Blumsky Mark: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14440] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill and I will comment in particular on the bill’s purpose. It was quite interesting to read the preamble and after reading it and talking about it we noted that in 2005 over 21000 people lived in the area. I suppose that in 2008 23000-odd people probably live in the area. I have not seen the latest figures. 
The bill talks about the impact of urbanisation and about what could and might happen but it actually misses the point. Clause 3 the purpose clause states: “promote the protection and enhancement of its heritage features for present and future generations.” but what it does not talk about and should talk about a lot are visitors. This bill does not talk about visitors coming into the area. Twenty three thousand - odd people may live there but sure as heck one heck of a lot of people will visit the area—probably hundreds of thousands. Those people can bring in weeds and rodents. They can create destruction on the sand dunes and run riot in the vegetation. They can smoke they can camp and they can light fires and there are times of course like now when the area is incredibly dry. 
I suppose that brings me back to the point that this legislation is not clean. If we are going to do the job we should do it properly. This local bill should talk about visitors and their impact. That should be covered in the purpose clause but it is not. 
The second point I raise in relation to the purpose clause is that clause 3(2)(e) states: “provides additional matters for Auckland Regional Council Rodney District Council Waitakere City Council and certain other persons to consider when making a decision”. I suppose I will just bring the Committee back to the point that my colleague John Carter talked about earlier. Initially when this bill was presented we were told that it did not make a heck of a lot of difference. Well if it does not make a heck of a lot of difference why in the purpose clause are we talking about providing “additional matters … to consider when making a decision exercising a power” in relation to the area? We get nervous. 
The interpretation of the bill which we are also covering under this part of the debate talks about the term “LAP” which as clause 4(1) states: “means a local area plan prepared and adopted under section 23A”. This is new terminology to enter the resource management arena. You see the Government is setting about and trying like crazy to confuse the poor citizen who really does try hard to live within the rules become involved publicly participate and add value to local decisions. There is a desire for locals to make a significant input into local decisions. So they have been hit with the “LTCCP” which is the long-term council community plan and within that plan there is a “LAMP” at the moment a local area management plan. 
A lot of work has been done by many communities in particular by those in the Waitakere area on putting together such management plans—plans for the area plans that the locals believe will add value and make a significant difference to looking after the area for all concerned. But no we are now saying goodbye to local area management plans and we are introducing a “LAP” a local area plan. 
I suppose it is even more significant that the community can do a ton of work with a local area plan in order to put together the right sort of vision or the right set of rules but—guess what—clause 23A(5) states: “The territorial authority may amend revoke or replace a LAP.” So again it makes a bit of a farce of community consultation. I think it is disappointing that the bill’s purpose does not cover those who probably have the greatest destructive ability on the Waitakere Ranges—that is the visitors.