Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill

Gordon Copeland Link to this

It is a little bit confusing, as my colleague says. When it comes to reporting, one of the important things for the community is that it has spent a lot of time on long-term council community plans. Those plans have been done independently and under huge consultation. I commend the councils for the work they have done with the community to come to some sort of agreement as to what it wants in a long-term plan and how it can be achieved.

When this bill was first introduced it stated that the councils would have local area management plans, which were then changed to local area plans. Now we have local area plans instead of local area management plans—just so we are all clear. How the local area plans will be reported on and how they fit in with the long-term council community plans is what I think should be of importance to the region. What is of most concern is that the community has already worked out what it wants in a 10-year plan. Members of the community have already set down what direction they want. They have voted in an appropriate council, and their concern is how what they want will actually be achieved.

It is quite interesting; I was reading a press release from the Waitakere City Council on 10 March—just 2 days ago. The council is quite clearly talking about its budget deliberations. Councillor Janet Clews is quoted throughout the press release. She is a councillor whom I have a lot of respect for, and she has earned a lot of respect throughout the community. She is chair of Waitakere City Council’s long-term council community plan and annual plan special committee. She talks about budget deliberations and about what needs to be done over a period of time. The press statement quite clearly states: “While the Annual Plan sets the council’s budget for the coming financial year the long-term council community plan (LTTCP) outlines the direction and spending intentions for the next 10 years.” She then says: “It is important that the public know this is the third year of the LTCCP … We are reviewing work and projects that have already been consulted on and agreed, so we can’t deviate a long way from that plan.” The council cannot deviate a long way from the plan that was decided on in 2006. Yet it now wants to introduce a law that will deviate from the plan. It is so concerned about this issue that it will deviate from the long-term council community plan, which it spent so much time consulting its community on. That seems absolutely ludicrous, and National certainly has questions around how it can be possible and how it can make sense.

Looking at how the councils will report back—under Part 3—I found it ironic to be reading an email from our mayor, Bob Harvey. He is a good man and a gutsy man, and always puts a smile on someone’s face, even though he is a former president of the party on the other side of the House—but good on him. He says point-blank in the email that ONTRACK owns this land, that it tends to be a law unto itself, and that there is nothing we can do. The council is trying in this bill to have legislation that will state point-blank what people can do with private land, but, in another breath, the mayor is turning round and saying about ONTRACK, with which the community has a huge issue with regards to the proposed railway maintenance depot: “Sorry, we cannot do anything. It’s private land. It’s not owned by us.”

It’s a double standard.

Dyson Hon Ruth Dyson Link to this

It is; it is a complete and utter double standard. It is hypocrisy at its best when the council turns round and says it cannot do anything about something that the community does not want, that will actually disturb residents in a local area, because it is on private land owned by ONTRACK, yet in the other breath—

Pillay LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

I will take a brief call. The first thing I will do is acknowledge Janet Clews, as Paula Bennett did. I quite agree that she is a very well-respected councillor, as indeed are all councillors in Waitakere. I point out to the Committee that all of the councillors were returned at the last election, and there was overwhelming support from those councillors for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill.

In Part 3 the clauses are actually quite clear and simple. It is a little annoying that Paula Bennett tries to confuse matters in this Committee, but that seems to be her strategy. The first clause is about local authorities having to monitor and report on certain matters relating to the heritage area. That is about accountability. It is saying that we want a report on the state of the environment in the heritage area, we want accountability across the councils, and we want to make sure that the reporting is done every 5 years. I think that is a very sensible, common-sense thing to do. Why are they doing it? Because they are committed to ensuring that the ranges and the heritage area are preserved now and for generations to come. They will make a commitment to checking that progress every 5 years.

The second clause of Part 3 is about reassurance. Clause 29 is about the preservation of existing rights. We have heard many, many people from the National Party—and I am sorry, I know that Dail Jones has just recently joined the House, but unfortunately Dail seemed to be quite confused as well—banging on and talking a load of rubbish. It is quite clear that the bill does not limit or affect any title or right to ownership. That makes a mockery of the claims made by Nick Smith and Paula Bennett that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill was confiscation by stealth. As I was driving through the beautiful ranges of Waitakere, the electorate I live in and am very happy to represent, I saw—very overgrown by bush, I have to say—one of those “confiscation by stealth” notices, to use the Nick Smith line, still sitting on one of the fences. I think this preservation of existing rights definitely gives reassurance to the people of Waitakere who, like me, are fortunate enough to own land in the ranges.

Clause 30, “Transitional provisions”, is about consistency. The clause says quite clearly that any applications for resource consent for an activity in the area that have been lodged and not yet determined will continue to be considered as if the heritage area legislation had not been enacted. People in Waitakere can be assured that they are not going to be gazumped. Unlike what Opposition members have said, nothing is going to be imposed on them, and if they are part way through a process, that process will continue.

Part 3 is made up of a number of simple clauses, but those clauses add up to accountability, reassurance, and consistency. I commend those clauses to the Committee.

Jones DAIL JONES (NZ First) Link to this

This bill is about the Waitakere Ranges of some 17,000 hectares. The land is currently owned by the people of Auckland, and it cannot be dealt with in any way, regardless of a single word that is contained in this bill. But as we are owners of that land, we will preserve it. We do not need Wellington interfering in our affairs. I have to congratulate Lynne Pillay on ably trying to carry out the work of the Waitakere City Council, as any local member must, but we do not need the Waitakere City Council coming to Wellington to get Wellington’s authority to do things in the city. In Auckland we own the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park and we do not want Wellington interfering in our business. That is No. 1.

This bill is really about the remaining 10,000 hectares that are owned by private people. As I said last time, this bill is socialism by stealth. This bill is the Waitakere City Council stealing the property rights of those people in that area. If we ever want to see confused legislation, Part 3 sums it all up. In Parts 1 and 2, various rights were taken from the owners of the 10,000 hectares. What does Part 3 do? Clause 28A(2) states that the local authorities must jointly produce a report. The local authorities are the Auckland Regional Council, the Rodney District Council, and the Waitakere City Council. What happens if they cannot agree? They have to produce a report in 5 years. What happens if they cannot agree in 5 years and there is no report? What happens? Nothing will happen. What penalty is on them to produce a report? There is nothing. Clause 28A(2) is absolutely meaningless. Can members believe that all the members of the Auckland Regional Council, all the members of the Rodney District Council, and all the members of the Waitakere City Council can ever be unanimous and agree on an issue? Clause 28A(2) is doomed. It is meaningless. It is not worth the paper it is written on. It cannot happen.

Clause 29, “Preservation of existing rights”,—what does that mean? It is a meaningless clause. We know that anyone who has rights now, has those rights preserved by law. We do not need it in this bill. We are just stating the obvious. The clause is superfluous. Everyone who has a right now, continues to have that right. However, that right is now subject to whatever is in this bill. This bill, in a resource management consent, restricts those people’s rights to, for example, put on a garage, to extend their home, or do anything like that, because this bill restricts development. That is what this bill is all about. [Interruption] The member agrees with me. She agrees with me that this bill restricts development. From the way I look at it, that does restrict our rights as such but it does not restrict our title to the land. We still own the land. We all know that. That is why we do not need clause 29.

As far as clause 30 is concerned, unfortunately if anyone had a real feel for the area and wanted to do what Lynne Pillay wants to do, clause 30 destroys that. I believe that people who are true developers, who want to rip into the lower lands, will have lodged their applications with the council by now. I say to Lynne Pillay not to shake her head. She should be nodding her head. They will be advised by their lawyers to get in there, to lodge their applications—to make sure they lodge any kind of application they can—so that they can get stuck into the lowlands and do whatever is possible. In that sense, clause 30 gives the game away. It will not protect the lowlands, if that is what this bill intends to do. Clause 30, as the member Lynne Pillay has indicated, will not affect anyone who has lodged a current application. She is nodding her head in agreement now.

