Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1389] 
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill 
Procedure 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to the orders of the day that we are about to move to I have had a discussion with the whips of all parties and therefore on the basis of that discussion seek leave for the speaking times for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to be the same as for a members’ order of the day. In other words I seek leave for there to be two 10-minute speeches eight 5-minute speeches and a 5-minute speech in reply. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members have heard that and I have been assured that the member has sought the permission of the whips. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have no difficulty with what is proposed but in terms of the order can we just confirm that we would be using the format for members’ bills—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just want to caution members. I know we have some new members here but during points of order there is to be absolute silence. That member has his first yellow card. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I just seek clarification that we will be using the format for a Labour member’s bill today so Labour would take a 10-minute call National a 10-minute call and then other parties 5 minutes. Am I correct in assuming that? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 That was the basis on which I sought agreement from whips following a discussion with the Clerk so I am happy to give that confirmation to the member. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The confirmation has been given. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
First Reading 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a first time 
. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I stand here today as a proud activist for protection of the Waitakere Ranges the foothills and the wild west coast beaches. These are not just features of the land; together they represent a crucial part of our natural heritage and our national culture. This land is a beacon of enjoyment worthy of celebration and deserving of protection for generations to come. 
I want to pay tribute to many who have come before who have protected this land and who have campaigned to recognise its importance. I acknowledge the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt who decades ago had a vision for protecting the ranges. I acknowledge the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society and many others who have worked tirelessly for so long to promote protection to challenge inappropriate development and to nurture a dream that so many of us hold dear. I acknowledge tangata whenua whose comprehension of the splendour of this land and whose commitment to it was never in question and the families who have been there for generations and who have contributed so much to the history and culture of the special place we know today. Now to the present I acknowledge the landowners in Swanson Oratia Henderson Valley Titirangi Piha Karekare and the wider community who recognise the uniqueness of the ranges and who willingly take on a responsibility to ensure that that uniqueness is protected. 
The Waitakere Ranges form the western backdrop to metropolitan Auckland. They are a range of high bush-covered volcanic hills with steep slopes and high rainfall. They fall on the west to the rugged coast of the Tasman Sea and on the south to Manukau Harbour. On the city side they grade more gently through rural foothills. In places like Titirangi the ranges are urbanised but in a form that leaves the natural character dominant over the built environment. In other places they remain a wilderness on Auckland’s doorstep. The heart of the ranges is the 17000-hectare Waitakere Ranges Regional Park which was founded on reserves set aside from the late 1890s and incorporates the Auckland Centennial Memorial Park which was established in 1941. The heritage area to be established by the local bill embraces this public land and a further 10000 hectares of private land in the ranges and foothills. The heritage area is mainly in Waitakere City but extends naturally into the southern Rodney District. 
Three councils—the Auckland Regional Council Waitakere City Council and Rodney District Council—have come together to promote the bill. They have worked closely with iwi and local MPs. I acknowledge my colleagues David Cunliffe Chris Carter and Dover Samuels. They have engaged in a huge programme of public consultation on the drafts of the bill and have received outstanding endorsement both locally and throughout the region. 
It is appropriate that this measure is a local bill. The Waitakere Ranges and foothills are a discrete and distinctive area. Their natural beauty and landscape are outstanding in all of New Zealand but they are under pressure of urban sprawl. Their heritage value—both natural and rural—is at risk from metropolitan pressures. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has advised the House of the need to take action to protect this area before it is too late. It was recognised that ad hoc development was having a detrimental effect on the Waitakere Ranges—death by a thousand cuts. It is not just a matter of protection; it is not about drawing a line around the land locking the door and throwing the key away; it is a matter of promoting a compatible style of development and economic activity that is appropriate. The bill does that. 
However the bill does not erode private property rights and it does not take any private land; rather it enhances the rights of the vast majority of residents who do not want to see ad hoc development. It also strengthens the existing parkland but it does not turn private land into parkland. It identifies and protects heritage features including current activities such as farming. The Waitakere foothills have microclimates that are very favourable to horticultural crops. The area has been famous for its apples pears tamarillos and grapes but that is changing. The bill focuses on managing the transition from now obsolete rural uses to new vibrant uses that are also rural in character. The local area management plan provisions will allow communities to express their own character and to assess developmental proposals against long-term goals. The bill builds on the Resource Management Act and provides guidance to councils in decision making to consider the long-term and cumulative effects. 
