want to buy it; it wants to restrict people’s use of it.

I have put forward a couple of amendments that make it clear that on every title in that 10,000 hectares there is to be a note stating that it is subject to this bill, because that will be important when one comes to sell it. Any lawyer acting for a prospective buyer will have to advise buyers: “Look, I can’t tell you what is going to happen to that 10,000 hectares. It is subject to this bill.” It will reduce the saleability of the land in the area. Lawyers will make $500 to $1,000 a time when advising purchasers on how the land can be used. I have suggested in another amendment that it should be noted on the title, because a principle of the Land Transfer Act is that one should have a clear definition of what is on one’s title. There should be a Gazette notice stating that this land, the 10,000 acres, is subject to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill.

If the member in charge of this bill says that it is not socialism by stealth, I say “Well, prove it.” Let us make everybody aware of what is happening. Let us get something registered on the titles so that everybody knows, and so that everybody advising a person—and I suspect that one may be a real estate agent; there are real estate agents in the Committee—on selling a piece of land is able to say to the buyer: “Look, this bill will stop you from doing additions to your house.”, for example. That is what this bill will do. Because of the nature of the land, owners will be prevented from putting additions on. That is why my other amendment refers to housing needs—so that it can be made quite clear that those people who live and work in the area will also be protected in respect of their housing needs.

The bill is silent on housing needs. If a person had a family of one that rose to three, and that person wanted to extend his or her house and put in a second bedroom, a third bedroom, or a garage, this bill would prevent that person from doing that in this area. That person would have to go through an extra resource consent process to establish whether that particular extension affected the area. If the member in charge of this bill is quite clear that it is not socialism by stealth, let us make sure that everybody in the area knows what is happening. Let us have it done by 30 September 2008, and let us see whether this member is returned to Parliament at the next election.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Later on I would like to speak to Part 2—I have a Supplementary Order Paper—but I would like to respond to some of the comments made about the preamble. To begin with I refer to Dr Nick Smith, who opened his remarks by saying: “ ‘This land is a fish’—who believes that?”, and so on.

I am surprised that Dr Smith has not read the explanation in the bill, which states that the saying was said by a chief, Te Waatarauihi, way back in 1860 at a conference in the Auckland area. The point is that he was making a spiritual and cultural expression relating to the occupation of the area. He used Māori mythology to do that. In these days, when religion is used metaphorically and references are made to supernatural happenings, I find it strange that Dr Smith would not allow a Māori reference to ownership or occupation. The whole idea of saying that the land is a fish is a reference to Māui, which is a spiritual and cultural reference to the beginning of time. He is saying that his tribe has been here forever, so that is the reference. I say to Dr Smith that we do not really think that the land is a fish, at this time.

There has been talk about the fact that consultation has split the people. I do not know of another bill where Māori have been so united. The tangata whenua, Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara, and the five marae representing the hapū of that area, Rēweti, Haranui, Kakanui, Arapārera, and Puatahi—the whole five—are unanimous in supporting this bill, and they approached me to support it. Te Kawerau-a-Maki of Tainui Waka, the other major tribal interest in the area, also support the bill. In addition to that, the taura here, the visiting Māori intertribal communities of whānau Waipareira and Hoani Waititi Marae, also support the bill. So there is no division amongst Māori over this issue, and I just wanted to make that point.

I have spent some time on the Regulations Review Committee, and on researching various bills for speaking in the House, and the one thing that I find common to most bills is the lack of true consultation with tangata whenua. Yet in this case I do not know of a better example of consultation with tangata whenua than is evident in this bill. They are in my electorate, I have a mandate to support them, and I do support this bill.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

I want to take just a short call to put on the record my support for Part 1of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Unlike most members of this House I actually live in this area, in the foothills of Waitakere. I have lived there for 20 years. My child went to school there. My family have grown up there. The people in my street are not rich people. They are ordinary New Zealanders who, like me, have chosen to live in an area that is special and has cultural, historical, and ecological importance.

This area is important to all New Zealanders. I can confirm absolutely, being in touch with my neighbours and having been at the meetings and other things, that this bill reflects the desire of the people of my community to ensure that the magnificent Waitakere Ranges are kept for the enjoyment of future generations.

TIM GROSER (National) Link to this

Thank you, Mr Chairperson—

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

Coming from the South Island—the home of eight beautiful national parks—I fully appreciate what it is to be able to live amongst beautiful scenery, wonderful heritage areas, and special and significant landscapes. Like most New Zealanders I have become a bit green over the years and the quality of the New Zealand natural landscape is very important to me. The thought that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill might protect the beautiful Waitakere Ranges is very attractive, but it is not as simple as all that. This bill is not what it first seems, and in many ways the Labour members of Parliament have misrepresented its intentions and misled the public.

From listening to the Labour speakers it might be concluded that everyone in the Waitakeres supports this bill. But when one looks at the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee—all 221 of them—the support and the opposition were about even. Earlier this evening Minister Cunliffe also quoted an 83 percent support by locals, which he had ascertained by survey, but when we dig a little bit deeper his unscientific survey merely asked locals: “Do you want to protect the Waitakeres?”. Well, of course, they did. Why not? All Kiwis want to protect their local environment.

I would like to refer to more robust research, which was done by the Growth and Innovation Advisory Board in 2003. What this told us was that 87 percent of all New Zealanders surveyed felt that the quality of the natural environment was “important”, or “very important” to them. That was beaten only by the argument about the quality of life. Ninety-three percent of people felt quality of life was “important” and “very important” to them. But when one considers that the quality of the natural environment in New Zealand absolutely underpins our quality of life, one can see that New Zealanders really do want to look after their natural environment. So that makes me quite surprised that only 83 percent supported the Minister’s survey. I wonder whether they were a little suspicious about what that survey would be used for, and what the Minister was going to use it to support.

Submitters on the bill were concerned that the bill was unnecessary. They considered that the bill’s purpose and objectives could be achieved through existing legislation. There was real argument by the submitters and in the select committee about whether the bill would do anything more than the Resource Management Act. This issue was further clouded, as we heard from John Carter earlier tonight, by the Waitakere City Council officials who seemed to be confused themselves, and that is a charitable explanation of it. They were confused about what the legislation would do. At one stage they said it would do nothing more than what the Resource Management Act did. But then they had to revise their opinion when they were asked the obvious question: “If it will do nothing more than the Resource Management Act, why would you bother to have it at all?”.