As a lawyer myself, I say that if I had been acting for people who wanted to develop the area—and I am not, so I have no personal interest whatsoever—and who can still now, before this bill is passed, want to put on a garage or want to cut land up into 1,000-metre or 1,500-metre blocks, I would be telling them to get stuck in and lodge their application now. The transitional provisions say they are protected and they can go ahead and do everything they like, because once they lodge their application they are saved. This bill and the transitional provisions protect them.

It is confused legislation. New Zealand First opposes it—not only because it is socialism by stealth, but it has been badly drafted; it is contradictory drafting. There are clauses in it, even these three clauses we have here, that are contradictory.

Blumsky MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

Madam Chairperson, what a delight it was to bow to you as I walked into the Chamber. It is a small world, and can I say well done. [ Interruption] I am looking forward to it. I want to be the first person she chucks out of the Chamber.

I’ll second that.

Blumsky MARK BLUMSKY Link to this

I am sure the member will. I want to comment on clauses 28 to 30 and in particular focus on clause 28. A word was used by the member beside you, Madam Chairperson, and I think it was “simple”. Lynne Pillay said the clauses in Part 3 are simple. We have to watch out for the danger in the simple words. I quote from clause 28A: “(1) The local authorities must jointly monitor—(b) the progress …”. Then it states: “(2) The local authorities must jointly produce, and each adopt, a report on the monitoring …”.

I suppose the concern I have is that if we are to monitor and produce reports in 5 years’ time, then we actually have to have a starting point. We have to have a benchmark. We have to have a report already done that sets out all of the conditions, the status, and the how to and where to of all of the objectives that the councils will have to monitor. I have not heard of, seen, or heard talk of those reports being done. We are asking these councils to fund and do these reports. They have a monitor. Have they had that discussion? Have the councils had a talk about how they will do this? Have they measured how many trees are there now? Will there be more trees or fewer trees? What is it that they are monitoring?

When we look at the words—and the previous speaker talked about them—they are very big and bold statements. How do we monitor the protection of a “landscape of … local significance”? What is the starting point? How do we monitor “restoring and enhancing degraded landscapes”? Now, does that mean that if a landscape that only has 52 trees on it has 42 trees on it in 5 years’ time, that is really bad, but if it has 110 trees on it in 5 years’ time, that is really great? We do not have a benchmark—the key performance indicators. The concern I have is that I do not know where all that goes, because there is so much in this bill that is very broad, all-encompassing, and very much able to be read by lawyers in 25 different ways.

Then, of course, we have to cost the effect of this bill. Somewhere along the line these councils involved have to put in their annual plans what this impact will be on the ratepayer. I have seen no figures so I do not know. I know that the cost to the ratepayer of bringing this bill into the House must be phenomenal. There have been some lawyers involved, big time—

Jones Dail Jones Link to this

$2 million.

Blumsky MARK BLUMSKY Link to this

It would not surprise me. Was that taken through an annual plan? I do not know. I suppose where I am going with this, relating to clause 28, is: has this work been put out in front of the ratepayers? Is it in the annual plan? Is it in the LTCCP, the long-term council community plan—just to chuck in some letters, like my colleague Paula Bennett did? We have to watch the simple pieces of legislation. The MP Lynne Pillay says the bill is simple. It is simple, but it could be bloody expensive.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

GORDON COPELAND (Independent) Link to this

I rise to speak to Part 3, but before I do, Madam Chairperson, I offer my congratulations to you on assuming the position of Assistant Speaker. I know that you will do a great job, and I must say it is very nice to have a Wellingtonian in the Chair for the first time since I came into Parliament in 2002. I offer my congratulations.

Let me say at the outset that I am pleased to be able to make a speech on this part of the bill, because my parliamentary duties prevented me from speaking when the Committee stage of this bill was last debated in Parliament a few weeks ago. I have taken a deep interest in this bill, including accepting an invitation to address a public meeting in Waitakere City on the issues it raises. I strongly oppose the bill. I have voted against it and will continue to vote against it at every stage.

Clause 29, “Preservation of existing rights”, in Part 3 refers to “any title or right to ownership of any land or natural resources within the heritage area, whether conferred by enactment, [of Parliament or] at common law, …”. If I were to ask the proponents of this bill why it is necessary to include such a clause, they would tell me that it is to protect private property rights. Their answer, however, is wrong. The provisions of this bill, as set out extensively and in the lofty words in Parts 1 and 2, apply equally and without distinction to both public and private land within the heritage area. As Dail Jones has outlined, 58 percent of the land in this area, which is now the Waitakere Ranges heritage area, is private land. The majority of it is private land.

That central issue is the major defect in this entire bill—the fact that it applies not just to public land, which would be perfectly acceptable, but also to private land. All of the lofty sounding words contained in the bill refer not just to public land, but, as clause 29 reveals, they also refer to private land, and that is entirely inappropriate. The preservation of heritage areas for the common good of all people is great. If this bill referred just to public land, as I mentioned, it would have my support. As it is, clause 29 does not strip title and ownership entirely from the people who now own the land, but it is still entirely inappropriate to have private land of this sort in the bill, because Kiwis in Waitakere will now be subject to the public land impositions in the bill, even on their private land. Private homes, gardens, lawns, backyards, or front paddocks should not be included in a heritage area unless we are prepared to fully and justly compensate those private owners. Instead, in this bill, we strip their rights to the use and enjoyment of their homes and then tell them not to worry because they will retain ownership. That misses the point and it is wrong. That is unjust.

To treat private and public lands as if they are one and the same thing simply will not do. This bill creates a wedge in the door. If it applies to private land in Waitakere today, then why not to my private land in Wellington tomorrow, to another person’s land in Christchurch the day after, or to somebody’s private land on the West Coast the day after that? This bill sets a very, very unfortunate precedent in terms of New Zealand law. By all means, we should protect the Waitakere Ranges. That will be great for the people of Waitakere, of Auckland, of the nation, and internationally. But let us decide, as a principle, that this measure should be limited to publicly owned land, or we must decide to do the decent thing and pay compensation to protect and safeguard the rights of the private landowners involved.

Carter Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) Link to this

I rise with great pride to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I feel well qualified to comment on the bill, because I think I am correct in saying that I am the longest-serving constituent MP in the House from west Auckland. I am a proud westie. I owned a property in the Waitakere Ranges for many years. In 1983 my partner and I bought 10 acres on Bethells Road, right in the heart of the area we are seeking to protect, and 3 years later we bought a larger block of 28 acres. We lived there for many years, and in recent times we moved into Te Atatū south. So I see this from a local resident’s point of view, as a proud westie and a person passionate about west Auckland and about protecting our unique natural environment in west Auckland, and as a former Minister of Conservation. For 5 years I was privileged and lucky enough to serve as Minister of Conservation for New Zealand. Just recently, about 3½ months ago, my portfolio was changed to education. During my time as the Minister of Conservation this legislation was drafted by my colleague Lynne Pillay, who is in the chair tonight. She is also a proud westie who lives in Titirangi and is passionate about this legislation, as is our friend and fellow colleague David Cunliffe.

