Cunliffe David: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
Cunliffe David: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12034] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
Tena koutou katoa. Ko Titirangi te maunga ko Te Whau te awa ko Hoani Waititi te marae ko Ngati Pakeha te iwi ko Waitakere te wahi. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you all. Titirangi is the mountain Te Whau is the river Hoani Waititi is the courtyard Ngati Pakeha is the tribe and Waitakere is the place. 
] 
I welcome and support the reintroduction of this Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to the House. With my colleagues I have been advocating the importance of the protection of the Waitakere Ranges since I was first elected—indeed before then—so I am very pleased to speak today in further support of this bill. I wish first to congratulate the Local Government and Environment Committee led by Steve Chadwick on its report presented to this House. I am pleased to support my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay who is the member guiding this bill through the House and I recognise the tremendous work that she has done to bring it to this point. 
Before reflecting on the history of the bill and some of its key provisions as reported by the select committee I wish to offer a few brief comments on the contributions of other members. I express my deep respect and gratitude for the very considered approach to this bill that has been adopted by Maori Party members. They are speaking on behalf of and for tangata whenua they are expressing the rights and the mana of mana whenua and they are making a real difference to the protection of the Waitakere Ranges area. I acknowledge them and the mana they are displaying in the House today. I pledge my support for further improvements to issues of cultural heritage and for improvements to the governance relationship between tangata whenua local and regional authorities and central government. 
I wish that all contributions had been equally considered. It is my obligation to point out several inconsistencies in offerings made to the House by members opposite. On one thing I agree with Nick Smith the lead speaker from the National Party—that this will be a key election issue. Yes indeed it will. Indeed it has been a key election issue for every election in which I have run in the Waitakere area. I think it is notable that the only really scientific poll we have of local opinion showed that 77 percent of Waitakere City residents and 81 percent of Aucklanders support at least the intent of this bill. That is the best clue that we have. All I can say as someone who has plodded the pavements of the Waitakere area many many times is that that is about right. It is about three-quarters to one-quarter or four-fifths to one-fifth—certainly the overwhelming majority—of west Aucklanders and Aucklanders who want to see this vital area preserved. 
I think National is handing members on this side a great gift. Based on hearing Paula Bennett’s contribution I do not think she will run again because she is either saying that the bill does not go far enough and we need a national park—which would effectively exclude 21000 residents of Waitakere City and their property rights—or she is saying that the bill goes too far and should be scrapped. Either way it is hardly consistent logic and it hardly reflects the majority view of the area. So I take it that she will not run again but we appreciate the contribution she has made to date. 
Nick Smith came up with several completely illogical arguments. The first was that the bill adds to bureaucracy and he mentioned that there is a district plan a Resource Management Act a national policy statement and coastal policy statements. But the whole point of the bill is that it aligns and interprets the provisions within the boundaries of the area to simplify and to provide certainty and transparency for local residents as well as for territorial authorities. It reduces rather than increases bureaucracy and for that reason alone it commands the support of many people. 
Several members said that the bill contains so-called woolly drafting. I will not pretend that the bill as first introduced to the House on the basis of drafting from the local proponents rather than the Parliamentary Counsel Office was perfect—it was not. But it has had a very very thorough select committee process. Expert advice has been received from the Parliamentary Counsel Office the Crown Law Office the Ministry for the Environment and the legal resources of both the proponents and opponents of the bill. Democracy has worked as it should have worked. We now have a bill that the majority of the select committee has reported back with extensive amendment and that satisfies the concerns of officials and commands the support of our Government. This is a good bill and it is now in good drafting shape. 
The only example that National could come up with as being woolly was a reference in the bill to the cherished cultural heritage of Maori where it says that this part of New Zealand represents the tradition and the legend of Maui. National members criticised the reference to the fish and if the best they can do is to denigrate the history of the cultural area then I say to them that they should go back to the drawing board and enjoy at least another 3 years in Opposition. Until Opposition members learn to represent all New Zealanders and do justice to everybody’s cultural traditions that is where they belong. 
Paula Bennett suggested the national park idea. You know I remember Nick Smith in 1999 floating the idea of a marine park for the West Coast. That was an alternative to moderate reform that would have commanded support. Members can call me a cynic but I reckon that the reason National floated that whopper was because it knew that the proposal could never get through and that it could be only a substitute for real reform. That is what that shallow proposal for a national park is today—a substitute for the real reform that has the support of the select committee and the support of the legal experts and that will command the support of a majority of this House. 
So why is the bill here and what is the chief argument against it? The bill is here for one simple reason: it is impossible logically and in practice to determine the long-term future of any area simply on the basis of individual consents when there are long-term special features that must be considered in an overarching policy. Sometimes it is possible to achieve that through a national policy statement. If the issues are nationwide and sector-specific that is appropriate. Sometimes it is possible to achieve that through a coastal policy statement. But where the issues are inherently local and where they can be addressed without violating Resource Management Act process or concept—as this bill now does not—then it is perfectly appropriate that a local solution be introduced. It is the only way to fix the problem of cumulative effects—the death by a thousand cuts. 
Lest members opposite forget I remind them that the last time the National Party had influence of any measure on the Waitakere City Council which was around 1998 the then council overrode the district plan and was taken to the Environment Court because it was not prepared to abide by due process. Things like the Little Muddy Creek study—do we forget?—overrode the proper consultation process around the district plan. If their henchmen and henchwomen could do it then they could do it again in the future. That is why the majority of West Auckland people—and all New Zealanders—deserve a legal framework that will provide security certainty and transparency— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s waffle! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —for this cherished area until long after that noise box has ceased to spew his ridiculous drivel on to the floor of this Chamber. This land is the fish in the legend of tangata whenua and if the member had paid more attention to Maori cultural rights and traditions he might have had a majority for his bankrupt point of view. He did not. Shame on him! 
I feel very passionate about this bill. From the time I was first campaigning in this area I have campaigned on this issue and before me was the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt the former MP for New Lynn. For 30 years he foresaw a day when we could have lasting protection for our cherished ranges. Today is one step closer to that important day. I commend this bill to pass its second reading.