Bennett Paula: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14437] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the purpose of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill in our mind and the intention that members had when the bill was first introduced and that of the Waitakere City Council in the long discussions we have had for more than 10 years in the community of Waitakere and west Auckland as has been stated by members previously. The purpose of the bill was certainly to protect the ranges. As has previously been stated I do not think that anyone can deny that protecting the ranges is a favourable thing to do. No one in this Chamber would disagree with that and National certainly would not either. 
But we are not talking about just the ranges. We are not talking about just the area of the regional park which as we have stated should be a national park anyway. We should be looking at well and truly protecting that area and turning it into a national park. We are actually talking about the foothills about private land and about more than 21000 people who live in that area. What will happen to those very people once this bill is introduced? Those are the questions these people have had for the last 10 years and I do not think they will be answered when the bill is introduced. 
Although the purpose of the bill may be admirable in many cases it simply will not be achieved through this bill. The ranges and the foothills area will not be any more protected. What will happen is that there will be court case after court case uncertainty and language that quite frankly leaves everyone in doubt as to what it actually means. That will not help anyone. It will not help the supporters of the bill quite frankly and certainly it will not help those who oppose it. The purpose of the bill although admirable in wanting to protect that area of New Zealand considered to be unique beautiful and the backdrop to Auckland City—which of course it is—will not do that. 
We hear talk about development being the main reason for the introduction of the bill but if those members actually knew the area they would know that local area plans are already in place to address development in the very area that this bill covers. There are already caveats that mean there can be no more than one or two houses on a 4-acre block unless they are there already. So there are already arrangements in place now because the people of New Zealand and the people of Waitakere love that land and do not want to see either medium or high-density housing up in the ranges but they do not believe that this bill will help matters. Although the purpose of the legislation may be admirable having legislation that is quite frankly too ambiguous to make sense of is not the answer for those who seek to protect that area. 
How should the area be protected then? We have the Resource Management Act. We have a city council that is elected every 3 years and goes out to the community with its vision for Waitakere City. Those very people who are on our local councils are selected when they go out every 3 years and talk about their vision for the city they wish to serve. They have the means and power to put in place that vision. They do it in consultation with the people and have been doing so for years. They should continue. We have a Resource Management Act that actually addresses these very issues that arise in this document. If there are problems with that Act and people believe that it is not doing what it should be doing then perhaps they should look at amending the Act. 
Why should a member’s bill address only an issue in a small local area when there are other ways to fix the problem? No one would say there should be medium or high-density housing in that area. No one would say the land should be carved up for houses to be built on top of each other. But this bill will not prevent that and that is what those members do not understand. Although the purpose clause may be admirable in reality we will be in litigation time and time again because the purpose of the bill cannot be fulfilled through this legislation. Another layer of bureaucracy will not solve the problem that those members seem to think is there. If one looks at the boundaries and drives around the boundary for the heritage area one will find—