Part 3, which we are discussing now, is about accountability around local authorities monitoring heritage areas. There could be no more important heritage area for west Aucklanders than our iconic Waitakere Ranges. They are ranges that have seen great land-use change. When European settlers arrived in New Zealand, the Waitakere Ranges were clothed in some of the greatest kauri trees that grew anywhere in New Zealand. Te Hēnga Valley, where I had a farm for many years, had what were recorded as the largest kauris ever found in concentration in New Zealand. These were ripped out by the early settlers. True, they were seeking to create a new life. True, they were dedicated to their families and used the timber for building and for farming. They did not realise what they were doing to the natural environment. Luckily, through the foresight of some of the early administrations in Auckland, the Auckland Regional Council now administers a large area of parkland. I say to Gordon Copeland that by far the greatest area of the Waitakere Ranges is an Auckland Regional Council park, and thank goodness that it is now protected. But, nibbling away at the edges, there is still inappropriate land use taking place.

This bill is about protecting that heritage area. Mayor Bob Harvey and his team, particularly our former deputy mayor, Caroline Stone, and our current deputy mayor, Penny Hulse, and others on the council, have been fantastic in pushing for this legislation. Like Lynne, David, and I, they are passionate about protecting the ranges. Graham Campbell and his team of officials at Waitakere City have done a great job in making sure that this legislation not only achieves its aim, which is to elevate the status of the Waitakere Ranges and to give them greater protection, but also gives reassurance to landowners in the Waitakere Ranges—the people whom Gordon Copeland was just making reference to—which I believe the bill does.

This bill does not take away property rights. When I was privileged to hold the job of Minister of Conservation I visited many heritage areas outside New Zealand, in the UK and elsewhere. What happens to property in those heritage areas is that it becomes more valuable, because it has a greater status and a greater protection on it. People want to live there. I say to landowners in the Waitakere Ranges that this bill will actually increase their land values. Sure, they will not be able to carry out any inappropriate subdivisions, and nor should they be able to, but the value of their land will be increased by this legislation. It will elevate the whole status of the ranges themselves and make them an even more special place.

You know, the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society—John Edgar and his team—has done a fantastic job. It polled Auckland, and over 75 percent of Aucklanders wanted this bill, including well over 80 percent of the residents of Waitakere City. It is a great bill, and I thank Lynne Pillay for the excellent work she has done in protecting a unique place in our city.

Smith Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this

John Key gave a keynote speech today outlining the mushy nonsense that is driving Government. We are seeing an extra 10,000 policy advisers and bureaucrats, and over 250 mushy strategies with which bureaucrats run round and round in circles achieving very little. The problem with this Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill and with Part 3 is that it is more of this mushy, bureaucratic, Labour nonsense. People cannot explain what the bill means. Repeatedly through the select committee and the Committee stage of this bill we have sought to hear from the sponsor and its supporters an answer to the question of what this bill means.

When the member opposite, Chris Carter, said in his speech that the bill would stop inappropriate subdivision, I peered through the clauses. I went all the way through Part 1. Did it say that there? I went all the way through Part 2. Did Part 2 tell me that the bill would stop inappropriate subdivision? I have been all the way through Part 3, and I cannot find a clause that says the bill will remove inappropriate subdivision. You see, the member—

Jones Hon Shane Jones Link to this

Wait for the jurisprudence.

Carter John Carter Link to this

Well, that is it. Mr Jones just sums it up. Mr Shane Jones says we should wait for the jurisprudence. So we will do exactly what that Government has done with the Resource Management Act: pass fuzzy amendments, with no idea what they will do; pass the ball from this Parliament to the courts; then wait years, after millions have been spent on lawyers, to establish what the heck Parliament meant. Members on this side of the Chamber say that is not good enough.

The previous speaker, Chris Carter, said that the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society had polled Auckland, and that the majority of people wanted the Waitakere Ranges protected. Of course they do. Who would answer that question by saying: “Well, I don’t want it protected.”? That is not the argument. The argument is between Lynne Pillay’s mushy bill, which will achieve very little, and the very sensible proposition that has been put forward by National’s Paula Bennett saying that the public lands of the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park. It would be the first national park in Auckland, and it would be an excellent choice.

I also want to focus specifically on this part. The parallel legislation of this Parliament is the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. I challenge this Parliament, 7 years after that legislation was passed, to tell me one thing that Act has done to improve the protection of the Hauraki Gulf—just one. Has it protected an extra jetty, or a species—anything?

One fish.

Not a fish; not a bird. It was just more bureaucratic mush.

I read in clause 28A of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill that we will have to have a monitor report. I refer members opposite to the monitoring report that is required under the Hauraki Gulf legislation. Yes, it is a big, heavy document. Again, has it saved a bush? Has it saved a beetle? Has it saved a fish? Has it created an extra blade of parkland anywhere? The answer is no.

I want Lynne Pillay to explain something to the Committee. The transitional provisions in clause 30 of this bill parallel those of the Hauraki Gulf legislation, which got us into an awful mess in Whitianga. I know that my colleague Sandra Goudie from the Coromandel electorate—[Interruption] No, I refer to the mess that this legislation caused for her community. We have in the transitional provisions of this bill exactly the same problems. I will ask the member a simple question.

Is this confiscation by stealth?

What I said—

That is what you said.

I want the member to answer some questions for us. We will have local area plans, we will have district plans, we will have regional plans, and we will have national policy statements. Of those four sets of wordy strategies, which overrides which? I ask the member in the chair, because lawyers and landowners want to know. There are four strategies. I would love to know from the member in the chair what the priority of that mesh of documents is.

Pillay LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

The member Nick Smith knows full well that the priority is that this bill does not override any of the strategies he mentioned. Rather, the bill works within that framework. The member is quite aware of that. This is the member who rode into town, stood before a meeting, and said: “This is confiscation by stealth.” He had never even seen the bill—never even seen it. Dail Jones has taken this up even further. He says the bill is socialism by stealth.

All this silly nonsense is about scaring the people. I have met with a number of people who live in the Waitakere Ranges who said they felt much more reassured after seeing the bill and the report, because they had been told by the National Party that someone would take their land and rights away. I say for the benefit of Dr Nick Smith, because it is difficult for him to comprehend this stuff, that the reality is that within the Waitakere Ranges, under the Waitakere City Council, most activity—

Be more condescending.

The member asks me to be more condescending. No, I will try to explain—as I have many times, and as the Local Government and Environment Committee had explained to it—that this bill sits over the Resource Management Act. It does not undermine it.

Sits over! I thought you said under?

Over, under—members can have it whatever way they want. This bill does not supersede the Resource Management Act; it gives guidance to councils in decision making. I will repeat that: this bill gives guidance to councils in decision making. When there is a district plan, where there are resource consents going, this bill gives guidance to the council to look at the big picture and the unintended consequences.

More mush.

Guy Nathan Guy Link to this

Nick Smith would rather just have gay abandon, because that is the National Party style. The slippery National Party in one breath says residents will lose every property right they have, and in the next breath says the bill is waffle and has no teeth. National members should make up their minds. They are slippery—that is the theme of the National Party. It slips around.

Is that your word of the week?

It is my word, because National members slip around. They put fear into the local people, good landowners who are committed to the land, by telling them they will lose their rights—

That’s what the judge said.

Guy Nathan Guy Link to this

—and then they say the legislation is waffly and means nothing. The judge now endorses this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Carter JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this

I have to say that if ever there was a muddled contribution, it had to be that. I am sitting here listening, and the member in the chair, Lynne Pillay, says that this bill does not override anything but it sits over the top. Well, hang on a minute. If the bill does not do anything, and it does not affect anything, but it sits over the top, what is it sitting over the top of? In the next breath, she says: “No, no—hang on a minute. It is not over the top; it is underneath.” I got confused at that stage, and I was not sure whether I should be standing up on my feet or on my head to see which is up and which is under. I did not understand it. Then I thought I must be on the rugby paddock trying to catch an up-and-under so I could be over and under it—that is what it would have been.

