Dunne Peter: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1396] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want at the outset to acknowledge the hard work done by the sponsor of this bill and by all those who have worked towards getting a measure of protection for the Waitakere Ranges. The Waitakere Ranges are a unique part of west Auckland and New Zealand’s heritage and there is little doubt that they deserve long-term protection. But this bill is not the way to go about it and United Future will not be supporting its first reading. 
I am one of the few members in the House now who was here at the time the Resource Management Act was being drafted and introduced. In fact I was the Associate Minister for the Environment for part of that time. I recall vividly that one of the key objectives of that legislation which is as relevant today as it was then was to provide a national framework within which a range of local decisions could be made for the benefit of local communities. 
One might argue about what has happened over the intervening 16 years or so but that argument needs to be sheeted home to regional governments that frankly have been far too timid in their interpretation of a lot of the Act’s provisions. I do not think it is good enough to come back now—and I find myself in agreement with the Green member who implied it is a very likely ongoing reality—and have a series of specific pieces of legislation dealing with various items of iconic importance around the country. One of the objections to what preceded the Resource Management Act was that at that time we had in place 54 different pieces of legislation covering various aspects of town and country planning. 
It seems to me that if we are now to say that this cause worthy and all that it is is so special and so important that it requires its own separate legislation then I can imagine all sorts of projects around the country coming forward on the same basis. I imagine that the Wellington City Council will be on my doorstep very quickly saying: “What about the town belt in this city?” the Mayor of Christchurch will be on to Christchurch members about the Port Hills and on and on it will go—and the sheer purpose and principle of the Resource Management Act as the basis on which we could make those decisions would be overcome. 
Now I am not saying that the Resource Management Act is perfect and does not require upgrading and amendment; that is a constant process. But let us just not forget the purpose for which it was put in place. I read the Standing Orders before about what constitutes a local bill and this bill fits that description entirely. It states that it is a bill that deals entirely with a local matter. What we are doing here is confusing the national interest and the local interest and that is not the way to proceed through a bill of this type. 
Argument has been raised on both sides about whether private property rights are infringed by the bill. I note with considerable concern that when this matter went to the Waitakere City Council on 24 May last year a resolution that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be subject to the rights for compensation as is being provided for in my colleague Gordon Copeland’s member’s bill concerning property rights which is being considered by Parliament as an addition to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was defeated by the Waitakere City Council by 11 votes to three. So in other words even if there are issues of property rights involved the council is making sure that the residents who will be affected do not have rights to compensation. 
Although the sentiment behind the bill is laudable the practicality is not there. The bill should not proceed. We should use the principles and the procedures of the Resource Management Act to provide the protection that those who seek it want in respect of the Waitakere Ranges.