Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14417] 
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill 
In Committee 
Preamble 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We finally come to the Committee stage of this member’s bill after a long long delay because of the very fragile numbers the Government has on it. First I want to raise concerns about the preamble that is proposed. If there is any debate around New Zealand’s resource laws it is that they lack the clarity we need to provide for clearer direction to the courts. Yet the preamble to the bill has the words: “this land is a fish” for example. I would like to know from somebody how the passing of a law that states: “this land is a fish” will improve the quality of the management of our environment. 
National’s concern about this bill is that it is all about politics and not about improving the quality of New Zealand’s resource management laws. We already have the extensive Resource Management Act. We have national policy statements regional policy statements and district policy statements and now this bill will require local area plans. How does having five tiers of wordy documents somehow result in better management of a precious area like the Waitakere Ranges? 
When I read through decisions of the Environment Court and when I read through the extensive decisions that are made by regional and district councils I say over and over again that there is a pleading for Parliament to be clearer about its intent. When I read the pages of the preamble about the history of the Waitakere Ranges I ask how that possibly provides greater clarity in the law. How does saying: “the land is a fish” which would be perfectly proper to say on a marae or in terms of a religious context provide greater clarity? I cannot believe that we are intending to put into law the sort of nonsense rhetoric that we see in the preamble to this member’s bill. Can any member opposite tell me how the courts are to make sense of a statement like: “this land is a fish”? Do members in the Labour Party really believe that the land is a fish? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I think the member said something about spiders once. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Darren Hughes interjects and says something about spiders. Well that would be more sensible than some of the things that Labour is proposing to put into the law. 
I simply plead with this House and say that if we are to improve the country’s environmental performance—and the report on the state of the environment shows we have some big challenges—then this sort of law will not somehow result in an improvement. I tell the House that it just adds to the bureaucracy. It just adds to all the frustrations that New Zealanders feel about this current Government. It adds to all the concern about a whole lot of bureaucrats and a whole lot of council officials having a word game at the expense of New Zealand taxpayers and ratepayers. We need good concise environmental laws that say what we mean and mean what we say. But that is not what we see in the preamble to this bill. 
This bill makes worse all the problems and concerns that New Zealanders have about the Resource Management Act. When the Ministry for the Environment came before the Local Government and Environment Committee it said it did not support this bill and did not support this sort of piecemeal approach to the reform of the resource management laws. [ 
Interruption 
] Dr Cullen wants me to digress and talk about the mess that this Government has made of the Ministry for the Environment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Dail Jones. 
Hon Members 
: Welcome back! 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you very much. I have some experience with the Waitakere Ranges area having been the constituency member of Parliament for a good part of it for 9 years a long long time ago; from 1975 to 1984. Having lived or worked in the area from 1975 to 2008 I am very familiar with the area involved. I went to the meetings on this bill held by the Auckland Regional Authority a meeting at the Bruce McLaren Hall and a meeting at the Henderson High School. I was able to speak at the first two meetings but at the Henderson High School meeting run by the Greens’ organisations they would not permit me to speak even though they knew I was there. That gives some indication of the attitude of the promoters of this bill including Mayor Harvey who was present at the time. 
The Waitakere Ranges park is 17000 hectares. It is safe. Nothing can happen to the Waitakere Ranges park because it is owned by Aucklanders. All of us in Auckland own it; it was bought by Aucklanders over time in the traditional way. The founders of Auckland bought it piecemeal acre by acre as it was then and now 17000 hectares are owned by Aucklanders. So no changes can be made to that park unless Aucklanders and the Auckland Regional Council want that to happen and I am sure it will not happen because Aucklanders own it and that is made clear in recital (6) of the preamble if the member in charge of the bill wants to read it. 
What this bill is all about is the 10000 hectares in private ownership. This bill is socialism by stealth. This bill is a takeover of property rights of individuals on the fringes of the Waitakere Ranges park which as I say is protected. This bill is an affront to the rule of law because what this Parliament is doing in an arbitrary way is taking away the rights of 21000 people who live outside the park and who own 10000 hectares. I say to the Maori Party members: “Your people own land outside the park. Are you prepared to deprive them of their ownership rights?” which is what this bill does. I heard a lot of fuss and bother about the Foreshore and Seabed Bill—and that is what the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill does. It takes away the rights of ownership of Maori people who live in that 10000 hectares and I ask the Maori people to think about this. [ 
Interruption 
] The other 17000 is owned by all of us in the Auckland area. Dr Sharples owns it; I own it; we all own it. 
The history from a Maori viewpoint is very interesting. In 1823 the Kawerau people were destroyed by a visit from Ngapuhi. Only about one or two people were left after one of those raids in the musket wars and the remnants of the Kawerau people were protected by the Bethel family. If it had not been for the Bethel family there would have been no Kawerau people in the area. [ 
Interruption 
] That is absolutely true and if the member wants to learn the history of the area he will find that it was a European family the Bethels who saved the Kawerau people. 
In speaking to the preamble I say that this bill is the theft of land that is not ranges land at all; it is housing land. As we see if we look at the photographs from the 1950s the land was rather barren and if we look at photographs taken in 2007 we see that it is built up in beautiful parks developed by owners who care for that land. They have built houses they have grown trees they have grown estates and this land is beautiful now outside the ranges area because people care for it and have shown how much they regard it. Yet this Parliament is telling these people who have cared for the land: “We don’t care what you do; we’re going to take if from you.” It will be done in a stealthy way and we are telling them: “The Resource Management Act is to be ignored and you’re to be treated differently from other New Zealanders. You’re to be picked on.” This legislation is a gross breach of the rule of law and New Zealand First will be opposing it. I have some amendments to put forward to protect the housing needs of people and will be speaking to this bill again. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee to be suspended while we take Ann Hartley’s valedictory speech and then we will proceed back into Committee after that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. Therefore it is in accordance with a decision of the Business Committee for Ann Hartley to make a valedictory statement at 5 o’clock. I will report progress and ask to sit again presently. 
Debate interrupted.