The key to this bill is that it has a goal which is a vision of what the area might be like in 50 or 100 years. It works towards that goal. It does not freeze development but it does ensure that this precious area does not just become another example of urban sprawl. The ranges and foothills will continue to provide a quality choice for residential living but residential growth is nearing capacity. The ranges will continue to supply more than a third of Auckland’s metropolitan water supply. The ranges and beaches will be a Mecca for the relaxation and recreation of Aucklanders a respite from urban life and a showcase to visitors. They will be a celebration of our unique and wonderful landscape. 
The bill recognises the tangata whenua of the area and imports from the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 and claim settlement legislation statutory devices to better recognise those important associations. It also builds on the heritage richness of pioneer families for which the west is famous. 
The bill secures the heritage of the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. It creates a new place the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and it provides for the nurturing of what makes the place special. But more than that the bill reinforces the containment of urban Auckland. It points towards an urban future away from the ranges where urban development is intensified around transport nodes and activity centres. The bill preserves the Waitakere Ranges and foothills and coastline as a very special area that people live in work in and enjoy. It is an area that is valued and will be protected for our children our children’s children and way beyond. 
As the member of Parliament for Waitakere I am proud to take charge of the bill in the House. I warmly congratulate the three councils on their foresight in drafting and promoting the bill. It is my strong recommendation to the House that the parties support the legislation. I commend the bill to the House. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I find myself a little surprisingly agreeing with the speaker before me in many respects. Without a doubt Waitakere is the absolutely beautiful wild west that deserves to be protected and I support protecting the ranges. In fact out of the many hundreds of Waitakere residents I have met and spoken to I have yet to meet a local who does not support protecting the ranges. The area is not only a magnificent asset to west Auckland with its spectacular backdrop to the city and its natural expanse of parkland and beautiful beaches but it is also an asset to all New Zealand. 
In light of our desire to protect the ranges and considering their uniqueness that adds to the beauty of all New Zealand I believe that we should make the 17000 hectares of regional park into a national park. I would like to address certain areas of concern with the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill but I will first address the awesome opportunity that we have to turn this area into a national park. 
 There are no national parks north of Taupo and since the National Parks Act affords those areas greater protection than any other Act it seems as if it provides an obvious solution to a complex issue. The Act states in section 4(1) that its purpose is for “… preserving in perpetuity as national parks for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit use and enjoyment of the public areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality ecological systems or natural features so beautiful unique or scientifically important that their preservation is in the national interest.” 
 The Waitakere Ranges fit those criteria easily. It is time to use all our might and lock in that area without uncertainty. The proposed bill does not come even close to doing that. Currently three pieces of legislation could protect the Waitakere Ranges and the surrounding foothills and coastal areas: the National Parks Act the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act. Instead we have before us yet another piece of legislation that at the end of the day will give us no certainty of environmental benefit. 
I have yet to meet anyone who wants to see a tight-fitting subdivision in the foothills or in our wild and wonderful coastal areas. Local people choose to live in that part of the country because they absolutely love it and appreciate its wildness and uniqueness. As this matter has cleverly become an emotive issue between those who support the bill and those who do not the latter have become painted as evil landowners who want to chop up the land into a thousand bits and who have no consideration for the environment their neighbours and indeed the area as a whole. 
Nothing could be further from the truth; in fact what a ridiculous argument. Some of those people who oppose the bill do indeed own land in the area but from my own observations they are as passionate and as slightly fanatical—they are westies after all—as those who support the bill. The fact that they value private property rights and feel that the district plan and the Resource Management Act are enough to protect the foothills actually makes them pretty smart—because they are right. 
Let us look at the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Firstly members should not let the title fool them. This bill is not only about the ranges; this bill should be called the “Waitakere Foothills Heritage Area Bill”. Over 21000 people live in the area proposed in the bill. They will be affected. This legislation is not only about protection but also about the erosion of private property rights. A local district plan should be exactly that—a plan for the district. It should plan how people want their district to be. 
Let us not forget the Resource Management Act which restricts what people can do on their property and which has such a myriad of compliance requirements that people cannot just carve up their land willy-nilly. For that matter they can hardly cut down a tree or anything else on their own property. The legal effect of this bill is to add another tier to the requirements of the Resource Management Act. Already there is widespread acknowledgment that the Resource Management Act has generated far too much paper and too few environmental improvements. It suffers from a lack of clarity and excessive bureaucracy. This bill would only make that situation worse. 
The bill refers to protecting the heritage area—protecting it against what? Will it protect it against subdivision and development? There are no specific measures within the bill to control subdivision. The bill does not even lay out in clear terms measures that will protect the very thing it is trying to protect the area from—because it does not need to. The Resource Management Act and the district plan already do that. If we add in the protection provisions of a national park the facts are clear that this bill is unnecessary. 
