Jones Dail: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:645;Page:14865] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill is about the Waitakere Ranges of some 17000 hectares. The land is currently owned by the people of Auckland and it cannot be dealt with in any way regardless of a single word that is contained in this bill. But as we are owners of that land we will preserve it. We do not need Wellington interfering in our affairs. I have to congratulate Lynne Pillay on ably trying to carry out the work of the Waitakere City Council as any local member must but we do not need the Waitakere City Council coming to Wellington to get Wellington’s authority to do things in the city. In Auckland we own the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park and we do not want Wellington interfering in our business. That is No. 1. 
This bill is really about the remaining 10000 hectares that are owned by private people. As I said last time this bill is socialism by stealth. This bill is the Waitakere City Council stealing the property rights of those people in that area. If we ever want to see confused legislation Part 3 sums it all up. In Parts 1 and 2 various rights were taken from the owners of the 10000 hectares. What does Part 3 do? Clause 28A(2) states that the local authorities must jointly produce a report. The local authorities are the Auckland Regional Council the Rodney District Council and the Waitakere City Council. What happens if they cannot agree? They have to produce a report in 5 years. What happens if they cannot agree in 5 years and there is no report? What happens? Nothing will happen. What penalty is on them to produce a report? There is nothing. Clause 28A(2) is absolutely meaningless. Can members believe that all the members of the Auckland Regional Council all the members of the Rodney District Council and all the members of the Waitakere City Council can ever be unanimous and agree on an issue? Clause 28A(2) is doomed. It is meaningless. It is not worth the paper it is written on. It cannot happen. 
Clause 29 “Preservation of existing rights”—what does that mean? It is a meaningless clause. We know that anyone who has rights now has those rights preserved by law. We do not need it in this bill. We are just stating the obvious. The clause is superfluous. Everyone who has a right now continues to have that right. However that right is now subject to whatever is in this bill. This bill in a resource management consent restricts those people’s rights to for example put on a garage to extend their home or do anything like that because this bill restricts development. That is what this bill is all about. [ 
Interruption 
] The member agrees with me. She agrees with me that this bill restricts development. From the way I look at it that does restrict our rights as such but it does not restrict our title to the land. We still own the land. We all know that. That is why we do not need clause 29. 
As far as clause 30 is concerned unfortunately if anyone had a real feel for the area and wanted to do what Lynne Pillay wants to do clause 30 destroys that. I believe that people who are true developers who want to rip into the lower lands will have lodged their applications with the council by now. I say to Lynne Pillay not to shake her head. She should be nodding her head. They will be advised by their lawyers to get in there to lodge their applications—to make sure they lodge any kind of application they can—so that they can get stuck into the lowlands and do whatever is possible. In that sense clause 30 gives the game away. It will not protect the lowlands if that is what this bill intends to do. Clause 30 as the member Lynne Pillay has indicated will not affect anyone who has lodged a current application. She is nodding her head in agreement now. 
As a lawyer myself I say that if I had been acting for people who wanted to develop the area—and I am not so I have no personal interest whatsoever—and who can still now before this bill is passed want to put on a garage or want to cut land up into 1000-metre or 1500-metre blocks I would be telling them to get stuck in and lodge their application now. The transitional provisions say they are protected and they can go ahead and do everything they like because once they lodge their application they are saved. This bill and the transitional provisions protect them. 
It is confused legislation. New Zealand First opposes it—not only because it is socialism by stealth but it has been badly drafted; it is contradictory drafting. There are clauses in it even these three clauses we have here that are contradictory.