Carter John: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Third Reading 
Carter John: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15294] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I will make a contribution to this debate as I have been involved in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill ever since it came to Parliament. First of all I compliment Paula Bennett on the work she has done in making sure that those who had an opposing view were given a full and thorough opportunity to express it. I also compliment Nick Smith and my other colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee on the work they have done. Even though we are opposed to the bill I will also compliment the staff and the various officials who worked on this bill because genuinely they have done a good job although I will raise one issue a little later. But I think that the staff who have been involved have given this 100 percent so on that they can be complimented. 
I would say to the local authority—it is primarily the Waitakere City Council but it is not just that council—and the first thing I would place on the record is that I am not certain this move is a good expenditure of ratepayers’ money. This bill would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to put through. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Millions. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Nick Smith says that it may be millions and it may well be that sort of figure. I am not certain that the council can justify that sort of amount of ratepayers’ money on this sort of legislation. The member who just sat down made this very point: it does not do anything more than can already be done under the Resource Management Act. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh it does. 
JOHN CARTER 
: We have to ask ourselves this question. If it does not do anything more then why is this Parliament spending taxpayers’ money and why are the ratepayers of the Waitakere City Council spending their money on a bill that ends up doing nothing? That is the point I would make to the member opposite who interjects. Right from the very beginning I asked the officials that question. I asked why we had this bill and what it did that was extra— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Over and above. 
JOHN CARTER 
: —over and above and outside the Resource Management Act and the council’s district scheme. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What did they say? 
JOHN CARTER 
: They said that it does not do anything. It does not do anything. They kept repeating that assuring the committee that it does not do anything. Then we asked why we were doing it. There was no answer. Well the unfortunate thing was that after a while—and I cannot remember the length of time—we finally got the officials to admit that it actually did do something over and above the Resource Management Act and the district scheme. It would go outside those boundaries. The officials actually lied to the select committee. That really upset me. 
But then of course we had to go around and make sure that a local bill could not have higher status than the Resource Management Act. So we worked and the officials worked and they brought it back so that it came within the Resource Management Act. Then we have to ask ourselves the question again: why are we doing it? What is the purpose of a bill if it does nothing that we cannot do under the Resource Management Act? The fact is that we have never had an answer to that question and that really concerns me. 
The fact is that we have to ask ourselves—as Nick Smith has already commented—why the Ministry for the Environment is opposed to this bill. Surely we would think that it would be supportive of it but no it is not. Why is the resource management sector of the New Zealand Law Society opposed to this bill? It is opposed to it because it is bad law. It is putting more legislation on our books than is necessary and under the Labour Government that is a normal thing of course. Most of the laws it passes are unnecessary. 
That is the unfortunate thing about this whole debate. Here we are wasting taxpayers and ratepayers’ money to achieve nothing other than a feel-good political thing for the Labour Government. The members opposite who promote this bill who supported it are playing politics and the sad thing is that the council bought into it and its staff had to obey the wishes of the politicians. Sadly it is all about local government - central government politics not about what is in the best interests of the area. 
We have heard the comment that a survey was done and 80 percent of the people responded positively and said that they wanted this bill. Well that is absolutely inaccurate. The question was: “Do you want the Waitakere Ranges protected?”. I am surprised that only 80 percent said yes. I would have thought that it would be 100 percent because would people not want to protect the Waitakere Ranges? Would we not want to protect the Bay of Islands Queenstown or the lakes down in Rotorua? Of course we do. It is one of the things we pride ourselves on in this nation. It is a part of our reputation that we look after our environment and we look after the places we care for. 
We could ask ourselves this question: why are the Waitakere Ranges the way they are today? It is because the people who live there care for them—absolutely. They do not just care for them but also they have rehabilitated them. If we look at photos taken in years gone by—80 years 100 years—many areas were burnt out cut over trampled and farmed. They were bare hillsides that today are covered in lovely bush again. There is wonderful birdlife. The area probably has a few stoats and ferrets in it unfortunately but nevertheless— 
Paula Bennett 
: Not much. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There are not too many I am told by my colleague Paula Bennett but the fact is that the area has become the way that it is now because the people who have lived there for many years care for it. They do not need to have legislation to tell them to look after that place. They go and live there to make sure that it is looked after. It is unique because of the people. 
If we wanted to look at people’s views then we should look at the submissions made by the people who are directly affected. I am told that there were 221 submissions and they were split right down the middle—50:50—on who supported and who opposed the bill. That to me is a far better guide than the 80 percent that is often touted by the Labour Government. 
I say to this House that I think what we are doing today is absolutely unnecessary. It will achieve absolutely nothing. Not one person has stood up and said: “This is a reason why we should do this.” There is no specific reason. If we could say that the bill will stop a house being built stop a tree being cut down stop somebody taking a bird’s life away or something then maybe we could say that there is an argument for it. [ 
Interruption 
] They are to stop the what? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh dear oh dear! Seriously the problem with this bill is that apart from costing the ratepayers of Waitakere hundreds of thousands of dollars and costing the taxpayers a significant amount of money by using parliamentary time it achieves nothing. 
They are telling us— 
Darien Fenton 
: Why are you opposing it? 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is a waste of time and it is a waste of money and unlike Labour National cares about people’s money. We understand that people have to write out cheques for these things unlike the Labour Government that has no understanding of fiscal management at all and does not understand about writing out cheques. Most Labour members have never had enough money to be able to write out their own cheques. We care about the fact that this is a waste of ratepayers’ money and a waste of taxpayers’ money. We do not want to see this bill because it is a waste of time and money. It will achieve nothing. The members on that side of the House tell us that it will do nothing and no one will be employed because of it. I finish with this question “Why are we doing it?”. There is no answer.