Let us talk about a few of the clauses. Clause 9(f) states that an objective of the bill is to “ensure that any subdivision either individually or cumulatively—(i) is of an appropriate character scale and intensity;”. What is an appropriate character scale and intensity? Who is defining “appropriate”? For that matter what is inappropriate? Will that have to be determined time and time again in a court of law? How will people know what boundaries fit into an appropriate character or scale? Clause 13(2) refers to a “restricted discretionary activity”. What is a restricted discretionary activity? It is not defined at all. Clause 15(3)(a) refers to “aesthetic coherence”. 
And there is more. The explanatory notes mentions “inappropriate development”. So what is inappropriate development? Is it one house per hectare no houses 20 houses; no halls no schools 10 schools? There is no definition of what “inappropriate development” really is. The explanatory note states: “… landscape values have been degraded to a level where they are now no longer regarded as ‘outstanding’.” What does that mean? Under whose definition of “outstanding” have the landscape values been degraded? 
The preamble states: “Whakarongo mai e nga iwi ki ta te korero i mua. He ika tenei whenua. Ko te tangata nana i huti ko Maui. Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.” I apologise for that pronunciation not being quite as good as it could have been. Let me translate: “Listen all of the assembled tribes to this the talk of olden times this land is a fish. The person who fished it up was Maui. I will remain here on it indeed until I die.” That is actually an awesome statement and I think it says a lot. It sounds better in Maori than it does in English. But what on earth does it have to do with legislation? How will that protect our flora and fauna? How will that really protect what needs to be protected in the Waitakere Ranges? 
The campaign to protect the ranges—and by the way we still do not know specifically against what—has been an emotive one. Of course everyone wants to protect the ranges. As I have stated I have yet to meet anyone who does not support protecting our environment. But nowhere in this bill is it clear how the ranges would be protected against some of our most serious threats. Introduced pests and invasive weeds are a continued concern as is the dumping of cars in our secluded bush areas. Visitor management issues are raised time and time again as a huge problem for various coastal communities in the proposed areas. This bill does not deal with any of that. The water quality in lakes and streams continues to deteriorate and the native bush is taking a hammering. How does this legislation help with any of those very serious issues? 
This bill will not offer the level of protection of the ranges that the people of Waitakere are hoping for. Our regional park needs to become a national park to be secured as important for all New Zealand. The Local Government Act is about empowering local people to run their communities. The district plan and the Resource Management Act should protect the foothills and the coastal areas. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First thoroughly supports the intentions behind this legislation. I lived and taught in that area for a number of years and I even played league for Glenora. As a result of that I reckon I can claim to be a real westie. It is a lovely area not just the bush-clad hills but also the rolling orchards and vineyards in the foothills. 
However many areas of New Zealand are of stunning beauty and we have legislation that is supposed to provide the sort of protection this legislation sets out to achieve. It is called the Resource Management Act. It is supposed to allow for development in a planned and calculated manner that takes into consideration the views of communities and that protects the very elements this legislation seeks to protect. 
If this legislation is not working to protect the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area there are two possible reasons. The first is that the current legislation for protecting areas on a national basis is flawed. The second is that the Auckland Regional Council the Waitakere City Council and the Rodney District Council are not utilising the legislation appropriately—that they are making bad decisions or inappropriate decisions. 
The explanatory note states: “There is also a lack of long-term assurance about resource management standards. At present notwithstanding robust rules in district plans there is no certainty that inappropriate activities will not be granted consent and that the district plan’s provisions will not be reviewed and undermined through the 10-yearly reviews required under the Resource Management Act or through Council and privately initiated plan changes.” However the legislation we are discussing today in fact depends also upon the Auckland Regional Council the Rodney District Council and the Waitakere City Council to make it work. 
I suggest to the House that it is an absolute absurdity to suggest that the way to fix up failings in the planning processes of those councils is by putting them through a new piece of legislation that requires exactly the same councils to meet its objectives. 
However the problem could lie elsewhere; it could lie in the legislation. Once again I go back to the explanatory notes which state: “A key concern about the Resource Management Act in practice is that individual applications for development consent tend to be considered on a site by site basis and the cumulative effects and precedent effects of incremental development are difficult to assess and manage. Most notably there is a lack of guidance about the thresholds that might trigger the cumulative effects test and a focus on testing applications for their effects on the present environment rather than the desired future environment (including amenity).” 