Many submitters were also concerned that the bill constrains existing private property rights without addressing compensation, and well may they be concerned. We have heard this discussion from Dail Jones tonight, who talked about the erosion of property rights as socialist stealth. I would like to contrast Labour’s position on this bill with the rhetoric we have been hearing in the House for the last week or so about homeownership. Labour has been talking about the value of homeownership; the importance of families being able to own their homes because that gives families more control over their lives and builds community. But this bill does exactly the opposite. It undermines property rights. It adds more rules, more regulations, and more bureaucracy to homeowners who live in the Waitakere area.

There was also some debate over the national significance of the whole area. There was no debate over the Waitakere Ranges, but there were some parts of the 27,720 hectares that were not considered significant.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this

I stand to speak on the purpose of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill in our mind and the intention that members had when the bill was first introduced, and that of the Waitakere City Council in the long discussions we have had for more than 10 years in the community of Waitakere and west Auckland, as has been stated by members previously. The purpose of the bill was certainly to protect the ranges. As has previously been stated, I do not think that anyone can deny that protecting the ranges is a favourable thing to do. No one in this Chamber would disagree with that, and National certainly would not, either.

But we are not talking about just the ranges. We are not talking about just the area of the regional park, which, as we have stated, should be a national park, anyway. We should be looking at well and truly protecting that area and turning it into a national park. We are actually talking about the foothills, about private land, and about more than 21,000 people who live in that area. What will happen to those very people once this bill is introduced? Those are the questions these people have had for the last 10 years, and I do not think they will be answered when the bill is introduced.

Although the purpose of the bill may be admirable in many cases, it simply will not be achieved through this bill. The ranges and the foothills area will not be any more protected. What will happen is that there will be court case after court case, uncertainty, and language that, quite frankly, leaves everyone in doubt as to what it actually means. That will not help anyone. It will not help the supporters of the bill, quite frankly, and certainly it will not help those who oppose it. The purpose of the bill, although admirable in wanting to protect that area of New Zealand considered to be unique, beautiful, and the backdrop to Auckland City—which of course it is—will not do that.

We hear talk about development being the main reason for the introduction of the bill but if those members actually knew the area, they would know that local area plans are already in place to address development in the very area that this bill covers. There are already caveats that mean there can be no more than one or two houses on a 4-acre block, unless they are there already. So there are already arrangements in place now, because the people of New Zealand and the people of Waitakere love that land and do not want to see either medium or high-density housing up in the ranges, but they do not believe that this bill will help matters. Although the purpose of the legislation may be admirable, having legislation that is, quite frankly, too ambiguous to make sense of, is not the answer for those who seek to protect that area.

How should the area be protected then? We have the Resource Management Act. We have a city council that is elected every 3 years and goes out to the community with its vision for Waitakere City. Those very people who are on our local councils are selected when they go out every 3 years and talk about their vision for the city they wish to serve. They have the means and power to put in place that vision. They do it in consultation with the people and have been doing so for years. They should continue. We have a Resource Management Act that actually addresses these very issues that arise in this document. If there are problems with that Act, and people believe that it is not doing what it should be doing, then perhaps they should look at amending the Act.

Why should a member’s bill address only an issue in a small local area, when there are other ways to fix the problem? No one would say there should be medium or high-density housing in that area. No one would say the land should be carved up for houses to be built on top of each other. But this bill will not prevent that, and that is what those members do not understand. Although the purpose clause may be admirable, in reality we will be in litigation time and time again because the purpose of the bill cannot be fulfilled through this legislation. Another layer of bureaucracy will not solve the problem that those members seem to think is there. If one looks at the boundaries and drives around the boundary for the heritage area, one will find—

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this

I rise to oppose the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill for these reasons. First of all, I say to Mr Jones, or is it Master Jones, who is trying to interject, that we all want to provide greater protection to the Waitakere Ranges, which have high ecological and high landscape values. Anybody who has seen the film The Piano can attest to that, and I have visited the area myself. If we are to protect the ecological and landscape values of the area, we need to be careful because there is something at stake.

This Labour Government wants to involve itself in the private affairs of citizens who own private land in this country. That is what it wants to do. This bill effectively takes away private ownership rights and imposes central government rights. I think that is wrong. Extending the National Parks Act to include regional parks would be a very good idea, but it will not address the particular issue that this bill is pursuing, which is to include privately owned land. That is absolutely wrong. If the existing Resource Management Act and other legislation are not sufficient to enable the city and the regional council to provide appropriate legislation for this area—and none of us denies that that is required—then we need to change the legislation for the benefit of all the communities in this country.

There is no point in having a special law for Auckland and ignoring the rest of this country. We have the same problems in many of our communities. We could look at the coastal development anywhere along the Wairarapa coast or in the foothills of the Tararua ranges or the Ruahines. Exactly the same law is impacting on people who are developing those areas. It is totally irrational, I say to Mr Jones, to be cosying up to and creating a special law for the people of Auckland and saying: “To hell with the rest of the country.” This bill is bad legislation, and the Government is infringing on the property rights of existing owners. If the Government wants to change that, then it must buy the land from them, and then it can have its special, cosy legal arrangement.

This bill is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent citizens’ rights to be involved in planning and management. As my colleagues Paula Bennett and Tim Groser have said, this bill adds yet another layer of bureaucracy to an already well-overladen bureaucratic slate. National stands against that. I think that if Waitakere City cannot stop rampant property development by using the existing legislation, then almost every other local authority in the country must be in the same boat. It is exactly the situation in the Queenstown area, where huge developments are happening around Lake Wakatipu. The Queenstown Lakes District Council has to operate under the same rules as the Auckland Regional Council, the Auckland City Council, and the collection of councils in the Auckland area.

It seems to me that if the people living elsewhere in this country were to be given the same stronger powers that the Waitakere City Council is demanding, then we have to do that for everybody. It seems to me that this area is no more important than the Crown Range down in Central Otago or any other range in New Zealand. Just because it is Auckland it does not make it any more special than if it were in Eketāhuna in my electorate.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this

I want to focus the Committee’s attention on the actual wording of the purpose clause, but, first, I want to look at the clause that was struck out, and compare it with its replacement. Those who have the bill in front of them will see that the wording has changed, because it was considered that the original wording might well take the clause outside the scope of, and put it above, the Resource Management Act. Therefore, officials went away and worked on changing the purpose clause to bring it back within the scope of the Resource Management Act. Clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to recognise the national, regional, and local significance of the Waitakere Ranges heritage area”. No one would disagree about that. It is to promote the protection and enhancement of the area, and so on. The clause further states that to this end the Act establishes the Waitakere Ranges heritage area, states its national significance, defines its heritage features, specifies the objectives of establishing and maintaining the area, and provides additional matters for the various local authorities.

