Jones Dail: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15296] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes this bill. Many of the reasons have been set out already by Mr John Carter and by Dr Nick Smith. This bill is poorly drafted and poorly researched. It will do great damage to those people who live in the outer area of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and in particular to those people who live on the 10000 hectares—about 25000 people. 
I say that the bill is badly drafted. It was badly drafted from the very beginning even in the Maori saying that is set out in the preamble. What I wish to do is to read out the actual pepeha or tribal saying of Te Kawerau-a-Maki which I believe should have been the way in which this bill began. After I have read it out I will be asking whether the Maori translator who has a copy of the words in English and the translation in Maori from  
West Auckland Remembers 
 edited by James Northcote Bade can read out the Maori translation. I have shown it to Dr Sharples as well who is a well-known authority in these matters and the translation is accurate I believe. 
First of all I will read out the English and then I will seek leave for the Maori translator to read out the Maori translation which is the reverse of the way things are often done in the House. I cannot see why on the basis of equality that approach cannot apply. The pepeha or tribal saying in English is: “Puketotara is the mountain; Waitakere is the river; Te Au o te Whenua is the man; Te Kawerau a Maki are the people.” 
I seek the leave of the House—the House being the master of its own affairs—for the translation to be read out in Maori. I seek your direction Mr Deputy Speaker as to whether that is possible. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You were quite right in your earlier remarks—that what you seek is a reversal of the normal practice. It is indeed a reversal of why we have an interpreter in the House at all. Many Speakers’ rulings have laid down that matters uttered in Maori are for the interpreter to give the English version of. There is no provision for the interpreter to interpret words uttered in English. I have to be guided by Speakers’ rulings all of which lead to that conclusion. It is not a matter of seeking leave; it is entirely in the hands of the Speaker. Being guided by earlier rulings I have to say no. But the member may of course table the Maori version. 
DAIL JONES 
: I am willing to read it out but bearing in mind the comment that was made on my efforts to speak in Maori the last time I did so I was trying to avoid that situation recurring. I will give the Maori translation but I ask only whether that means that as I am speaking in Maori the Maori translator will then have to translate it back into English. I will leave that for members of the House to consider. 
“Ko Puketotara te maunga; ko Waitakere te awa; ko Te Au o Te Whenua te tangata; ko Te Kawerau a Maki te iwi.” 
As I said that means: “Puketotara is the mountain; Waitakere is the river; Te Au o te Whenua is the man; Te Kawerau a Maki are the people.” I make that point because I believe those should have been the opening words if we were to be fair and reasonable to the people of the area. That should have been the quotation in the preamble to the bill—being the pepeha or tribal saying of Te Kawerau-a-Maki—instead of the statement referred to in the bill. Of course the bill in the very few words after that is again incorrect. It refers to Te Waatarauihi and it does not give his surname which is Tawhia. 
This bill is terribly drafted. It shows no regard for the people of the area—Te Kawerau-a-Maki—who in Maori terms I understand hold mana whenua or traditional ownership of the land. That is one of the many systematic failings of this bill. 
Another thing I would like to have seen in the preamble to the bill as I am interested in history is making sure that anyone in this country in the future who looks at this bill understands the meaning of Waitakere especially in regard to the meaning given by Shane Jones the other day. In this context many people do not seem to realise or know that the name Waitakere is strictly the name of the large flat rock in the small bay between Te Ihumoana Island and Kotau Point. The name refers to the action of the sea in sweeping over this rock. Originally this was not a name of great significance but after the death of a Te Kawerau chieftain Te Rapatu Te Hore and the display of his remains on the rock the place took on an immense significance. Therefore the small bay became known as Waitakere as did the river that in times past flowed into it instead of to the south of Te Ihumoana as it does today. Most people think of the Waitakeres as the ranges but it seems that Waitakere had a different meaning originally and as a result of European settlement the name was given to the ranges themselves. 
As I say I believe that the bill is hopelessly flawed and there are many reasons for that. If we look for example at clause 9 and at clause 9(f) in particular there we have the nuts and bolts of this bill. This is what the bill is all about and it is where all these pages we have before us get down to the thing that some people are concerned about and wish to prevent those people who live in the 10000 hectare area from being able to enjoy. The provision states: “The objectives of establishing and maintaining the heritage are—” and it goes on and on. Hidden in the middle of it all is subclause (f) which states “to ensure that any subdivision or development in the area of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect—(i) is of an appropriate character scale and intensity; and (ii) does not adversely affect the heritage features; and (iii) does not contribute to urban sprawl:”. What does that mean? 
I am not surprised that the Auckland branch of the Law Society or whichever branch it was opposed this legislation. This will have a dreadful effect on anyone living in the 10000 hectares. It means that when people come to extend their house to put on an extra room because the family is growing or to put in a garage or something they will have to ensure that any development—and that is what it is—of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect is of an appropriate character and scale and does not adversely affect the heritage features. That is what all those people in all the societies mentioned by Lynne Pillay and David Cunliffe want to achieve. Otherwise as John Carter said what is the purpose of this bill? That is what it comes down to. That is the key as far as that is concerned. 
Of course Lynne Pillay also mentioned that this bill does not affect the Resource Management Act. Well if we look at clause 13 “Resource consents” it makes it quite clear by stating: “(2) The requirements in subsection (1)(a) are in addition to the requirements in the Resource Management Act 1991.” This bill is in addition to the Resource Management Act. The Resource Management Act is not subject to this bill; this bill is in addition to the Resource Management Act. 
When people buy a house in Glen Eden or Oratia when they are living in one of those areas and want to get something done or when they want to sell in those areas their lawyer will have to explain to them that this legislation will be another encumbrance on the title of the property. That is why the Law Society was upset. The lawyer will have to try to advise what buying a property in that 10000 hectare area will really mean to people who want to do that. The lawyer for the sellers will have to try to explain what it will do to the value of their property. It is all very well to say that property values within the 17500 hectares in the Waitakere Ranges might go up but that was always protected. That is a different matter. Outside that area people’s property values will be affected. That will be thanks to the Waitakere City Council and to those people who have supported this bill. 
As has been mentioned by David Cunliffe the really smart people have—very fairly—taken advantage of clause 30 of this bill. It says that people who have already lodged an application or have commenced whatever type of proceeding under the Resource Management Act that is applicable are still safe because their proceedings will have to continue under the old law. We can imagine how full the council must be of applications lodged under what are called transitional provisions. As far as the future for all of those Joe Bloggses—Joseph or Joanna Bloggs—is concerned if they want to do work to their house in that 10000 hectare area then they will have great problems. 
I wanted to have a provision in the bill whereby everyone living in that 10000 hectare area would be notified but my amendment was lost. I wanted a provision whereby everyone living in the 10000 hectares would have a notice on their property’s title but that provision was lost. I wonder why the Waitakere City Council did not want the actual owners of property in that area to know the way in which their property had been affected by this bill. New Zealand First opposes the bill. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for the good grace with which he accepted the ruling on the issue that he raised and I offer him special thanks for giving it to the House in Maori itself too.