New Zealand First holds to the view that if the problem lies with the principal Act then that is what we should fix in order to address the issue. We should not put through ad hoc legislation to cover specific situations. In that sense New Zealand First is consistent with the position it took regarding the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. I live in Ngunguru which is on the coast and there are very real concerns about what is happening to the coastline all the way up the eastern coastline of Northland because the Resource Management Act does not adequately deal with cumulative effects. New Zealand First says that if this is the case then we should fix up the Resource Management Act. 
A number of other considerations lead us to reject the bill. The first is the potential impact on the value of landowners’ property and whether that will be reflected in decreased valuations. If that is the case it could be an inadvertent theft of property rights. An argument has been put forward that within the Waitakere foothills there is a heritage landscape of orchards and vineyards. I hope the promoters of the bill are able to see the irony of trying to legislate for the protection of landscapes that have been created through the deliberate destruction of the natural landscape that existed earlier. 
Finally the bill requires regular monitoring and reporting on progress towards the objectives—in fact on a 5-year basis—and on the funding impact of activities within the heritage area. We all know what that means: more bureaucracy and more costs to ratepayers. Although we applaud the intentions of the bill we do not believe that that will affect its purpose. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Because these are 5-minute speeches I will do members the courtesy of ringing the bell with 1 minute to go so that members know. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill on behalf of the Green Party. The bill should be supported because of the particular circumstances that pertain in this case—in particular the enormous pressure that is placed on the Waitakere area due to the population pressure from the Auckland urban area and the urgency of the need for protection. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has described the dismemberment of the Waitakere Ranges as a “death by a thousand cuts” and I think that is an apt description. Protection has been requested for over 30 years now and it is high time that something was done. 
At this moment I would like to mention Gary Taylor one of the founders of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society and to acknowledge the work he put into this issue. I also acknowledge John Edgar who is the current president of that society. I also take the opportunity to mention the many Green Party members who have been working on this campaign along with other people in the community in other political parties and in particular Kath Dewar. 
However even though the Green Party supports the bill it is concerned to ensure that the problems the bill intends to address are dealt with in a systemic rather than piecemeal fashion. I agree with comments by Paula Bennett that the Resource Management Act should be able to protect the hinterland of the Waitakere Ranges. It seems straightforward: the ranges would be classified as a special zone with a strong district plan with clear objectives in place to protect those areas and with rules on how those objectives would be implemented. That should be sufficient. 
However we also have to recognise in the House that the courts are starting to open that assurance up to question. In particular the court decision that stated that the Thames-Coromandel District Council could not prohibit particular activities such as mining—even just from Department of Conservation land and from the coastal marine area—demonstrates that the courts are beginning to interpret that legislation in a way that was not intended by Parliament. So I agree with Mr Brian Donnelly that the House needs to address that issue. It does perhaps need to look at the Resource Management Act in order to clarify the intentions of Parliament with regard to those kinds of areas next time we do one of our perennial Resource Management Act reviews. 
But in the meantime we also have to be aware that the Waitakere area is an area of particular importance. It is under enormous pressure because of the population growth that is occurring in Auckland. We are seeing the dismemberment of the area and it is quite right that the House in this instance should support a bill of this nature. But we should bear in mind that we do not want to see a proliferation of local government bills come before the House to designate this area or that area as a special area because of course we would then have the potentially unintended consequence that all areas not designated would then be considered not to be special areas and not to deserve protection. We have to be really clear that it would be a substantial misreading of the intention of the House if any court or any other person was to assume that a designation such as this one is intended to denigrate or take away from any other place that deserved protection under any district plan or under the Resource Management Act. 
We do support the bill. We look forward to it going to the Local Government and Environment Committee to work through its details and we commend it to the House. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Since time immemorial whanau hapu and iwi have been the custodians over the lands mountains waterways and airspace within each tribal area. As kaitiaki we have assumed the responsibility of caring for the environment to the best of our ability and for the benefit of all. Noku tenei whenua no oku tupuna. This is my land given to me by my ancestors. Such is the thinking that guides our thoughts on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I am pleased to speak to the bill because the Waitakeres fall within the boundaries of Te Taitokerau. The bill aims to promote the natural regional and local significance of the area which extends from the Manukau Harbour to Titirangi Karekare Piha Muriwai and Tirikohua Point. 