What an absolute mess. The problem with the member who is sponsoring this bill is that she does not understand what the bill means. That is the first problem. The second problem with this bill has been concerning me all the way through its passage through the House. Right from the very start I asked why we need this bill, what it will do, and why we cannot do what this bill will do within the confines or the powers of the Resource Management Act and the other legislation. We were told that we could. So the next question asks why we need the bill. If we can do it within the Resource Management Act as it is now, and within the district scheme, the fact is that we then have to ask ourselves why we need these parts and schedules that we are debating here. The officials said the bill does not do anything. They said: “It has to be here because we need it.” So I asked myself why we need this bill—especially Part 3—if it will not be doing anything.

Finally—and this is what really upset me, and it is one of the reasons I am more determined than ever not to see this bill pass—we got a concession out of the local authority officials that they wanted the bill, as it was presented to us, to be wider than the Resource Management Act and to give the local authority more powers. Quite honestly, in my view they lied to the select committee—not just misled but deliberately lied. That really upset me.

Even worse, I was at the local government conference and I was talking to the mayor, Bob Harvey. I explained to him what had happened. I said: “Bob, I had asked and asked”—

What did Bob say?

Carter JOHN CARTER Link to this

—hang on a minute and I will tell the member—“whether this had any wider ramifications. We were told that, no, it did not. Then, finally, your officials said that, yes, it did.” Bob said he did not believe that they would have done that. I saw a couple of officials nearby and said that we should go and ask them. Bob went over to them and said: “John Carter tells me that initially you were saying it doesn’t go any wider, but now it does. What is the answer?”. The officials said: “Yes, your worship. Actually, the bill as intended did go wider, but that is not what we told the select committee at the beginning.” Bob was horrified.

Carter JOHN CARTER Link to this

Rubbish!

Well, Bob Harvey is an honourable man. He will tell you that that is exactly what happened.

The Local Government and Environment Committee had to go back and put clauses in to make sure that the bill did not override various Acts. I know that it is not in Part 3, but I refer members to, for example, page 32, where we had to put in a clause to make sure that the bill did not have authority over the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act. We had to bring it back. Then we ask ourselves the question: if we have to restrict the bill’s powers, why do we need it? The member in the chair says it is because it allows the local authority to look after the Waitakere Ranges. I ask why in the world the local authority could not do this under the Resource Management Act anyway. Nobody has been able to tell me why it could not do so—not one official, not the mayor, not the councillors, and not the member in the chair. She has not been able to tell us that.

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

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Northlander, who realises, as I do when I look at Kerikeri, what can take place when planning is not well conceived and when we do not have a scheme or a strategy for our heritage that gathers momentum amongst the people.

First, I must acknowledge the unstinting efforts of Lynne Pillay, supported by Mr Cunliffe, Mr Chris Carter, and Darien Fenton.

Jones Hon SHANE JONES Link to this

She’s gone, too!

I say to Dr Smith that the full value of this legislation lies in the future. In the future our mokopuna will remember the efforts that our MPs, supported by the three councils, have put in to produce a vision and a plan that protects the valleys, the gullies, the trees, and the creatures throughout the Waitakere Ranges. We will not see creeping, encroaching, ill-conceived developments into areas that are irreplaceable.

I wait to hear from my whanaunga—and possibly my tuakana, I do not know; thousands of genealogists will debate that point—Tau Henare on why he will not support the tangata whenua of that area in ensuring that the wāhi tapu of the tangata whenua are looked after, and that my ancestry and heritage from the Tararās—the Dalmatians scattered through all those areas—are not forgotten, turned to dust, and eaten by the creatures, the moths, and the butterflies, etc. [Interruption] I also wait to hear from Hone Harawira; he needs to stand up and be counted. On every street corner he will find that our whānau in the west are happy that the kūkupa, the ruru, and various other creatures in the ngahere in Waitakere will sleep soundly, knowing that this bill is about to find a place, as reflected in Part 3, where the state of the environment and the heritage area must be regularly monitored by not only the elected representatives but also the professional advisers.

Dr Smith does have his point in terms of oratory in the House—unfortunately, it is inversely related to accuracy. He does have a point that it is easy to exaggerate potential problems. I say to Dr Smith that there is no great problem with small legislation that has the simple but admirable purpose of enhancing the ability of the current legislation to care for a specifically valuable area. I say to Dr Smith that we do that with national areas such as our national parks. We do that with areas of the marine environment, and that is why this legislation will put a duty on the council to care for the heritage and the taonga of Waitakere. Kia ora tātou.

Hobbs The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this

Before I call the next member, I want to remind members that the last three speakers have very broadly attempted to discuss Part 3. At the end we have a summing up discussion on the first two clauses. If members are going to make these wide-sweeping generic statements, can they please stay on board.

Field TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) Link to this

I acknowledge the last speaker because I think he is very well qualified to speak, particularly with his Māori and Dalmatian ancestry. They are the people who used to be up north digging kauri gum, and they have come back and bought large blocks of land in the foothills of the heritage area we are talking about.

I will take a short call because I do not want to bore listeners with the repetition that has been going on in this Chamber in respect of this bill. Last year the opportunity arose for me to visit the foothills. We have talked about the mountainous terrain and the bush area, but I will mention the foothills because that is where the real concern is, particularly in relation to the quality of soil, which I inspected with the council officials. It was clear that the area was not suitable for high-density housing. Those foothills require some protection because they are absolutely not suitable for tiny subdivisions that will carve up the land and create all sorts of environmental issues. I was surprised to hear Nick Smith rambling on about private rights. I would have expected him, as an environmentalist and a conservationist, to be giving a different message this evening about the need to protect important heritage areas.

To the Committee I say that what we are doing tonight shows absolute common sense. It ensures the rights of landowners, and it does not take away from the Resource Management Act. It ensures that those areas that need to be protected are protected, and that those who apply for resource consents have their proposals properly evaluated in relation both to those important environmental issues and to sustainable development. I am talking about opportunities where I can see people making millions of dollars by carving up their land into little bits and pieces, with no regard for the sustainability of that subdivision.

I think Part 3 is important not only for the people of Waitakere but also for the people of Auckland and New Zealand. I am very pleased to support this bill and to ensure that it passes through the Chamber this evening.

Smith Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this

Firstly, I respond to the contribution from Mr Phillip Field about protecting the soils in the Waitakere Ranges.

Field Taito Phillip Field Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I ask the member to address me correctly by my name as registered in this Chamber.

Hobbs The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this

Thank you. I wonder whether Dr Smith could do that. It is Taito Phillip Field.

Bennett Paula Bennett Link to this

I apologise. Mr Taito Phillip Field. He raised the issue of the soils in the lower Waitakere Ranges. He is under the misconception that somehow this bill is going to protect those soils. Well, if we actually look at those soils, we see that over a hundred areas of New Zealand have similar soil types. Are we to have a special bill of Parliament for every one of those areas? Is not the very purpose of the Resource Management Act to protect them? If the member genuinely believes that the current Resource Management Act framework does not provide the mechanism for the protection of those soils, but provides for inappropriate subdivision, as he called it, let us fix the general Act; let us not have these sorts of piecemeal bills that are more about politics than they are about substance.