The point is, though, that I think two issues are really important to consider when we are debating this, and they are as follows: if it brings it back within the scope of the Resource Management Act, then why, in their district schemes, cannot the various councils then put a chapter in that provides the significance required within their district schemes? Surely that happens in other places, and rather than our having to go through wasting the time of Parliament, costing a huge amount of money—goodness knows how much money has been spent by the various local authorities on this, but I bet it is—

MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

I rise to speak to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, and I will comment in particular on the bill’s purpose. It was quite interesting to read the preamble, and after reading it and talking about it, we noted that in 2005 over 21,000 people lived in the area. I suppose that in 2008, 23,000-odd people probably live in the area. I have not seen the latest figures.

The bill talks about the impact of urbanisation and about what could and might happen, but it actually misses the point. Clause 3, the purpose clause, states: “promote the protection and enhancement of its heritage features for present and future generations.”, but what it does not talk about, and should talk about a lot, are visitors. This bill does not talk about visitors coming into the area. Twenty three thousand - odd people may live there but, sure as heck, one heck of a lot of people will visit the area—probably hundreds of thousands. Those people can bring in weeds and rodents. They can create destruction on the sand dunes and run riot in the vegetation. They can smoke, they can camp, and they can light fires, and there are times, of course, like now, when the area is incredibly dry.

I suppose that brings me back to the point that this legislation is not clean. If we are going to do the job, we should do it properly. This local bill should talk about visitors and their impact. That should be covered in the purpose clause, but it is not.

The second point I raise in relation to the purpose clause is that clause 3(2)(e) states: “provides additional matters for Auckland Regional Council, Rodney District Council, Waitakere City Council, and certain other persons to consider when making a decision,”. I suppose I will just bring the Committee back to the point that my colleague John Carter talked about earlier. Initially, when this bill was presented we were told that it did not make a heck of a lot of difference. Well, if it does not make a heck of a lot of difference, why in the purpose clause are we talking about providing “additional matters … to consider when making a decision, exercising a power,” in relation to the area? We get nervous.

The interpretation of the bill, which we are also covering under this part of the debate, talks about the term “LAP”, which, as clause 4(1) states: “means a local area plan prepared and adopted under section 23A”. This is new terminology to enter the resource management arena. You see, the Government is setting about, and trying like crazy, to confuse the poor citizen who really does try hard to live within the rules, become involved, publicly participate, and add value to local decisions. There is a desire for locals to make a significant input into local decisions. So they have been hit with the “LTCCP”, which is the long-term council community plan, and within that plan there is a “LAMP” at the moment, a local area management plan.

A lot of work has been done by many communities, in particular by those in the Waitakere area, on putting together such management plans—plans for the area, plans that the locals believe will add value and make a significant difference to looking after the area for all concerned. But, no, we are now saying goodbye to local area management plans, and we are introducing a “LAP”, a local area plan.

I suppose it is even more significant that the community can do a ton of work with a local area plan in order to put together the right sort of vision or the right set of rules, but—guess what—clause 23A(5) states: “The territorial authority may amend, revoke, or replace a LAP.” So, again, it makes a bit of a farce of community consultation. I think it is disappointing that the bill’s purpose does not cover those who probably have the greatest destructive ability on the Waitakere Ranges—that is, the visitors.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Chairman. Kia ora e te matua, te heamana o te Whare. I will not take too long. The purpose of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill is only to stop those who want to go and live in a nice place. And it is to stop those who already live in a nice place from developing their pieces of land that they may have bought 20 years ago.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) Link to this

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Part 1. [ Interruption] Perhaps I will pause for 20 seconds and let Mr Jones let loose his vituperation, use up a bit of energy, and practise being the deputy leader of a party that will never elect him to that position, and then I can get down to the business of the bill. There is not a sound. He is all talk when other people are talking. Earlier speakers have spoken clearly on the purpose of the bill. But everything that that discredited Government does has behind it another purpose, and it is that purpose I wish to address.

The first purpose, the real purpose, of this bill was never better put than by the member for New Zealand First, when he spoke about socialism with stealth. The members over there know that they are gone. What we will see from the Government side of the Chamber for the remainder of the sitting of this Parliament will be efforts to interfere with the freedoms and the individual rights of New Zealanders. I will move on and look at the real purpose behind this bill. There is no doubt at all that one of the purposes in the minds of members opposite is to interfere with private ownership rights and to shift the balance in favour of the ability of the Government and local government to interfere with the rights of individual New Zealand citizens. That is the true purpose of this bill.

I take the opportunity to congratulate Ms Paula Bennett. She is the member on this side of the Chamber who is leading our opposition to this bill. She spoke intelligently and incisively on the purpose of the bill. She is a member who comes from the west of Auckland. She knows better than the Labour members from that area how divided the community is. The question we have to ask, when we look at the purpose of the bill and at the real purpose of the Government, is this: where is the mandate for a Government that is in its last days in office, struggling and holding on by its fingertips, to introduce legislation into this House, the real purpose of which is not to protect this beautiful part of New Zealand? Those areas are always protected—always have been and always will be. The real purpose is not the one stated in writing in the bill; it is to advance another agenda.

Members on this side of the Chamber take great comfort from the knowledge that as a result of the work of Ms Bennett and others out west, there will be a significant shift in political power come the next election. I think it behoves the member in the chair, Lynne Pillay, to think a little about her position and about whether the purpose of this bill, which she is supporting, is reflective of the real feelings of the community. The select committee got a very, very clear message of division on that issue.

This bill is not good legislation. It does not serve the purpose of this House to push through this sort of legislation, which is so open to interpretation that its purpose is actually vague. We read this bill and we read the preamble, and we ask ourselves whether this is actually the purpose of legislation or just the start of a fairy tale. It is written in the language of fairy tales. It is imprecise, it is inaccurate, it does not reflect what is going on out there—

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) Link to this

I will not take too long, because my voice is going on me. On behalf of New Zealand First I am here to defend the property-owning people of west Auckland, including the Māori people of west Auckland who are not being supported by the Māori Party in the Chamber tonight.

