Blumsky Mark: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14866] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 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. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I’ll second that. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: 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— 
Dail Jones 
: $2 million. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: 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.