When I look at Part 3, I ask this question: how many times do I hear people say that we need to simplify the Resource Management Act? How many times do I hear that the Resource Management Act is too complicated? How many times do I hear that there are too many word games around the Resource Management Act? I genuinely ask the question of this Committee: do we think this bill will address those very legitimate concerns about the statutes as they are now, without these extras? Do I hear anyone saying: “What we need with the Resource Management Act is more plans.”? I never hear that, yet I see in this Part 3 of this bill the creation of even more plans and more complexity as we try to work out how national plans, regional plans, district plans, and local plans—

LTCCPs—

Bennett Paula Bennett Link to this

LTCCPs!

LAMPs.

Moroney Sue Moroney Link to this

Well, LAMPs—but the rhetoric is just killing this country—

The member can’t keep up.

No, it is not a matter of keeping up. I tell you what—the people of New Zealand have had enough of the wishy-mush law that those members are proposing with this bill, which takes New Zealand nowhere. I do not think that the member in the chair, Lynne Pillay, actually understands, at all, what this will do.

The member in the chair does understand.

Well, I ask the member whether this bill will allow the erection of farm implement sheds. That is a fair question. I have heard from people—

You’re being pathetic.

No, no. She says I am being pathetic; I have to tell her that I have met with people in the Waitakere Ranges who want to know, under the transitional provisions of this bill, whether they will be able to build a farm implement shed. Will they be able to build granny flats on their sections? Will they be able to plant vineyards on their properties?

Hobbs The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this

Part 3.

Well, the member is not able to answer any of those practical questions. She does not know, and this law creates even more fuzziness. One of the constant arguments we hear in this Chamber is to do with the increased costs we impose on ratepayers and local government, for no good. In fact, that is the very reason that John Key’s speech really struck a chord with New Zealanders today in talking about excessive bureaucracy. In clause 28A, we see even more bureaucratic reporting requirements on councils. If councils want to, and if they support this sort of idea, there is absolutely no reason why, right now, they cannot produce a 5-yearly report on the state of the Waitakere Ranges. Why do we need an Act of Parliament to do that? Can the person in the chair tell me that? She has no idea as to why we have to put this into law.

This bill is about everything that Labour is doing, and there is nothing about good environmental policy. It is not about good government; it is all about crude politics. And Lynne Pillay believes that the people of west Auckland are so stupid that if she can somehow run around the patch and say “Oh, I protected the Waitakere ranges.”, somehow they will be fooled, whereas this bill takes us backwards.

Henare Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I will concentrate on a couple of things in Part 3. One, under clause 28A, is that “Local authorities must monitor and report on certain matters relating to heritage area”. Under anybody’s district plan—under the Auckland Regional Council’s district plan, and under the Waitakere City Council’s district plan—local authorities already have to monitor the state of the environment. They already have to make progress towards achieving the objectives. They have to take account of a whole range of issues that are already in district plans, and that are already in other pieces of legislation. So I suppose that this bill really should be called the “Waitakere Mana-munching Bill”, because that is really all it is. It is all about someone’s mana. Most of the stuff in this bill, including Part 3, which we are talking about—

Hobbs The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this

Yes, we are.

I hear the—

Hobbs The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this

Yes, we are talking about Part 3.

Field Taito Phillip Field Link to this

Absolutely—and I do not believe that I have strayed off Part 3, Madam Chairperson. Thank you for keeping me on track. I also say that it is absolutely ridiculous to have all these clauses in Part 3, when every clause and every meaning of every clause in Part 3 is actually in the district plan. They are actually in the Auckland Regional Council’s plan of what it has to do—what it has to look after. So why are we doing this again?

Mr Key was right this afternoon when he talked about bureaucracy running wild. This is nothing more than an addition to that bureaucracy. There is a new paragraph (c) in clause 29, and it states: “the ability of any person to bring a claim (or continue to bring a claim) or seek a remedy in any court or tribunal—(i) arising from the Treaty of Waitangi, an Act, the common law, or in any other manner;”. But what it does not set out or state is that people cannot bring a claim against the city council in terms of a Treaty of Waitangi claim. They just cannot, but this paragraph sort of gives the impression they can. So I think there needs to be a bit of work done on that clause.

This is nothing more than somebody standing up and saying “Look what I have done for Waitakere.” Really, when we look at Part 3, all we can say is that it is about: “Look what I have done; I have now copied in Part 3 what we already do.” That is all this bill is about. It is all about standing there, and saying, in relation to Part 3: “Look at what I have done. I have copied what is in the Resource Management Act, I have copied what is in the local district plan, and I have copied what is in the 5-year and 10-year plans of the Auckland Regional Council.” We do not need a repeat of what has already been done. It is nothing more, nothing less, than a mana-munch by some people who want to get re-elected.

Fenton DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

Bennett PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this

I will stick with Part 3. I wish to speak about the monitoring and reporting on certain matters relating to the heritage area, and I think there is a good chance that I will not take the full 5 minutes. The monitoring and reporting is about working towards achieving the objectives set out in the bill. So it is about the progress made towards achieving the objectives, and it is that I would like to stress.

The question I have for Lynne Pillay, the member in the chair, concerns how we will monitor and report on the natural and historic resources in respect of their intrinsic worth and their benefit for, use by, and enjoyment by people. How will we report and monitor when we are talking about such things as the quietness and the darkness of the ranges? Will council officials sit out in the ranges with a decibel rating machine, deciding how loud it is and whether it is acceptable? If we are going to have that—because the objective is about the quietness and the darkness of the ranges—then the question is whether the council has already done that. We must have something to report against. So are we in a situation where the natural landscape; the intrinsic value, worth, and benefit; and the quietness and darkness of the ranges will be reported and monitored by councillors or council officials who go out and measure it? How will they do that?

We simply cannot have a provision that says we will monitor and report certain matters relating to the objectives when the objectives are stated in such waffly language that means nothing, and when the matters are something we cannot actually monitor and report against. I am just taking three examples, and they are quite easy ones: the quietness of the ranges, the darkness of the ranges, and their intrinsic worth and value, which are terms used in the objectives of the bill. How will we report and monitor progress on these objectives, and how have we reported and monitored on the area to date so we can say what we are monitoring against? That is my question.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

Link to this

A party vote was called for on the question,

That the question be now put.

Ayes 61

Noes 56

Motion agreed to.

Link to this

A party vote was called for on the question,

That Part 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

Noes 58

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

Link to this

A party vote was called for on the question,

That schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

Noes 58

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

Link to this

A party vote was called for on the question,

That schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

Noes 58

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

Link to this

A party vote was called for on the question,

That schedule 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

Noes 58

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Smith Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this

National vigorously opposes this bill for four key reasons. The first is that it is about more bureaucracy when New Zealand desperately needs less. This bill creates more fuzzy law in the area of resource management when there is a pleading from New Zealanders and those who work in this area for Parliament to provide greater clarity. We already have three tiers of wordy documents, plus dozens and dozens of pages of law. We do not need another 40 pages of wordy mush as well as another tier of planning documents.

I put it simply: when a person in the Waitakere Ranges applies for resource consent, the decision makers currently have to take into account the Resource Management Act. They have to take into account national policy plans, like the national Coastal Policy Statement. They have to take into account regional policy statements from the Auckland Regional Council. They have to take into account district policy statements. Do they also need to take into account local plans and this additional bill? National argues that everything one would want to achieve in terms of protection of the Waitakere Ranges can be done by using those other instruments, not creating more law.

I go back to the introductory speech made by Sir Geoffrey Palmer in relation to the Resource Management Act. The legislation repealed 84 messy little statutes just of this sort. He argued very passionately for the Labour Party that it was time we had good-quality, single-statute law, and not piecemeal law. The Labour Party has gone backwards from that sort of view. I ask the Labour Party whether it believes that the Waitakere Ranges are somehow different, in relation to the need to protect them, from the beautiful coastline of Golden Bay, from the issues in Queenstown and that magnificent area of the lakes district, from the beautiful area of the Bay of Islands represented by John Carter, or any of the other areas in New Zealand that we feel passionate about protecting. If Labour really does believe that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill is the key to protecting the Waitakere Ranges, and that the Resource Management Act cannot do it, then it should be introducing bills just like this bill in every one of those areas, unless it genuinely believes that those areas are not worthy of protection.