The interesting point I wish to raise from the purpose clause concerns the division in the community. This clause to some extent also highlights the division in the viewpoint on this bill between the Waitakere City Council and the Rodney District Council. If we look at schedule 1 at the back of the bill we will see a map. It is only in the area covered by the Waitakere City Council that private owners are affected by this bill. In the Rodney District Council they are smart. It is only the Waitakere Ranges park area that is included. No private land in the Rodney District Council area is included, at all.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

The debate on this part also includes debate on schedules 1, 2, and 3.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Te Tiriti o Waitangi promised the protection of Māori custom and cultural values. The guarantee of rangatiratanga in article 2 was an investment in the rights of tangata whenua to possess and control that which is ours. It was a strong declaration about the value that the Crown saw in its relationship with Māori, yet local and national legislation has consistently sought to minimise the strength of such a relationship by making consultation an added extra—a discretionary provision available for the Crown to choose whether it would seek a relationship with tangata whenua.

The Local Government Act 2002 outlines principles of consultation for local authorities. It suggests that councils must provide reasonable access to relevant information in an appropriate manner and format and that they must provide clear information about the purpose and scope of that consultation. The Local Government Act 2002 also mandated councils to give emphasis to the participation and involvement of Māori in local authority decision-making processes. Principles are one thing; putting them into practice is quite another.

In 2004 Local Government New Zealand and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet surveyed 86 councils to identify practices used by councils in consultation with Māori. Over 90 percent of the authorities had established processes for informal consultation, yet the findings of the survey were revealing. The survey concluded: “How effective these processes were or are is not known; but the survey does show that consultation processes do exist.” It is not good enough that processes are established but lack evidence on whether they are actually used, and lack evidence that tangata whenua find them to be usable and appropriate. Indeed, a recent study of Māori in local government, He Wharemoa te Rakau ka Mahue, by Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tāwhai, concluded that structural changes to council processes are needed to ensure tangata whenua involvement in local decision-making.

The Local Government Act 2002 also makes it clear that the Treaty obligations are the Crown’s, and the role of local government is to help the Crown fulfil these Treaty obligations by providing opportunities for active participation in local and regional governance. Therefore, the amendments in my Supplementary Order Paper 173, which amends clauses 23B and 24, and inserts new clause 28AA, seek to clarify the relationships and also to ensure a level of specificity is adopted in order to achieve quality outcomes for all. In essence, the amendments will ensure a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, obligation on the Crown or local authority to enter into deeds of acknowledgment with tangata whenua in relation to the land within the area specified in the bill.

Clause 23B identifies the tangata whenua encompassed in this bill as Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Clause 24 details what would be included in a deed of acknowledgment; a deed that would be entered into through consultation. Clause 28AA places a positive duty on the relevant local authorities—namely, Auckland Regional Council, Waitakere City Council, and Rodney District Council—to “establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau A Maki to contribute to the decision-making processes” of these bodies. I want to particularly acknowledge Waitakere City Council, Ngāti Whātua, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki for the constructive role they have played in working through the amendments.

Our desire in bringing these amendments to the Committee today is to ensure that adequate and proper consultation occurs as a fundamental tenet of a healthy democracy. We believe that if the Crown, via local authorities, is to take appropriate account of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to maintain and approve opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making processes, then it is helpful to spell out the terms of the relationship in detail. We believe that our amendments to clauses 23B, 24, and 28AA fill in the detail necessary to articulate the way in which the historical, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationships of tangata whenua to the heritage area can be best expressed, and we welcome the support of the Committee to this effect. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this

I rise to speak to Part 2. The first part of Part 2 talks about boundaries, and I will address those for a little while. At the moment the boundaries do not take in just the ranges; I think that is really important for people to acknowledge. So the title of the bill, which we will discuss in a lot more detail later, totally misrepresents what the bill is about. When members talk about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, they actually mean the bill concerning the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. Those foothills are perhaps what is most at debate today, and they certainly are from my perspective.

We are talking about some of the villages within the Waitakere Ranges. I have to make a bit of a confession here in that I feel more sympathy for people living there than I do for those living in the foothills in other areas, because I see that the people in those villages are suffering from a bit of intensification and are trying to keep their landscape the same. I do not believe that this bill is the way to address those issues, but I can certainly acknowledge that people living in places like the beautiful Karekare, Pīhā, and Bethells beaches are restricted because of the landscape. Those places really are little coastal villages tucked into a certain area; only so many houses can be fitted in and only a certain type of housing perhaps suits the area. We can better acknowledge that situation, but the bill quite simply will not help those people. What would help them is a council that acknowledges the constraints of that area, a Resource Management Act that works alongside those constraints, and local area plans that can address the issues.

But we are talking about huge areas of the foothills—which go into Titirangi, Glen Eden, Henderson, Swanson, Waitakere village, and up to Muriwai—when we are thinking about how this bill works, land-wise. If some of those areas were simply not included in the boundaries, then I think we would have seen a lot more support for this bill in the Committee. I think we would have been hearing more from the National Party about how we might have been able to find a compromise if the boundaries had not been so broad, and if they had not taken in what in so many respects are actually residential areas that we notice when we drive around them.

How do the heritage areas the bill talks about differ? Clause 8(2)(a)(i) in Part 2 talks about heritage features including “large continuous areas of primary and regenerating lowland …”. Why is that land regenerating? It is regenerating because the people there love the land and care for it, and they have put in the effort to bring it back to its absolute natural beauty. Let us not pretend that that area, over time, was not bogged down and destroyed. When there was milling and everything that went on over a hundred years ago, the ranges, in fact, were quite a sad place to look at, in many parts. People moved in. People are not the enemy; people love the land, look after the land, and have actually nurtured and regenerated it to the state it is now. It can only get better.

To “have intrinsic value:”, in clause 8(2)(a)(ii), is part of the heritage characteristics that are defined in this bill, as are to “provide a diversity of habitats for indigenous flora and fauna:”, in sub-paragraph (iii), and “to collect, store, and produce high quality water:”, in sub-paragraph (iv). The list goes on. The other challenge I put out, and something I would be interested to hear from the sponsor of the bill, is how that situation is different from, for example, that of my colleague and local MP Chris Tremain—who does a fantastic job—when he talks about the Napier hills and the hills that surround his very area. How is there a difference, really, when we look at that building-up and the changes wanted there?

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

I will take only a brief call, but the first thing I want to do is acknowledge all parties who support this bill—in particular the Māori Party and Taito Phillip Field, who have also put up very constructive amendments to the bill. That support did not come just from nowhere, either; it came from them consulting with tangata whenua, on the part of Taito Phillip Field from meeting with the Pacific Island advisory board, and, indeed, from both the Māori Party and Taito Phillip Field meeting with many, many people within Waitakere. The amendments they put up add value to the bill. I really thank them for their support, and of course the Green Party and the Progressive party. We see people in this Parliament who are committed to supporting our beautiful areas within New Zealand where the councils have had the foresight and vision to look at and think about how they work with the Resource Management Act and how they can build on what is in place to ensure that what we have—a beauty that is so valued by the vast majority of people who live within the area—is protected for generations for come.

