Roy Eric: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Roy Eric: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14457] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am indebted to you for your wisdom Mr Chairperson in allowing me an opportunity to speak on this bill. I was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee and I heard the submissions on the first part of the bill. I spoke in the first reading debate and I have travelled over the Waitakere Ranges and observed the suggestions made in regard to this bill. So thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. However in coming back to this bill after being away for most of the deliberations the select committee has made I find myself very confused. 
I think the initial point was that there needed to be some clarity around the purpose of the bill. Recital (2) of the preamble states that the area is of local regional and national significance. I have some difficulty with that particularly “national” significance because my background is in Fiordland Stewart Island and places where there is a much more pristine and exciting experience. However if this area is of national significance as I think Paula Bennett suggested we should protect it. But with this bill we have created the most litigious legislation I have ever seen and the previous speaker Dail Jones highlighted some of the difficulties in terms of wanting or needing to do something. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 8 which talks about the area being of national significance and its heritage features. I am particularly drawn to new paragraph (i) of clause 8(2). I would like the member in charge of the bill to explain to me precisely what those words mean. We want to get a blueprint where some people can make the decisions that the honourable member Dail Jones illustrated if there is a need to do something. Paragraph (i) states: “the subservience of the built environment to the area’s natural and rural landscape”. What does that actually mean when we come to hearings and a consent is required? Could the member in charge of the bill also explain new subparagraph (iii). She must have agreed with it because it is marked “unanimous”. It states: “the rural character of the foothills to the east and north and their intricate pattern of farmland orchards vineyards uncultivated areas indigenous vegetation and dispersed low-density settlement with few urban-scale activities:”. 
In terms of wanting to get consents I can see litigation after litigation lots of lawyers’ fees and procrastinations and hold-ups. But let us go back to first principles I say to Lynne Pillay: if this area is of national significance and having heard the discussions in the Local Government and Environment Committee and five generations of submitters saying in their presentations: “You want to capture my private land and put restrictions on me.” we then come up with the words: “the subservience of the built environment” meaning that these people are subservient to the built environment in a land where property rights are important. We heard from people representing five generations of lineage. I have a view that the Waitakere Ranges are important and I think there is a significant portion of them that should be protected but if we want to protect the area then we should set out and protect it in a national park or in some provision for which there is clarity and allow those areas that are on the fringe or are necessary for Auckland’s development to have a clearer road map to be able to do the things they need to do. 
There are others issues too. I have grave concerns about clause 7 “Boundary extension by Order in Council”. The House has got into the habit of issuing delegated responsibilities on a regular basis and as I have said as a member of the Regulations Review Committee I happen to see a goodly number of them coming before us. We say that we are protecting this heritage area for national and local reasons and then we put in a provision where that boundary can be extended by Order in Council. Who are the people who actually have this right to extend this area? Well it is the Minister but rightly there are some provisions in the Local Government Act that the Minister has to consult. But then I ask the member in charge of the bill to tell me what the appeal procedures are in terms of this power to the Minister to annexe further areas into the heritage area. What are the procedures for those people who have private property rights in that area and who will need to know their options should this be about to occur and who have lost confidence in the process which as have said will be litigious litigious litigious? 
We have an issue of property rights coming in here and clearly those members who sat on the select committee with me would have seen the passionate heartfelt call by some of those families—in one case three generations—representing a historical lineage in that area of five generations and here we have a provision where the Minister through Order in Council with delegated authority can annexe private land into this area. I want some answers to those questions before we proceed with the vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question is that Part 2 stand part. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I think I made it fairly clear before that I would put the question. The question is that the question be now put. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Were you just making a call or a point of order? 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I was going to take a point but Mr Roy is now looking to do that. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is my understanding that if a member is calling and you do not have a closure motion the tradition of this Committee would have it that you take that call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Well that is correct; that is the tradition. But I think I signalled on the previous call on your first call that that would be the last. In fact I should have put it to the vote then. I was well into that before Mr Carter sought the call so I will proceed with the vote if members do not mind. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point is that if the Government wanted a closure then its members quite honestly should have sought the call and put the closure motion—which would have then assisted you in the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a procedural matter which I will take. Mr Gallagher was seeking the call first then.