Bennett Paula: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Bennett Paula: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1391] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I find myself a little surprisingly agreeing with the speaker before me in many respects. Without a doubt Waitakere is the absolutely beautiful wild west that deserves to be protected and I support protecting the ranges. In fact out of the many hundreds of Waitakere residents I have met and spoken to I have yet to meet a local who does not support protecting the ranges. The area is not only a magnificent asset to west Auckland with its spectacular backdrop to the city and its natural expanse of parkland and beautiful beaches but it is also an asset to all New Zealand. 
In light of our desire to protect the ranges and considering their uniqueness that adds to the beauty of all New Zealand I believe that we should make the 17000 hectares of regional park into a national park. I would like to address certain areas of concern with the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill but I will first address the awesome opportunity that we have to turn this area into a national park. 
 There are no national parks north of Taupo and since the National Parks Act affords those areas greater protection than any other Act it seems as if it provides an obvious solution to a complex issue. The Act states in section 4(1) that its purpose is for “… preserving in perpetuity as national parks for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit use and enjoyment of the public areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality ecological systems or natural features so beautiful unique or scientifically important that their preservation is in the national interest.” 
 The Waitakere Ranges fit those criteria easily. It is time to use all our might and lock in that area without uncertainty. The proposed bill does not come even close to doing that. Currently three pieces of legislation could protect the Waitakere Ranges and the surrounding foothills and coastal areas: the National Parks Act the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act. Instead we have before us yet another piece of legislation that at the end of the day will give us no certainty of environmental benefit. 
I have yet to meet anyone who wants to see a tight-fitting subdivision in the foothills or in our wild and wonderful coastal areas. Local people choose to live in that part of the country because they absolutely love it and appreciate its wildness and uniqueness. As this matter has cleverly become an emotive issue between those who support the bill and those who do not the latter have become painted as evil landowners who want to chop up the land into a thousand bits and who have no consideration for the environment their neighbours and indeed the area as a whole. 
Nothing could be further from the truth; in fact what a ridiculous argument. Some of those people who oppose the bill do indeed own land in the area but from my own observations they are as passionate and as slightly fanatical—they are westies after all—as those who support the bill. The fact that they value private property rights and feel that the district plan and the Resource Management Act are enough to protect the foothills actually makes them pretty smart—because they are right. 
Let us look at the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Firstly members should not let the title fool them. This bill is not only about the ranges; this bill should be called the “Waitakere Foothills Heritage Area Bill”. Over 21000 people live in the area proposed in the bill. They will be affected. This legislation is not only about protection but also about the erosion of private property rights. A local district plan should be exactly that—a plan for the district. It should plan how people want their district to be. 
Let us not forget the Resource Management Act which restricts what people can do on their property and which has such a myriad of compliance requirements that people cannot just carve up their land willy-nilly. For that matter they can hardly cut down a tree or anything else on their own property. The legal effect of this bill is to add another tier to the requirements of the Resource Management Act. Already there is widespread acknowledgment that the Resource Management Act has generated far too much paper and too few environmental improvements. It suffers from a lack of clarity and excessive bureaucracy. This bill would only make that situation worse. 
The bill refers to protecting the heritage area—protecting it against what? Will it protect it against subdivision and development? There are no specific measures within the bill to control subdivision. The bill does not even lay out in clear terms measures that will protect the very thing it is trying to protect the area from—because it does not need to. The Resource Management Act and the district plan already do that. If we add in the protection provisions of a national park the facts are clear that this bill is unnecessary. 
Let us talk about a few of the clauses. Clause 9(f) states that an objective of the bill is to “ensure that any subdivision either individually or cumulatively—(i) is of an appropriate character scale and intensity;”. What is an appropriate character scale and intensity? Who is defining “appropriate”? For that matter what is inappropriate? Will that have to be determined time and time again in a court of law? How will people know what boundaries fit into an appropriate character or scale? Clause 13(2) refers to a “restricted discretionary activity”. What is a restricted discretionary activity? It is not defined at all. Clause 15(3)(a) refers to “aesthetic coherence”. 
And there is more. The explanatory notes mentions “inappropriate development”. So what is inappropriate development? Is it one house per hectare no houses 20 houses; no halls no schools 10 schools? There is no definition of what “inappropriate development” really is. The explanatory note states: “… landscape values have been degraded to a level where they are now no longer regarded as ‘outstanding’.” What does that mean? Under whose definition of “outstanding” have the landscape values been degraded? 
The preamble states: “Whakarongo mai e nga iwi ki ta te korero i mua. He ika tenei whenua. Ko te tangata nana i huti ko Maui. Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.” I apologise for that pronunciation not being quite as good as it could have been. Let me translate: “Listen all of the assembled tribes to this the talk of olden times this land is a fish. The person who fished it up was Maui. I will remain here on it indeed until I die.” That is actually an awesome statement and I think it says a lot. It sounds better in Maori than it does in English. But what on earth does it have to do with legislation? How will that protect our flora and fauna? How will that really protect what needs to be protected in the Waitakere Ranges? 
The campaign to protect the ranges—and by the way we still do not know specifically against what—has been an emotive one. Of course everyone wants to protect the ranges. As I have stated I have yet to meet anyone who does not support protecting our environment. But nowhere in this bill is it clear how the ranges would be protected against some of our most serious threats. Introduced pests and invasive weeds are a continued concern as is the dumping of cars in our secluded bush areas. Visitor management issues are raised time and time again as a huge problem for various coastal communities in the proposed areas. This bill does not deal with any of that. The water quality in lakes and streams continues to deteriorate and the native bush is taking a hammering. How does this legislation help with any of those very serious issues? 
This bill will not offer the level of protection of the ranges that the people of Waitakere are hoping for. Our regional park needs to become a national park to be secured as important for all New Zealand. The Local Government Act is about empowering local people to run their communities. The district plan and the Resource Management Act should protect the foothills and the coastal areas.