The Maori Party welcomes initiatives that provide innovative solutions to enduring environmental issues. The challenge for us here is simple: it is to decide whether the bill provides such solutions. The bill offers protection but whose interests does it protect? Does it protect private property rights? Does it protect those who have already built in the Waitakeres and do not want others to join in sharing the beauty they enjoy? Does it protect the rights of the tangata whenua? Does it protect te taiao which includes the flora and fauna? Or does it just protect jobs for the Auckland Regional Council the Waitakere City Council the Rodney District Council the Department of Conservation and all the resource management consultants? How will the voices of Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara Te Uri o Hau Ngati Rongo Te Kawerau-a-Maki Ngati Whatua ki Orakei and all those who share common whakapapa ties to this land be sustained in an ongoing and a meaningful way? 
Tangata whenua have a vested interest in protecting the Waitakere Ranges for generations to come. It is their right to be party to and to direct such measures as will ensure the well-being and good health of the environment. It would also be wrong to assume that when Te Taumata Runanga gave its support to the draft legislation that meant unqualified support. We draw the attention of the House to points raised by Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara which agreed to endorse the legislation on the condition that clause 29(c) which acknowledges the existing rights be enforced. That clause states that the legislation will not limit or affect “the ability of any person to bring a claim … relating to the foreshore seabed or other land or natural resources of the Heritage Area arising out of the Treaty of Waitangi or any Act”. We would hope to see that clause strengthened to ensure the role of tangata whenua is maintained with the passing of this legislation. Indeed if this bill proceeds to a select committee we will do our best to ensure that the status of tangata whenua is not compromised in any way. We are aware that Ngati Whatua and Nga Rima o Kaipara are involved in a partnership of iwi and local councils. 
It is ironic that this bill is being considered on a day when the spirit of partnership that lies at the heart of the Treaty of Waitangi is being threatened by another bill being introduced to delete references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. Well I have some sympathy with the frustrations some MPs have regarding the flip-flop nature of this administration towards the Treaty. Eliminating reference to the Treaty’s principles such as they are will not solve the confusion this House has towards the place of the Treaty. The Maori Party would remind both the member and this House that Te Tiriti o Waitangi did indeed establish a partnership: a covenant that imposes the duty on both partners to act reasonably honestly and in good faith. Within that covenant is the commitment that Maori will retain rangatiratanga over their resources and taonga and have all the rights and privileges of citizenship. What that means is part of the debate we are yet to have. 
At this point we turn again to this bill and the concept of protection. We will be watching this bill to ensure that the Crown’s duty of active protection of Maori access to and use of their lands and waters is complied with and we remind the drafters of this legislation that the provisions of clause 29 also cover three specific land interests including Kauwahia Island Ihumoana Island and the constable Maori reserve. Ngati Whatua holds an interest in those lands and waters and indeed in all areas considered for inclusion within the proposed bill. Unfortunately over the last 50 years the environment has degraded to the extent that it needs urgent attention if it is to survive into the next century. We applaud the precautionary approach described in the bill which aims to prevent outcomes that impact adversely on the heritage feature particularly the threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment. 
The Maori Party will support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we will probably follow very closely what occurs. We look to the select committee process to see that Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki get a fair hearing and that they are fully involved in round-table discussions that are reasonable honest and done in good faith. 
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. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It has been a pleasure to listen to the debate on this bill which I think a lot of thought has gone into. It has been a very interesting debate so I have listened with some interest. I think every New Zealander and certainly every Aucklander has a close affinity with the Waitakere Ranges and they are a very very beautiful part of New Zealand. But then we are blessed to live in a very beautiful country with so many beautiful areas. Again like Mr Peter Dunne I understand the sentiment perfectly that what we want to do is preserve that beauty and maintain that environment for years and years to come. 
But I searched through this bill and listened most intently to the debate to understand what the problem is in our current planning law and processes that this bill is designed to address. That is where I am stuck because we have a Resource Management Act. There may well be problems with it but let us address them. This bill does not identify any problems with the Resource Management Act. So we have the beautiful Waitakere Ranges which we want to protect and preserve for future generations but I ask myself why we need this bill. We have a Resource Management Act—and heaven knows the Waitakere City Council has been prepared to exercise enormous powers over property owners in order to implement its plans—so I am left failing to understand and not having heard one reason why this bill is needed to go alongside that Act. 
I pick up Mr Peter Dunne’s point: are we to have a similar bill for the Port Hills? Will we have a similar one for the beautiful city of Tauranga? 
Hon Member 
: Mt Eden. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: For Mt Eden—of course; it is a beautiful spot. So on and on we will go. But of course we will not because we have a national Resource Management Act that allows local bodies to implement their plans which is exactly what—as I understand it—this bill tries to do. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I thought you were against it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I am against this bill. I am explaining why I am voting against it and if the member would give me the courtesy of listening he would understand why. I am actually picking up his precise point which was that if there are gaps in the Resource Management Act we should be addressing them. 