The third problem with this bill is that it treats councils as idiots. The member in the chair, Lynne Pillay, says that we need this bill to provide guidance for the councils. This is like the Government telling our schools what to have in their tuck shops. It is like the Government telling parents how to raise their kids. Why does the member in the chair think we have so much wisdom in this Parliament, that our councils are so dumb and that their elected representatives are so stupid, that they have to have another 40 pages of law for them to be able to do their job and to make the right calls about what is, and what is not, inappropriate and appropriate development in the Waitakere Ranges?

The fourth thing about this bill is just so typical of where this Government has got to. During the last 18 months we have seen that this Government’s agenda is that everything is about the Labour Party—

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We do not expect a political speech on a campaign trail at this point of the debate. The member is wide of the mark.

Hobbs The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this

I am sorry, Taito Phillip Field, but clauses 1 and 2 are summary clauses in a sense. A debate on this is a summary of the legislation. It is a slight change in the Standing Orders.

Hon David Cunliffe Link to this

What I say to that member and to other members opposite is that the problem is that this is all about politics and not about good law for New Zealand. We know—and I am sure that the Labour Party’s polling says the same as ours—that Labour is in serious trouble in west Auckland.

Ha, ha!

Bennett Paula Bennett Link to this

It is not just Hawke’s Bay. I will show the Minister our poll results if he will show us theirs. The problem with Labour is that everything it is doing today—from sacking the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board to the Auckland airport fiasco, or in terms of the Electoral Finance Bill—is all about protecting Labour’s interests, not New Zealand’s interests. I say to members opposite that they have made a mess of the environment. In relation to climate change, and whether it is water quality or soil quality, this Government has not performed. So it believes that with a mushy bill of this sort it can somehow save its bacon. It is mistaken. This sort of mushy law will do nothing for the environment, and it will do even less for its electoral prospects. As John Key so effectively communicated today, mush is out, certainty is in.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) Link to this

It is my pleasure to take a short call to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. In doing so, I think it is appropriate to offer some thanks for the work that has been done by a large number of people, both inside and outside the House, to bring the bill to the place it is today.

In my earlier contribution on the bill, I spent some time discussing the concept of the cumulative effects of subdivision and development. I went through the arguments about why, although every consent individually might seem appropriate, when added together the cumulative effect is that one loses this magnificent natural heritage, and that process is irreversible.

Like if it had been done to your house in Herne Bay, eh?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this

At least I know where I live and I have never denied it—unlike the leader of the National Party, who seems to have a memory lapse when it comes to making declarations.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this

Amnesia!

It is amnesia—exactly. If we do not act now and seize this opportunity, we will never get the opportunity again. It has taken about 30 years to get this bill to where it is today. It started off with some people like Justice Tony Randerson, the former Speaker of the House Jonathan Hunt, and Gary Taylor sitting down one day and thinking about the long-term future of the ranges. The current chair of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, John Edgar, pioneered this and gathered the support of many constituents in that area.

There are other people in the Chamber who also need mentioning. Obviously there is the member who is carrying the weight of this bill through the House, Lynne Pillay, the MP for Waitakere, who deserves our special and collective thanks. Lynne has followed this bill from the beginning of the community consultation. I know that she has been at every meeting. She has spent interminable hours with community groups, the Waitakere City Council and other councils, the Clerk’s Office, and the Bills Office getting the draft prepared. She is here today not to take credit for herself, but to shepherd through a bill with a narrow majority—we recognise that—but it is one that will make a very positive and lasting change in that area.

I recognise the Prime Minister’s efforts. The Prime Minister has listened to the voices of west Auckland; she said that on this bill what the west wants, the west needs to get. She has backed this bill through our caucus and supported it to Parliament today. It would be difficult to conceive the bill without it having received that support. I thank Darien Fenton MP, who is a Waitakere resident. She has made a valuable contribution to our team and has been a strong local supporter. The MP for Te Atatu, the Hon Chris Carter, has been a rock-solid supporter right through the process, particularly working closely with Waitakere City Council. I acknowledge Taito Phillip Field. Taito Field had his reservations about the bill but he has at least done the hard yards of coming out west and meeting with the Pacific Islands Advisory Board and the landowners in Orātia. He sat down and listened to them and worked in a reasonable way through their objections, then crafted amendments that members could vote for to perhaps moderate some of the rough edges of the earlier draft, so that we now have a bill that he supports. With his support this bill will, hopefully, pass into law.

I thank the leaders around the table at the Waitakere City Council. It is easy to take people for granted, but Bob Harvey has been a visionary out west and has lifted it from “Boganville” to the “eco-city”. He needs to be recognised as he has been a tireless supporter of this bill. He was able to swing some of the majorities in behind it that enabled it to come to the House. Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse was very keen to have a full consultation process, and I think that in the end it has probably assisted the durability of the consensus, even if it did take a bit longer. Councillor Judy Lawley has been a rock-solid supporter through the process. Former councillors Greg Presland and Denise Yates made an important contribution earlier on they have carried that through. These are the kinds of people whose mana is tied up in bringing this bill to the House. Although we as MPs are doing our bit to carry the bill forward that next step, we are actually standing on the shoulders of a whole lot of giants who have put their vision, hopes, and dreams into this fairly modest bill. I thank the Māori Party, the Greens, and all who support the bill.

Bennett PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this

First, I want to speak on my amendment to clause 2. I felt that by pushing the commencement date out to 1 April 2009—no, 1 January—

1 April would have been pretty good, actually!

Yes, 1 April would have been a bit better, but we thought that 1 January was fair. We think it is reasonable to ask members opposite to give that opportunity to people who live in the Waitakere Ranges and who want to do simple things like complete a granny flat on their property that they are halfway through building, or to build another shed on their vineyard or orchard in the foothills. We heard about those things throughout the submission process. I think we need to go back to some of the basics. The reality is that no one wants to see the foothills carved up into a tight-fitting, medium or high-density housing suburban area.

No one wants to see that—certainly, not anyone on this side of Chamber, and, from what I am hearing, not anyone on the other side—and there can be no question about that. Doing a survey that asks whether people want to protect the ranges—

Yeah, right!

—quite frankly gets a “Yeah, right!”. If I had been called I would have said “Yes”, because we all want the ranges to be protected, and there is no doubt about that. What National members say is that this legislation simply will not protect the ranges. To protect the ranges, one would give them the highest status in the land and make them a national park. To protect the ranges, one would actually put them under a caveat that means they cannot ever be touched. That is what one would do for the public land that is in the ranges. But if one simply wants to take away the rights of individuals who live there and love it, and who have seen the area be refurbished and grow more in the last 100 years, since people have lived there, than it ever did previously, then one puts up legislation that will benefit only the lawyers. The only people who will benefit from this legislation are lawyers, who are left to try to determine what such phrases as “the quietness and the darkness” of the ranges mean. Does it mean people should not drive through the ranges if their car has a decibel rating of more than 2,000? Does it mean people should not drive through the ranges with the lights on, because it might affect the darkness? That is how utterly ridiculous this legislation is.

