Jones Dail: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Jones Dail: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14432] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 In the preamble as I have mentioned already there are clearly two areas of land being considered. One is the 17000 hectares that belong to us all in Auckland and the other is the 10000 remaining hectares. 
When one reads the preamble and looks at say recital (9) we see that it is worded in a way to give everyone fear about what is going to happen to the 17000 acres. Recital (9) suggests that it applies to the 17000 acres which of course it cannot. Recital (9) reads as follows: “The area is subject to development and urban intensification pressures.” Well that cannot apply to the 17000 hectares because it belongs to the people of Auckland and the Auckland Regional Council. Nothing can happen there. 
Recital (9) goes on to state: “These pressures are compounded by the area’s proximity to metropolitan Auckland and threaten to undermine the unique natural landscape cultural historic and community features of the area including its farming and rural character:”. In so far as the 17000 hectares is concerned its unique natural landscape and its cultural historic and community features are always protected because we in Auckland will make sure they are protected and no law is required to give them any further protection because shared ownership means that we in Auckland as ratepayers of the Auckland Regional Council will make sure that nothing will happen to that land. 
However where we are today of course is in dramatic comparison with the way in which the founders of the Auckland regional park area established it. They bought the land. As they required more land they went out and bought it. They added to it so over time the people of Auckland came to own 17000 hectares of land. Nothing can happen to it. What is the contrast today? Today instead of going out and buying the land—this additional 10000 hectares which has been in private ownership for a long time—the Waitakere City Council wants effectively to gain control as if it were the owner of the land and control the way in which people use the land. That is what I call socialism by stealth by the Waitakere City Council. The council has restricted one’s use of one’s own land. In the old days that land would have been bought but the council does not want to buy it; it wants to restrict people’s use of it. 
I have put forward a couple of amendments that make it clear that on every title in that 10000 hectares there is to be a note stating that it is subject to this bill because that will be important when one comes to sell it. Any lawyer acting for a prospective buyer will have to advise buyers: “Look I can’t tell you what is going to happen to that 10000 hectares. It is subject to this bill.” It will reduce the saleability of the land in the area. Lawyers will make $500 to $1000 a time when advising purchasers on how the land can be used. I have suggested in another amendment that it should be noted on the title because a principle of the Land Transfer Act is that one should have a clear definition of what is on one’s title. There should be a  
Gazette 
 notice stating that this land the 10000 acres is subject to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. 
If the member in charge of this bill says that it is not socialism by stealth I say “Well prove it.” Let us make everybody aware of what is happening. Let us get something registered on the titles so that everybody knows and so that everybody advising a person—and I suspect that one may be a real estate agent; there are real estate agents in the Committee—on selling a piece of land is able to say to the buyer: “Look this bill will stop you from doing additions to your house.” for example. That is what this bill will do. Because of the nature of the land owners will be prevented from putting additions on. That is why my other amendment refers to housing needs—so that it can be made quite clear that those people who live and work in the area will also be protected in respect of their housing needs. 
The bill is silent on housing needs. If a person had a family of one that rose to three and that person wanted to extend his or her house and put in a second bedroom a third bedroom or a garage this bill would prevent that person from doing that in this area. That person would have to go through an extra resource consent process to establish whether that particular extension affected the area. If the member in charge of this bill is quite clear that it is not socialism by stealth let us make sure that everybody in the area knows what is happening. Let us have it done by 30 September 2008 and let us see whether this member is returned to Parliament at the next election.