I heard the Green Party member clearly say that his party does not like the idea of having hotchpotch Acts of Parliament in order to address local issues of concern in relation to environmental protection. That is a point I am reinforcing; I think I am agreeing with the Green member. The only thing that is different about my position is that I am actually following through the conclusion the Greens made and therefore I will vote against the bill. That is why I do not understand why the Green Party is saying what it says and then voting for it. We do not want to get into a situation where we have a hotchpotch of legislation coming through this House for every nice bit of New Zealand because living in this country it would never end. 
I also pick up Mr Hone Harawira’s point. He said that this legislation will be great for the bureaucrats because it is just another planning process. I do not understand how we can conserve our resources by putting more and more bureaucrats into power by putting more and more planning processes into power and by creating more and more hurdles for people to jump through. 
I come back to this final point. I am always concerned—and Nandor Tanczos brought up this issue—about the moves to put these sorts of bills through this House because invariably they involve the diminution of property rights of people: Maori Pakeha everyone. Why? Because these pieces of legislation are all about shifting power to the bureaucrats and away from the people whose resources and land it is—indeed the very people who will protect and care for that environment. I have not see bureaucrats or local body politicians care as much for the environment as the actual people who own properties themselves and that includes the tangata whenua. I look askance very much at this legislation. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In the words of Waitakere City Council mayor Bob Harvey: “The Waitakere Ranges are an indelible blue image on the western horizon—a glorious backdrop to New Zealand’s most populated thriving metropolis.” This bill proposes a way of ensuring that that magnificent area is kept for the enjoyment of future generations. 
The bill reflects the local community’s desire for a local solution. The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill tackles the struggle local communities face on a day to day basis—the balancing of private landholder rights with public expectations—which the Waitakere City Council the Auckland Regional Council and the Rodney District Council have joined forces to resolve. The notion of a local bill to protect the Waitakere Ranges has been in the pipeline for many years now. Far from disenfranchising local communities it has brought them together. Its first reading today marks a critical step in how the bush foothills and streams of the ranges might be managed to ensure the right balance between development and protection. 
I support the bill being considered by the select committee. The committee must now balance issues that local communities present to Parliament and balance the issues that private landowners’ rights and public values will also present including those intrinsic values of the ranges themselves. That will not be an easy task. The amendment to the Resource Management Act last year is testament to that. This bill will form a catalyst for debate and form a resolution hopefully for that debate by focusing on the limits to private choice for the benefit of the common good. The common good is pretty clear. Whether or not one is an Auckland resident the Waitakere Ranges are part and parcel of our country. One-third of New Zealand lives on the ranges’ doorstep. It is an area of the country that undeniably possesses an immensely strong landscape identity. 
The rationale behind the bill is well known. Disputes over development pressure have been longstanding and Waitakere City’s innovative approach to its district plan has met with an increased desire for development. Its community is clearly of the view that the ranges are not currently protected well enough and that something extra is needed—particularly when it comes to determining when enough is enough. Mayor Bob Harvey referred to the current management regime as a death by a thousand cuts and as such it is understandable that new legislation has been seen as a way to achieve better protection. 
This approach is not new and it is not new since the introduction of the Resource Management Act. Local Acts such as the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001 and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 are instruments that have historically catered for localised circumstances. I fully acknowledge the difficulties faced by some local authorities in delivering the intent of the Resource Management Act. The purpose of recent amendments to the Resource Management Act centred on this and building upon the workable system already in place at the local authority level has led to this Government looking into a complementary programme of providing greater national guidance and support for the implementation of the Resource Management Act. 
I thoroughly commend the way in which these councils and their communities have come to an agreement on this process after a lengthy debate. The job for the Local Government and Environment Committee is to ensure that the approach of the bill is the most appropriate. The committee’s job will be to check whether the bill meets its objectives and to ensure that it does so. That is a job that only the select committee with public submissions can do. The committee will need to compare the options proposed by the bill with those already available in the Resource Management Act. The select committee hearing this matter should reflect on what could be gained from other instruments such as national policy statements. It should ask whether the approach is flexible enough to cope with change and whether the process and policies are fair and workable. 