No one debates that the ranges should be protected. No one debates that their protection is important, that they are important for Auckland, and that they are certainly important for Waitakere. The debate, quite simply, is that this bill will do nothing to protect the ranges. The Government has come up with this legislation, but no one actually knows what it means, and that is where it gets dangerous. People cannot understand how our viewing the land as a fish will help us to protect the ranges. The Government is overriding long-term council community plans that the locals have spent years developing, and that the council has been part of. At one stage we were told that this legislation would not overrule the Resource Management Act, then we were told that it would—that it would not be worth having this legislation if it did not overrule the national legislation. It is as simple as that.

Let us talk about “rural character” and what that can mean. I go back to the title of the bill. A correct title of the bill would be quite simple: it is not the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill; it is the “Waitakere Foothills Heritage Area Bill”, for it is the foothills that will be most affected, and it will be the people living there who have caveats placed over their private land that mean they cannot do what they are already doing within the law. Members on the other side of the Chamber make it sound like there is willy-nilly building going on, that people are building monstrosities of houses, and that hideous developments are going on. The reality is quite different. Already people work within district plans. Already people work within long-term council community plans. Already the people of Waitakere have what they want and what they need, and they do not need this legislation.

Jones DAIL JONES (NZ First) Link to this

New Zealand First opposes this legislation. We have heard from National members, who have set out grounds for opposing the bill that are very valid and that New Zealand First agrees with. The Hon David Cunliffe made a very good point. He said that this bill is “standing on the shoulders of a whole lot of giants”. Well, that is true—they were the giants of the 19th century and the early 20th century, who put their hands in their pockets and bought the land that is now the 17,000 hectares of the Waitakere Centennial Park. They were the giants. But what are the people today who are not willing to put their hands in their pockets but who are prepared to take by stealth—like the good socialists they are—the rights of those who live in the 10,000 acres? They are certainly not giants. I know who they are, but I will not use the antonym because they must know that themselves. The giants have long gone. It is a sad fact that now in New Zealand we do not have the type of person any more who is willing to pay for the land, and who is willing to get out there, work it, and give it to society. Seventeen thousand hectares was given to the people of Auckland in that way; why can we not do that any more? This bill of the Waitakere City Council will prevent that from happening.

During the course of the debate various comments have been made about the name, the area, and suchlike, that are quite wrong. The preamble to the bill itself is also quite deficient. I will read from one of the books I have collected, entitled West Auckland Remembers, which is edited by James Northcote-Bade, and which talks about Waitakere and what it means. It also talks about the Māori background for the area, which is actually contradicted in this bill. The name Waitakere, according to this book, is strictly the name of the large, flat rock in the small bay between Ihumoana Island and Kōtau Point. The book states: “Here the name refers to the action of the sea in sweeping over this rock. Originally this was not a name of great significance, but after the death of a Kawerau chieftain during ‘Te Raupatu Tihore’, and the display of his remains on the rock, the place took on immense significance.” So Shane Jones’ effort was really not to the point. The book goes on: “The small bay itself also became known as Waitakere, as did the river that in times past flowed into it, instead of to the south of Ihumoana as it does today. The outlet of the Waitakere River became known as ‘Te Puaha o Waitakere’, or literally ‘the mouth of the Waitakere River’.”

There has also been comment made in the preamble about the quotation. The preamble is defective and does not do tribute to the Māori history of the area, which is another reason for opposing the bill. I am disappointed in the Māori Party for not researching this. In the preamble there is a quote, but that quote is wrongly attributed. The correct name of the person is Te Waatarauihi Tawhiao—[Interruption] If the member of the Māori Party wants to make a mockery of the Māori language, that is his affair. If he wants to insult the Māori people, that is up to him, but I am doing my very best. Te Waatarauihi Tawhiao was the Kawerau rangatira. He was not a Waitakere chieftain; he was a member of the Makaurau tribe. Once again, the preamble is wrong, but if the Māori Party member just wants to make a ridiculous semi-racist joke of it, that is his affair. The quotation, of course, is accurate, and the people who prepared the bill should be congratulated.

But the important point is that reference is made to the tangata whenua of the Waitakere area as being people of an iwi, or tribal group, known as Te Kawerau-a-Maki. The west Auckland report on the Waitakere Ranges area says that although they are no longer in permanent occupation of their ancestral domain, they are regarded in Māori terms as still holding mana whenua, or traditional ownership, of the land. I make that point because I ask why Ngāti Whātua were brought into this bill, when they were the natural enemies of Te Kawerau-a-Maki through the centuries. I ask Lynne Pillay, the member who introduced this bill, what rights Ngāti Whātua have to this land, when traditionally—and for centuries—they were the blood-sworn enemies of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. I question, again, whether the Māori Party has done its homework. Here I am, just recently arrived in New Zealand, off the boat, yet I can go and do some research on the area.

Jones DAIL JONES Link to this

It shows.

Exactly, it shows because I have studied and tried to do something about it rather than live off a vote obtained by misleading people on things like the foreshore and seabed legislation, as the member did. So New Zealand First opposes this legislation, and I hope that I have now set the record straight on its historical background.

Pillay LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

I will talk briefly about the title of this bill, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee, when we sat as a group and talked about this bill and its drafting, talked about the title. A decision was made to call it the “Heritage Area”. The reason we did not call it a park was that we did not want to presume in any way that the area included area within the park itself; we wanted to differentiate between the regional park and the area.

But in terms of heritage we felt that it was a really important name, in order to recognise the heritage of the area and its people—the tangata whenua, the Croatian settlers, the Pākehā settlers, and all of the cultures that today celebrate the absolute wondrous beauty of the Waitakere Ranges. This history is part of the heritage—the tangata whenua, the Croatian settlers, gumdiggers, farmers, winemakers, fisher people, and so on. If we look at the culture that is associated with heritage, we see that this extraordinary landscape has been such an inspiration to the many artists who live in, and absolutely love, the area and who produce so much amazing art. People have done amazingly beautiful carvings that celebrate the area. Those things make the area so special.

Nick Smith asked what is so special about the Waitakere Ranges, and what about Queenstown. I had a great conversation with Sam Neill, who had a battle in Queenstown about inappropriate development, and Sam Neill said we were doing wonderful things in the Waitakere Ranges. I say “we” collectively. I would ask Nick Smith where else in the world we would find such wondrous nature as the Waitakere Ranges, right on a city’s doorstep, just 20 minutes’ drive from the centre of a city.

It has been said that this bill will make lawyers happy, but I tell Paula Bennett, Nick Smith, and Dail Jones to talk to the residents of Henderson Valley who had to gather together $50,000 to fight an inappropriate decision and go to the Environment Court. They won their case, but it cost them. We do not want our people to have to fight those sorts of cases.

I acknowledge my good friend David Cunliffe and all the people whom he acknowledged today. The third reading will be the next stage of the bill and that is the time to really celebrate all the people who have worked so hard to bring this bill to fruition. I want to mention one person today—Jack Colmar. Jack Colmar is a resident of Bethells Beach. He went throughout New Zealand and talked to almost every celebrity and hero, and got them to sign the petition to ask for protection for the Waitakere Ranges. I guess the most wonderful hero who put his name to those petitions was Sir Edmund Hillary, and I know that Sir Edmund Hillary would feel very proud to know that the bill was at this stage in the Committee today and would warmly welcome this move.

I have heard the Opposition criticise the bill, and fuddle people, but I have never heard the member opposite who lives in the west, the leader of the National Party, take one call on this bill—not one. He knows that it is not a popular thing to do. He leaves those other poor members opposite to do it.