When I hear people saying that the member in the chair—me—should look really carefully at and reconsider my support for this bill, I remind them that, first and foremost, I am actually a resident who lives within the area proposed by the bill. I am really proud of that. I have to say that Paula Bennett and Tau Henare, despite all their rhetoric, cannot say that. I guess I am “walking the talk”. I am somebody who if I were to listen to them it would be confiscation by stealth. If I were to listen to Dail Jones—[Interruption] The member Paula Bennett said something; I could not quite hear it. If I were to listen to Dail Jones, it would be socialism by stealth. What a dreadful thing that would be in this country!

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this

I will follow on from the speech by the member who spoke before, Lynne Pillay, when she talked about the local councils—in plural—supporting the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. It raised the point that Dail Jones brought up about Rodney District Council not actually supporting this bill. I wonder whether Lynne Pillay is aware of the concerns the other member raised about one of the councils not actually supporting the bill in the sense of extending the heritage area into its boundaries. When we look at boundaries in relation to this legislation, we see that the issue is about boundaries. It is about Labour trying to put boundaries on people. It is about Labour saying it knows best about what people should do with their own land. It is about Labour telling people how to live their lives. Again, it is about Labour knowing what is right. It thinks it knows what is right. Labour thinks it has a God-given right to tell the people in this country what is right.

Well, that is not the way it is. People have their own ability to build their own lives. People invest in their houses and properties. People put major contributions from their life savings into their properties. Do they expect the Government to come along and tell them what to do with them? No, they do not. They go hard. They work hard. People save money, even though they are taxed to the death. They buy their own properties and build their own assets, only to have the Government come along and tell them that it knows better than they do. This Government thinks it knows better than the individuals do who have worked, saved, and scraped along in order to build something they wanted for their futures and lifestyles.

This legislation is not about an environmental issue. It is not a case of Labour coming in and saving one of New Zealand’s pre-eminent environmental treasures. This is a case of Labour dictating to people what should be done in their backyards. This is a case where the Labour Party members see the hand of the Government as being more important than the ability of humans and individuals to build their own futures. That is what the Labour Party stands for. It is a party that sees the Government as being the answer. It is a party that believes that the Government knows best. Well, that is not the case. The reality is that the Government serves the people. The people know what they want; the people can dictate their own futures. Why do we not give the people the chance to do that? Why do we not let the people make that choice about how they use their land? Why do we not let the people decide through their councils what should be done on their properties?

But no, these guys in the Labour Government say they know best. They know that they can pass another piece of legislation and put another tax on New Zealanders—and this is another tax. This bill will create more costs for the ratepayers in that area. They will have to fund people to go along and comply with the legislation. There will be more compliance costs, more taxes, and more rates. This bill is Labour through and through. It is classic Labour legislation. It tells people what to do, it puts a cost on them, it makes them pay for it again, and then they have to give up all their rights to go against it. The Labour members say people cannot complain, because the Government is greater than the people, and the legislation has come in and told people what is right. That is what those members are about. That is what the Labour Government has been about for 8 years, and that is why it will go out of office at the end of this year. Labour members have not listened to the people. They have not got out there and been on the streets, unlike our good MPs of the west. The Labour members do not know what the people want. They know what they think they want to see happen in this country, but what they think they want to see happen is not what the people want.

We are here to represent the people. We are not here to represent one political party’s agenda, and we are not here to represent Labour’s haloed vision of what this country should look like. The Government should let the people decide. It is their country and their properties. Let them have a choice.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this

E te whare, tēnā koutou katoa. To all of Aotearoa, who during the speech made by Mr Bennett may have fitted into a telephone box, I point out that that was the advertisement for Brylcreem. The man was talking about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. He did not refer at any time to Part 2 of this fantastic legislation.

I have been pondering on the meaning of the term “Waitakere”. As members know, “wai” means water, and “takere” is the base of something, either a waka or a vessel. The term, of course, refers to the fact that unless the catchment area, the mountains, the valleys, the streams, the trees—the entire environment—are adequately cared for, the environment will not be protected in the future. That is why this legislation is completely and utterly embraced, except for a few malcontents who have been led astray by Paula Bennett and a variety of other members who realise they cannot compete intellectually, work-wise, or in terms of industriousness with the great stewards of the environment here.

It behoves me to mention Dr Pita Sharples. He supports this bill. Of course, it is a shame that he has not seen the light and supported me with my whanaunga Hone Harawira away in Waikiki and Australia, but let me come back to Waitakere. This bill will not divide the people of west Auckland. This bill will draw them closer to the ethic of stewardship. This bill will cause people to realise that when pressures are visited upon the environment, occasionally the legislature—the highest court in the land—has to stand, debate, and then, through democracy, vote to protect the fragile areas of the environment. That is the purpose of the legislature. That is why we have democratic opportunities to make a contribution, vote, and then move on. Of course, Mr Dail Jones is well entitled to make his contributions. If, however, his contributions reflect what we saw on the television, then despite his short appearance he may too be moving on.

In relation to the perspective of the Rodney District Council, I say that Rodney District Council is but a bit player in this bill. The main driving forces of the bill are the citizens of Waitakere and their very thoughtful council.

What elements will be protected? I have a strong connection with this, because quite apart from protecting pleasantness—and I can relate to that—and cultural integrity, the bill protects in particular the remains of ngā keringa kāpia, the gum digging, the flax mills, and the timber extraction. Those are remains of rather sad but still interesting chapters of our history, and they will be protected in this legislation when it passes, so that the environment is not just botany and biology but all those extractive industries that our people have worked in over the years.

Why on earth would a person come to Parliament and not show forward-thinking and vision like our member here, Lynne Pillay? Not even the ear-chipped dogs that run around west Auckland can stop this woman from being industrious and going out and extolling the virtues of this bill, which is soon to be an Act. She has joined forces with Dr Pita Sharples. He knows. He recalls that when the marae was developed it was like a barren wasteland.

A bill like this reminds the citizens and the property owners that our rights, in the end, are fettered by the imperatives of overall society. Overall society places its trust in people who are prepared to reflect long-term thinking, not short-term profit taking.

I think it is very disappointing that Paula Bennett this evening gave us the indication she is worried about the villages, as if she is the defender of some quaint, historic accident called a village. No, she did not stand this evening and reflect back to the people of Waitakere that this bill is well before its time. That is why—long after this debate has come and gone—the children, the mokopuna, will think back very, very admirably to Lynne Pillay, her supporters, and Mr Cunliffe, a man of great vision into the future. The people of Waitakere know it. Kapai, me whakamana e tātou tēnei piri.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this

I am pleased to follow Shane Jones, my colleague from the far north. The first thing I have to say to him is that the young boy from the north—

DAIL JONES (NZ First) Link to this

I will be a bit boring during this stage, because I am going to look at this from something of a legalistic viewpoint, from the point of view of anyone who owns a house in the area, anyone who wants to sell a house in the area, and of the housing needs in the area. We have already heard a lot about the need for houses in New Zealand. There is a shortage of houses in New Zealand, and that is important in this part of the bill.

I have put forward two amendments. I have made it clear that clause 3 should be amended so that all people who own land in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area are notified that this bill is being passed and that the purposes of the bill itself are noted on their title by a Gazette notice, so that when someone comes to buy these pieces of land in this area they know that the land is subject to this bill. I am sure that when the existing owners get notices to say that they are subject to this bill they will be horrified, because they will realise that it will be harder for them to sell their houses. This will be another encumbrance on the title, another thing in the land information memorandum procedure that a buyer will want to go through. If, say, the buyer wants to do an addition to the house—put on a garage, or do something else that requires a resource consent, as everything does under this bill—it will cost him or her extra money because of this bill.

How many agreements for the sale and purchase of land in this area will collapse because of this bill? Of course, there will also be cases where lawyers will not be aware that this bill has been passed, and there will be even more complicated court cases. So it is vital that this is noted on the title. That is an amendment to clause 6.

The second amendment is very interesting. It is an amendment to clause 9. Clause 9 deals with heritage area objectives, and paragraph (j) states that one objective is “to recognise that people live and work in the heritage area in distinct communities and should enable those people to provide for their social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being:” I thought about that, and I thought that if people live there, presumably they live in something like a house.

I believe this clause must be amended so that it recognises that people live and work in the area in distinct communities and enables these people to provide for their social, economic, environmental housing needs, and cultural well-being. Without my amendment, are we saying that people can live there but we will not be concerned about their housing needs? That is what the bill says without my amendment. This Waitakere City Council bill is saying: “We do not care about housing needs in the area; people can live there but what they live in goodness only knows. We are not interested in their housing needs.”

That is such a blatant omission from the bill, and it justifies my concern that the Waitakere City Council is not interested in any extensions to homes. For example, if a Māori family or a Māori group wants to set up a whare of one kind or another, well, goodbye—that will not happen. If there is some special need for one of those community places where items are stored and suchlike, we can forget it. It will not happen under this bill. This bill will prejudice the Māori people in the area very, very considerably, and I am sure they have been misinformed. We have heard from Mr Carter that Waitakere City Council officials have misinformed people. It is very clear that the Māori people have been misinformed by the Waitakere City Council.

Again, as a lawyer, I say that lawyers will make a lot of money on this bill. What does clause 9(c) mean when it states: “carefully consider the risks and uncertainties”? How can we consider risks and uncertainties? The consideration of a risk and an uncertainty, by definition, is never-ending. One never knows when a risk ceases to be a risk, or when an uncertainty ceases to be an uncertainty. One has to “take into account the best information available;” in considering these applications. How does one know that something is the best information? We have had a survey done that we know has the wrong information.

This bill will be a real lawyer’s dream. It will prejudice housing needs in the Waitakere area. It will lay out all sorts of problems when one searches the title and finds there is nothing on the title, and a lawyer will assume it is OK to go ahead and buy the place. Boy oh boy! A Minister of Housing who votes for this bill should realise that there are grave consequences. A proper Minister of Housing should ensure that people are warned about the risk. We talked about land agents not doing their job properly; well, the Waitakere City Council and anyone who supports this bill is not supporting homeowners.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) Link to this

Having listened to that speech I feel compelled to make just a brief contribution with regard to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I do understand that there is a lot of support to see the Waitakere Ranges protected, and certainly from my visit and discussions with the council that view was very strong reflected.

I commend Lynne Pillay and the members of the committee for their stewardship in moving this bill though. It has taken some time to work up a bill that we can all consider. I also commend the Māori Party for working constructively with the local member to ensure that we get a bill that will accommodate many of the needs in the area.

With regard to the amendments proposed by Dr Sharples I want to put in context the amendment that I propose to include, with the support of the Māori Party, to ensure there is no misunderstanding about the intent. It is very clear that the intention of the Māori Party here is that Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki are consulted with regard to developments in the area. My provision in particular is to ensure that private landowners will not be affected. In fact, the consultation provisions specifically refer to Crown and local authority lands.

The amendment is for the purpose of clarification. It does not take away any obligation to ensure that Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki are consulted, and rightly so. It is to ensure that the issues raised by Mr Dail Jones are more accurately put into some context, because these provisions will not affect the private landowner who wants to build a garage on his or her land. However, they will affect happenings on Crown land and local authority land. So I think many of the issues raised by Mr Jones are him scaremongering a bit and are not helpful to the purposes of the consideration here today.

That is the nature of the amendment I am proposing. It will be in addition to the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled by Dr Pita Sharples and I hope that with the support of members in this Chamber it will proceed favourably.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) Link to this

I am pleased to take a call on Part 2, and I will endeavour to stick to Part 2. If ever there was an endorsement by this current Government that the Resource Management Act was not working, this has to be it. One has only to look at clause 10 in Part 2, which quite clearly shows that the Government has no regard for the Resource Management Act. It actually has to bring in another piece of legislation because the Resource Management Act is not enough. It is not working.

This Government has done nothing to change the Resource Management Act. It has done nothing to streamline it, and it has done nothing to improve it to make sure that it is workable. So what does it do? It introduces yet another bill to control and manage private property, and to manage any area in this country. I am talking on Part 2 of this bill and that is why I can say what I am saying, because clause 10(3) states: “When evaluating a proposed policy statement, or proposed plan, change, or variation that affects the heritage area, ARC must also examine whether the statement, plan, change, or variation is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives (having regard to the purpose of this Act).”—right, but under subclause (4)—“The requirements in subsection (3)”, which is the one I have just read out, “are in addition to the requirements in section 32(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991.”

Now why on earth would one introduce a bill such as this when one already has a piece of legislation that gives one the tools to do what one wants to do—and, yes, there is a catch, of course. The community has to support that process, and as we have heard here tonight from my most excellent colleagues, the community is divided. So the elected representatives, instead of actually allowing the community to move in one direction or another, completely ignored the community’s dilemma and decided to ride roughshod over the community, to disregard the divisions in the community, which is, as we hear, evenly split, and to do what they wanted to do, which is not necessarily what everybody else wanted. They are doing what they want to do, which is contrary to what Nanaia Mahuta was saying. She said that there is no effect on private property. Well, all one has to do is go to clause 9(e), which states: “to recognise that, in protecting the heritage features, the area has little capacity to absorb further subdivision:” Well, what does that tell members? This bill will add nothing but cost upon cost for any property owner wanting to build a home on his or her private property. So much for the statements that this will have no effect on private property! Mr Jones—Dail, that is—talked about the fact that there will be increased costs on any housing, whether existing housing or new housing, because of what this bill does. It ties up any further use of private property.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

When one reads through Part 2 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, one realises the work that has been done by the Local Government and Environment Committee on it. The most common words used in Part 2 are “struck out”, “unanimous”, and “new”. I raise that because when we read this bill, we see that it has literally been rewritten by the select committee, with the support of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and officials.

There has been talk about the divided community, and it has been acknowledged by the member who brought the bill forward that there is division. It is caused by confusion. There is confusion in this bill—it has been rewritten—and one has to ask whether arrogance was shown by the bill’s promoter, by the local council, in bringing the bill forward without going, as is normal, to the Parliamentary Counsel Office for advice on the best way to bring it forward. That did not happen.

The local council—the promoter—and its lawyers, Simpson Grierson, showed arrogance in totally thinking they had the answer written down here. Because guess what? We have rewritten the bill. There is confusion and there has been confusion. Even now, tonight, there are people such as Andrew in Glengarry Road, who asks: “Is my house included? Is Glengarry Road included?”. I say to Andrew that we have no idea. No wonder he is confused. It is an issue; there is confusion. As I said, was there arrogance on the part of the council in bringing the bill forward? There is a divided community. The bill’s sponsor admitted the community is divided. We sat—

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this

I rise to speak to Part 2, and particularly to clause 6. I want to speak about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, and I want to contrast it with the Ocean Beach area in Hawke’s Bay. In clause 6, subclauses (1), (2), and (3) focus on the specific area of the heritage area and the ranges. Clause 6(3) gives a legal description of its boundaries, and clause 6(2) refers to the schedule that deals with the boundaries in the area. It is this area that Waitakere chief Te Waatarauihi spoke about when he was at a meeting at Kohimārama. He said, as quoted in the preamble to the bill: “Whakarongo mai e nga iwi, ki ta te korero i mua. He ika tenei whenua. Ko te tangata nana i huti ko Maui. Kei konei tonu ahau, a mate noa.” I will just repeat that last part, in particular: “Kei konei tonu ahau, a mate noa.” When the chief spoke he was speaking from his heart about his passion for the area, for his whenua, and for the land that he had grown up on and lived in. He said in the last part of the quote—“Kei konei tonu ahau, a mate noa.”—that he would remain there on the land until he died.

I think the same could be said by many people in this Chamber tonight, whether they are from the north, from Christchurch, from Heretaunga, where Pita Sharples is from, or from Waitakere, which is where my colleague is from. These are places that we love in our hearts, and we will cherish them until we die. That applies to many places around this country, so the question we ask is do we need to introduce legislation like this to protect every area around the country? Do we have to have a Part 2 in numerous bills to protect each and every area?

I have a place in Heretaunga, in Ocean Beach, which is currently under threat of significant development. If we relate that to Part 2, we see that Ocean Beach goes from Cape Kidnappers south, to include the surf club and the hapū that has a small village at the bottom of Ocean Beach. This area is under severe threat from development, and the developer there is looking to put 1,000 houses on to that beach, which in summertime would increase the beach population to between 5,000 and 7,000 people. Hawke’s Bay people have come out strongly against that particular situation. They do not want 1,000 houses on Ocean Beach. But are they going through legislation like this to protect that area, to protect the beauty and isolation of Ocean Beach, and to protect one of the most amazing natural resources up by Cape Kidnappers, where there is a heritage area that people in Hawke’s Bay would die for? There is a hapū at the end there and “Kei konei tonu ahau, a mate noa.”—they will live there until they die.

They do not need legislation like this; they are using the Hastings District Council, through a Resource Management Act process, and they are using protest, with banners around the place, to make sure that that development does not go ahead. The reality is that some form of development will happen there, because, currently, property owners there have a property right. They could develop property across the beachscape at Ocean Beach. They could add maybe 150 to 200 properties. Do we want that? Do we want telegraph poles, separate sewage tanks on each of these 10-acre blocks? No way. It is far more sensible, under the current district plan, to put together a smaller development—not a 1,000 houses—but something that is contained, that is right there in Ocean Beach, and that can be managed.

Once again, we do not need a Part 2. We do not need legislation like this to achieve its goal; we just need concerned citizens who stand up for their rights, and concerned citizens who are prepared to take the Resource Management Act on, to take proceedings, and to take them all the way to the Environment Court. That is what that process is for: to make sure that beautiful areas, places that we would stand and die for, are protected for ever and a day. So I am totally against this bill, and National is against this bill. We believe that it is a case of bureaucracy gone wild. It is totally unnecessary, so we will not be voting for Part 2. Thank you.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) Link to this

It is interesting to take a call on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. The logic behind why this bill should not go forward, should not be voted successfully on tonight, has been well canvassed. Those arguments have been well documented on this side of the Chamber.

When we talk about the interpretation of this bill and when we look through the changes that the member Mark Blumsky talked about, we see that so much has been rewritten within this bill that there is much confusion. As a member who originates from the eastern side of the north part of the South Island, I say that I am very concerned, because this very bad legislation sets a precedent. It is something that has been touched on tonight. We have the beautiful quotation of the Māori chief in 1860, and we have the commentary that goes with it, and it is borne out in the interpretation. I just make the note that there are many other parts of the fish. Dr Nick Smith in his opening comments referred to the fish mentioned in the preamble. When Māui pulled the fish up he actually had his foot on Kaikōura. When we stop and think about that aspect of it, in terms of the interpretation and the notional aspects of this bill, we see that it does have a national connotation.

It is hugely concerning that this House continually passes bills into law and what drops out of them are regulations—truckloads of regulations. That is what we have received under this Labour Government. What I see here is a senior executive of the Waitakere City Council controlling the elected members, and that was borne out, effectively, by the way that the advisers treated with contempt the importance of honesty and frankness towards the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Part 2 is typical of what Labour is responsible for. We see there an increase of bureaucracy in order to enact these values that the bill talks about; values that are at present maintained by the very well-intended, carefully minded, and passionate residents of Waitakere. When we look at the comment in clause 9(c): “to adopt the following approach when considering decisions that threaten serious or irreversible damage to a heritage feature:”, we see that people who are seeking permission to develop their garages or patios in that area will have to prove that they will not adversely impact on the environment there. We have already heard that this will cost them heaps. There will be a process, and lawyers will make a living out of that process. Unfortunately, under Labour we have had to endure enormous amounts of that.

Those of us from other areas of New Zealand are exceptionally suspicious and worried about the precedents that this bill sets up. For instance, when we look at the city of Christchurch, we see that there has been a long, convoluted process of engaging and combining Banks Peninsula into the Christchurch City Council. It will not be too long before somebody starts to eye this up—some future council that wants to show the level of arrogance that we have become very used to from this Labour Government. People from such a council will want to leave a monument to themselves. They will use this bill as a precedent of good law, when, all the way through, we have all heard about the division about this ideological notion of a new level of protection. It had to be rewritten so that it did not usurp the responsibilities of the Resource Management Act.

Clause 9(l) states: “to protect those features of the area that relate to its water catchment and supply functions:”, and clause 9(m) states: “to protect in perpetuity the natural and historic resources of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment …”. Is that not happening already?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) Link to this

I do want to speak to the amendments, especially given the quizzical look I am getting from the Minister for Building and Construction, which I also got earlier on. Quite clearly in the ranges area we own the land as the people of Auckland, and the ranges area is protected. So I am talking about the extra piece of land in the foothills: privately owned land.

If people live in the foothills, how do they go about getting additions to their houses, garages, and patios, as the case may be? Clause 9 states that the objectives of establishing and maintaining the heritage area are—and I am trying to be brief, as well—“(f) to ensure that any subdivision or development in the area, of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect,”—that is how it adds on to everything else that is there already—“(i) is of an appropriate character, scale, and intensity; and (ii) does not adversely affect the heritage features; and (iii) does not contribute to urban sprawl:”. Inevitably, as soon as one builds something on to an existing property, one is contributing to urban sprawl. That is the very definition of urban sprawl. But what is the meaning of the word “development”? Is the addition of a garage, a patio, or two bedrooms a development? I looked up The Concise Oxford Dictionary, and if one looks at the meaning of the word “development”, one sees it is a fact, event, or happening, especially one that changes a situation. And that is what an addition to a house, a patio, or whatever else the proposal may be, is: it changes a situation. So a thing as simple as that is caught by this legislation.

What happens next?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this

I am indebted to you for your wisdom, Mr Chairperson, in allowing me an opportunity to speak on this bill. I was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee and I heard the submissions on the first part of the bill. I spoke in the first reading debate and I have travelled over the Waitakere Ranges and observed the suggestions made in regard to this bill. So thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. However, in coming back to this bill after being away for most of the deliberations the select committee has made, I find myself very confused.

I think the initial point was that there needed to be some clarity around the purpose of the bill. Recital (2) of the preamble states that the area is of local, regional, and national significance. I have some difficulty with that, particularly “national” significance, because my background is in Fiordland, Stewart Island, and places where there is a much more pristine and exciting experience. However, if this area is of national significance, as I think Paula Bennett suggested, we should protect it. But with this bill we have created the most litigious legislation I have ever seen, and the previous speaker, Dail Jones, highlighted some of the difficulties in terms of wanting or needing to do something.

I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 8, which talks about the area being of national significance, and its heritage features. I am particularly drawn to new paragraph (i) of clause 8(2). I would like the member in charge of the bill to explain to me precisely what those words mean. We want to get a blueprint where some people can make the decisions that the honourable member Dail Jones illustrated, if there is a need to do something. Paragraph (i) states: “the subservience of the built environment to the area’s natural and rural landscape”. What does that actually mean, when we come to hearings, and a consent is required? Could the member in charge of the bill also explain new subparagraph (iii). She must have agreed with it, because it is marked “unanimous”. It states: “the rural character of the foothills to the east and north and their intricate pattern of farmland, orchards, vineyards, uncultivated areas, indigenous vegetation, and dispersed low-density settlement with few urban-scale activities:”.

In terms of wanting to get consents, I can see litigation after litigation, lots of lawyers’ fees, and procrastinations, and hold-ups. But let us go back to first principles, I say to Lynne Pillay: if this area is of national significance, and having heard the discussions in the Local Government and Environment Committee, and five generations of submitters saying in their presentations: “You want to capture my private land, and put restrictions on me.”, we then come up with the words: “the subservience of the built environment”, meaning that these people are subservient to the built environment, in a land where property rights are important. We heard from people representing five generations of lineage. I have a view that the Waitakere Ranges are important, and I think there is a significant portion of them that should be protected, but if we want to protect the area, then we should set out and protect it in a national park, or in some provision for which there is clarity, and allow those areas that are on the fringe, or are necessary for Auckland’s development, to have a clearer road map to be able to do the things they need to do.

There are others issues, too. I have grave concerns about clause 7, “Boundary extension by Order in Council”. The House has got into the habit of issuing delegated responsibilities on a regular basis, and as I have said, as a member of the Regulations Review Committee, I happen to see a goodly number of them coming before us. We say that we are protecting this heritage area for national and local reasons, and then we put in a provision where that boundary can be extended by Order in Council. Who are the people who actually have this right to extend this area? Well, it is the Minister, but rightly there are some provisions in the Local Government Act that the Minister has to consult. But then I ask the member in charge of the bill to tell me what the appeal procedures are in terms of this power to the Minister to annexe further areas into the heritage area. What are the procedures for those people who have private property rights in that area, and who will need to know their options, should this be about to occur, and who have lost confidence in the process, which, as have said, will be litigious, litigious, litigious?

We have an issue of property rights coming in here, and clearly those members who sat on the select committee with me would have seen the passionate, heartfelt call by some of those families—in one case, three generations—representing a historical lineage in that area of five generations, and here we have a provision where the Minister, through Order in Council, with delegated authority, can annexe private land into this area. I want some answers to those questions before we proceed with the vote.