In conclusion I support the bill’s consideration by referral to the select committee. The debate and dialogue on the matter must continue. I have the utmost confidence that the ensuing progress of the bill will reflect those landscape values sought to be protected by the local community and I trust that a straightforward and clear outcome will arise for those living in enjoying and working in such a highly valued piece of New Zealand. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 We are nearing the end of the debate on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill in the name of Lynne Pillay. I would like to make two or three acknowledgments before we start. What is not in question is that the Waitakere area is a special and unique area and needs protection. That is not in question. Nor is the desire of Lynne Pillay who has sponsored the bill. What is in question is whether what she is attempting to do will actually deliver and whether it actually clarifies the matter. In that regard I believe it does not. 
I also at this point acknowledge my colleague Paula Bennett who spoke so eloquently as the second speaker in this debate. She outlined a lot of the areas of vagueness in the bill and said that it is a unique area and as one who lives in that area she wants a higher degree of protection as for a national park. I thought that that request had a great deal of merit. I also acknowledge my friend and colleague Tau Henare who would were there more speaking slots have taken part in this debate. But in discussion he said he was happy for me to make some principled arguments against this particular piece of legislation—not I emphasis against the necessity to protect an icon like the Waitakere Ranges. 
This bill is very vague. I have read it twice and I am not exactly sure what it means or how it actually applies. If we read the explanatory note we see it states that the bill’s objective is to create a strategic overarching framework. Well I read the bill and I did not find that framework but I did find a bunch of sentiments. It is when we try to apply sentiments to finding a solution that we create something of a problem. This bill could well be called the “Environmental Lawyers Enhancement Bill” because they are the ones who will gain the most if the House does pass it. There is a degree of vagueness that will make development activity in this area a litigant activity. 
I will just run though clause 9 in order to illustrate the vagueness in the bill. Clause 9 is headed “Heritage Area objectives”—not principles not requirements not statutes but objectives. So we have immediately a list of items that are open to interpretation. Let us look at paragraph (b): “take a holistic approach to managing the Waitakere Ranges …”. What on earth does that mean if someone wants to undertake an activity in that particular area? Who defines “holistic” and what does that actually mean? Clause 9(c) states: “adopt a precautionary approach towards decisions…”. Well again as previous speakers have said the Resource Management Act stands to protect those iconic parts of New Zealand. This bill is in fact an admission that this Labour Government has sat on its hands and not dealt with the issues around the Resource Management Act that would provide the protection that is needed. Then paragraph (d) states: “recognise and avoid the adverse cumulative effects …”. Well of course one of the adverse cumulative effects in the Waitakere Ranges is people. So I am not sure what this means in terms of stopping people from coming in there. 
We have got ourselves tied in knots in the past with various pieces of legislation that are as vague as this. I ask members to have a look at the very arguments that are taking place over development in the South Island over the land tenure bills—the Crown pastoral land legislation and the land tenure procedures—where we have this vagueness and we have reports written in the very language that this bill embraces. I say that yes this House needs to protect the Waitakere Ranges but it should do so through the Resource Management Act. It should not pass legislation that purely opens up a position of litigation over those who actually want to do something in that area. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 E nga iwi o te Waitakere e nga iwi o te motu ki a Ngati Whatua ki Tamaki-makau-rau ki a Te Kawerau-a-Maki kia ora tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
To the people of Waitakere and of the nation to Ngati Whatua in Auckland to Te Kawerau-a-Maki greetings to you collectively and to us all 
]. 
I wish to mihi to those who have gone before to those rangatira whose genealogy lies in the bill presented to this House today to the previous Speaker of this House the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt to Justice Tony Randerson and to Gary Taylor who some 30 years ago gave birth to this idea. I wish to mihi to those who have brought this bill to fruition today: people like the Harveys sitting in the gallery today; to Lynne Pillay my friend and colleague; to people like John Edgar Greg Presland Denise Yates Kath Dewar Tim O’Shea the kaumatua and kuia the guardians of the Waitakere Ranges who reflect the views of the vast bulk of the people of Waitakere and the people of Auckland. If members do not believe me they can believe Colmar Brunton which in one cross-sectoral scientific survey told us that 81 percent of Auckland residents want the ranges protected permanently and 77 percent of Waitakere City residents and 58 percent of landowners in the Waitakere Ranges want this bill. 
What is the problem this bill will fix? The answer is very simple. It has been said in this House and it has been stated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment: “Death by a thousand cuts” or in technical terms “incremental effects”. Yes the Resource Management Act works for most problems and there are mechanisms complementary with this bill that can be made to work well. But wherever the boundary is drawn between the city and the bushline there will always be a financial incentive to move the line one block further to cut down one tree more to build one more house to build one more subdivision—and the point is that once done those things cannot ever be undone. 