This is a local bill. It was arrived at after so much consultation, commitment, and a common vision for a fantastic future for this generation and for generations to come. I acknowledge the Waitakere City Council, the Rodney District Council, and the Auckland Regional Council for promoting this bill. This is not the Labour Party’s bill. I say to Nick Smith: “Read my lips: this is not a Labour Party bill.” This bill was promoted by those councils with a mandate from the people. It has been brought to the House so as to protect what I know is a most beautiful, if not the most beautiful, part of New Zealand.

Henare Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this

I agree with some parts of the previous speech. I think the Waitakere Ranges are among the most beautiful ranges that the country owns, but I intensely dislike the use of the old tactic of name-dropping. It is a tactic of the union that when one is in trouble, one name-drops. One would use names like Sam Neill—who flies in and says blah-blah-blah, and flies out again. Labour uses Sir Edmund Hillary’s name—God rest his soul—as if he were some sort of guru, just for the Labour Party to trot out when it likes.

I heard Ms Moroney yelling out and accusing John Key of not living in that area. What a snide remark that was, because none other than David Cunliffe does not live in his electorate. He lives in the CBD, in Westmere. It is OK for Labour members to do that, but it is a heinous crime if National does it! This bill will encourage people around the country to say to themselves: “I think I can put my name in lights. I’ll introduce the ‘Motatau Ranges Heritage Area Bill.’ ”

Come on!

Absolutely! The member for Te Tai Tokerau will have nothing else to do but support that bill. He stands for—

I’ll support it.

Jones Dail Jones Link to this

There we go! He would support anything that goes past these days. Like I said before, this is nothing more than mana-munching. It is nothing more and nothing less than somebody getting up and mana-munching. A person who puts up such a bill could leave this place and have his or her name in lights and be able to say: “Well, I was the member for Waitakere, and I put forward this bill to save the ranges from those horrible people out there who want to put a tool shed on their 20 acres.”

Or a long drop.

Or a long drop. For goodness’ sake! This is the reason why this Government will not last very long. It is gone, it is dog tucker: “Goodbye, see you later, ka kite.”

I want to finish by saying that everything in this bill can be done with the present law—the Resource Management Act, the Auckland Regional Council 5 and 10-year plan, and also the Waitakere City Council district plan. There is nothing in the bill that cannot be done by the organisations that rule the roost at the moment. This is why we have to stop this bill in its tracks.

I am disappointed in the Māori Party, not for the reasons that Mr Jones put forward but purely and simply because the bill does nothing. It does nothing for local Māori, it does nothing for local landowners, and it does nothing for the local community. All it does is pin—[Interruption] At least I recognise and accept that I have gone bald, not like some other people. I say in conclusion that this is a nothing bill and we have to do better.

Blumsky MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

When we take the Government benches, which I hope for the sake of this country is in the not too distant future, and when we as the Government draw up a list of those bills that were passed in the Labour Government’s time that really were not good law and did not meet the requirements of the community, I hope we have the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill at the top of our list of bills to repeal. I say that quite sincerely, because I have sat through the entire process, unlike many of the other speakers from the Government side, and I have heard every submission and read every bit of paper that has come out on this particular local bill.

This local bill did not have the local community support it should have had or deserved. For that reason, it needs to be right at the top of our list of those bills we will repeal. Local bills need to have full community support. I sat through the submissions and heard the conflicting stories of neighbours. They did not understand; they were confused. I heard people, who were the loveliest people and who had never submitted in their lives, being painted as developers. They were painted as being bad, evil persons who might be developers because they did not like this bill. I thought it was incredibly sad that we had a local bill that was being driven through the process by the council, using things like polls with “Do you love your mum?” sorts of questions. I thought that if ever there was a “constructed” local bill that was being driven through, this was it. It will not deserve to stay on the statute book—it will not deserve to stay on the book.

Many good community people came before the Local Government and Environment Committee who were passionate about the ranges—and rightly so. They were all passionate actually, and rightly so; that is not in argument. But they did not understand, and they were very, very confused. I thought that was wrong. I felt that Bob Harvey should have had the courage to pull back and say: “I really should look at how I bring this back again in a way that people understand, in a way that meets the requirements, and in a way that actually delivers on the promise but maybe in a different way. Maybe I could do it in the way a national park should be, or some other way, because this is not working. My community is not comfortable with this.” To call it a local bill I think is a big misnomer.

One of the most interesting things that struck me through the submission process was that the bill does not actually address one of the biggest issues in the ranges, the biggest threat the ranges have in regard to their surviving the centuries as they should, which is the fact that the bill at no stage talks about visitors. I do not know whether members realise that 2.5 million visitors go through the ranges annually. There is no discussion in this bill about these people going through the ranges and about what harm they can do. They are not the people who live within the ranges’ boundary, who love the place to bits, and who would hate to see anything happen to it—not those people; they are the nice ones—but they are the people who come through, have things in their car, chuck cigarettes out of the window, and have the music up far too loud, or whatever. It is a huge issue for me that this bill does not address that quite significant impact on the ranges.

I stress that this bill is a local bill but does not have community support. I suppose I challenge the Māori Party a little bit, because they talk about the power of the consultation process and about how Bob Harvey will involve them. I just want to raise with them a letter I received, which was given to me. It is a letter between the representative of Ngāpuhi and Bob Harvey, where he talks about his relationship with Māori. I will quote from the letter: “Those f…king black faces don’t f…king vote. They are f…king lazy and do nothing for themselves, and if you don’t help me your organisation is finished in this town.” That is Mayor Bob Harvey talking to a Ngāpuhi representative about the relationship he has with Māori in his community. I have quoted directly from a correspondence from the mayor to those people, stating that black faces do not vote, that they are lazy and do nothing for themselves, and that if Ngāpuhi does not help him, then they are finished. That is a direct quote. Māori Party members can say that the Mayor of Waitakere will consult; I think that is a farce.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

Smith Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this

I will cut to the chase and ask the members opposite to answer a question, as if they were consents officials for Rodney District Council or maybe Waitakere District Council and a person comes up with a resource consent for maybe a farm shed, new section, or granny flat. When the consents official turns to clause 1 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, where it states that the land is a fish—and the law states that this is the law they need to take into account when making the decision as to whether people will be able to build their granny flats, approve their subdivisions, or have their farm sheds—my simple question to the member opposite Clayton Cosgrove, and to the lawyer amongst the Government benches, Russell Fairbrother, is how that consents official for the council is to make a decision that must take into account the new law that “this land is a fish”. Does it mean that Mr Cosgrove is more likely to give a consent for the farm shed?

You’ve gone troppo, Nick.

The member opposite can throw insults, but can he answer the question?

I just said you’d gone troppo.

I am actually just asking the member a question. Perhaps as a Minister in this Government he might be able to answer it. If the member were a consent official for the Waitakere District Council and were considering a consent application, how would a law that states that “this land is a fish”—that is what we are proposing to pass—help his decision as to whether to grant a consent? That is what we are deciding; we are deciding what the instructions are that Parliament gives to the council official when he or she is making a resource consent decision.

I have to say, I do not think there is a member in this Committee who has the foggiest idea about how the new law in clause 1 that states that “this land is a fish” will help. I do not know any member of this Chamber who can explain how it will help.

I do.

I am honoured to hear that. I would be happy to yield to Mr Harawira if he can explain to me, when the council official sits down to make a consent decision on a farm shed, granny flat, or new section—

I can’t take too much more of this.

Jones Dail Jones Link to this

Mr Clayton Cosgrove does not like it. He does not like an honest question. I know that Dail Jones is a lawyer, and I am not sure whether he would be able to tell me.

Lovely jubbly.

I think he is rubbing his hands with glee because he knows that the legal fraternity would be able to have a field day arguing what Parliament meant when it passed clause 1 stating that “this land is a fish”.