Roy Eric: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Roy Eric: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1399] 
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.