Tariana Turia 
: We know. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes Maori Party members know. They know that the kuia and matua of Waitakere City of Ngati Whatua and of Te Kawerau-a-Maki give their wholehearted support to this bill and we call upon the Maori Party to give its wholehearted support to this bill in keeping with the wishes of the rohe and of the tangata whenua. 
This is a moderate bill that employs the processes of the Resource Management Act and it is very simple. It requires any future change to a district plan to be undertaken in harmony with the objectives and purposes of this legislation. Nobody will lose any rights to have a consent considered. Nobody will lose a single extant property right. Not a single subdivision currently approved will be voided. But we will overcome the problem of incremental effects because in the future when the 101st application is being considered by the commissioners or by the council they will know that it must be in keeping with the wishes of the peoples of Auckland and of New Zealand who have set a long-term vision. It provides the kaupapa it provides the context and it provides the permanence clarity and certainty that are necessary because the effects are inter-generational. 
We have a choice: we could steal the land from our grandchildren and give it to today’s property developers by bulldozing the bush or we could leave our children—[ 
Interruption 
] The so-called aspirant for Waitakere laughs. Does she not know the money that bankrolled the Structure Plan Advocates Network campaign? She represents the people of Waitakere neither in title nor in fact. If I were her and I had any intention of standing in that part of New Zealand ever again I would change my mind real quick because she will never be elected in Waitakere if she opposes this bill against the will of four out of five residents of that electorate. 
Over the last 3 years Lynne Pillay and I have sat in I do not know how many working-groups with the councils and the members of the community to process this bill through. I have campaigned for this bill in the last two election campaigns. If there is nothing else that is clear about west Auckland politics it is that the people there care about their environment and this bill will help us to put that care into action. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I would also like to add my thanks. I did have a list of names I was going to rattle off but my good friend David Cunliffe has done so. There are people who have worked alongside David me Chris Carter and also Dover Samuels such as the members of Waitakere City Council led by the mayor Rodney District Council and of course the Auckland Regional Council. It has been a real culmination of so much hard work passion and energy and it is a really proud moment to stand in this House today to talk about this bill. 
I also thank with real sincerity the Maori Party and the Green Party for their supportive statements and of course my colleagues and friends in the Labour Party for their support to enable this ground-breaking legislation to go to a select committee. This will give many supporters of the bills such as landowners iwi environmental groups community groups westies and in fact all Kiwis the opportunity to have their say to explain why long-term protection of the ranges is so vitally important and why it has won their hearts and minds. To Paula Bennett who describes this as an emotive issue I say that that is rich. What irony! Earlier today we heard Nick Smith preach about credibility. That is a joke in itself. 
Some months ago pre-election before the Labour-led Government was re-elected the National Party being unable to get a local MP to speak against it shipped in its most engaging eloquent speaker Nick Smith who claimed that this bill was a land grab. Those comments were echoed by Paula Bennett. Now the legislation is deemed waffly. To not be aware of the problem is an indication of being out of touch with Waitakere. 
The national park theme is a different issue. It does not address the problem of the cumulative effects of ad hoc subdivision on private land unless Miss Bennett is proposing that private land is part of the national park—and I suggest that she will be in a heap of trouble with the people in Waitakere if she tries to run that one. 
Pleading ignorance is one thing; acting ignorantly is another. If members do not understand then they should read the report of the environment commissioner and talk to the people of Waitakere. They should talk to the Henderson Valley residents who spent $50000 fighting inappropriate subdivision in the Environment Court. They won their case but at tremendous financial cost pressure and pain. 
 I find it extraordinary that the National Party spokespeople on this bill are not elected MPs for the area the bill covers. I know that it is very very hard to find elected National MPs in that area but there is one and I would ask John Key why you have not taken a call. Why will you not stand up and take a call on this issue? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate. The use of the word “you” brings the Speaker into the debate. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I ask John Key why he does not take a call on this important issue. 
David Bennett 
: He’s not here. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member said that John Key is not here. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member said that Mr Speaker. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: The reference to an absent member is out of order and you might want to point that out to the member. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not understand that the member on my right actually referred to the absence of any member. That is the way I took it. She did not actually do that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is important for local MPs to make their point when they have been elected. I remind this House that before this election I stood very clearly on support for this bill. I said that I was committed to supporting it and I was re-elected as the member of Parliament for Waitakere. Paula Bennett did not stand on that ticket and she was not elected. The polls that my good friend David Cunliffe has spoken about clearly show there is majority support for this bill. It is with tremendous pride that I stand alongside my colleagues my friends in a visionary Government and promote a visionary bill to this House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee