Goudie Sandra: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14452] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 and I will endeavour to stick to Part 2. If ever there was an endorsement by this current Government that the Resource Management Act was not working this has to be it. One has only to look at clause 10 in Part 2 which quite clearly shows that the Government has no regard for the Resource Management Act. It actually has to bring in another piece of legislation because the Resource Management Act is not enough. It is not working. 
This Government has done nothing to change the Resource Management Act. It has done nothing to streamline it and it has done nothing to improve it to make sure that it is workable. So what does it do? It introduces yet another bill to control and manage private property and to manage any area in this country. I am talking on Part 2 of this bill and that is why I can say what I am saying because clause 10(3) states: “When evaluating a proposed policy statement or proposed plan change or variation that affects the heritage area ARC must also examine whether the statement plan change or variation is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives (having regard to the purpose of this Act).”—right but under subclause (4)—“The requirements in subsection (3)” which is the one I have just read out “are in addition to the requirements in section 32(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991.” 
Now why on earth would one introduce a bill such as this when one already has a piece of legislation that gives one the tools to do what one wants to do—and yes there is a catch of course. The community has to support that process and as we have heard here tonight from my most excellent colleagues the community is divided. So the elected representatives instead of actually allowing the community to move in one direction or another completely ignored the community’s dilemma and decided to ride roughshod over the community to disregard the divisions in the community which is as we hear evenly split and to do what they wanted to do which is not necessarily what everybody else wanted. They are doing what they want to do which is contrary to what Nanaia Mahuta was saying. She said that there is no effect on private property. Well all one has to do is go to clause 9(e) which states: “to recognise that in protecting the heritage features the area has little capacity to absorb further subdivision:” Well what does that tell members? This bill will add nothing but cost upon cost for any property owner wanting to build a home on his or her private property. So much for the statements that this will have no effect on private property! Mr Jones—Dail that is—talked about the fact that there will be increased costs on any housing whether existing housing or new housing because of what this bill does. It ties up any further use of private property. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Give us one example. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well I have just told members that it states in the bill that there is no further capacity to absorb further subdivision. All one has to do is go to clause 9(b) which states: “to ensure that impacts on the area as a whole are considered when decisions are made affecting any part of it:”. What area is actually being talked about here? How large is that area? The area should be defined. How far away is it from people who might want to build a house on their property or to sell their property for future housing? Let us face it the bill is all about getting rid of houses because it is to protect and restore the area and its heritage features. So why not get rid of all the houses and all the people who live there already? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: That’s a dreadful interpretation. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Look I tell Mr Jones—Shane that is—that I am reading from the bill. Maybe he might try reading the bill. I find it astounding that the members on the Government benches do not even understand the wording in their own bill. Clause 9(c) states: “(i) carefully consider the risks and uncertainties associated with any particular course of action;”. That is a euphemism for “Let’s not make a decision because it is too hard.”