Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Third Reading 
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15288] 
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill 
Third Reading 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a third time 
. I am honoured to have been given the privilege of ensuring the bill’s safe passage through Parliament. It has not been without its challenges. 
The bill has a long history. Over three decades ago the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt promoted the idea to the council of the time. It fell on deaf ears—but not now. I have to acknowledge the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt who is with us in the House today and it is a pleasure to see him here. The three councils—the Waitakere City Council the Auckland Regional Council and the Rodney District Council—have jointly promoted this bill. It has been a meeting of hearts and minds and a glowing example of councils working together. 
The amendments made to the bill have significantly refined and improved its provisions. The changes result from a thorough consideration of over 200 submissions for and against by the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was ably chaired by Steve Chadwick who has now appropriately gone on to become Minister of Conservation. I pay tribute to Steve the whole committee and the committee staff for their work on the bill. I also thank former Ministers Mark Burton and David Benson-Pope and their staff for their assistance and advice. I also acknowledge the able assistance of the Office of the Clerk—in particular Carole Hicks. 
The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area is a nationally significant area of ecological historical and cultural importance immediately adjoining the expanding international city that metropolitan Auckland has become. The area comprises 27720 hectares about two-thirds of which is the current Waitakere Ranges Regional Park and incorporates 10000 privately owned properties with a resident population of more than 21000 people. The challenges of the encroaching city on this iconic area are enormous and unique in New Zealand. Further guidance is needed to sufficiently protect this area from the negative effects of urban growth and development. The bill serves the dual function of containing urban Auckland so that it does become more compact efficient and sustainable and of protecting the natural and cultural values of the ranges and foothills. 
But this bill is not blind protection at all costs. The heritage area will continue to be a lived in worked in and played in place; a place with its own special communities and landscapes; a place separate from but highly accessible to all urban Auckland. The needs and interests of the social and economic well-being of the local communities have been woven together with the wider national significance of the area and the need for protection. 
The heart of the heritage area is the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park. These majestically rugged hills were originally gifted to the people of Auckland as a regional park to commemorate the first century of development of their city. The bill restates the objectives for this now-expanded parkland in terms derived from the purpose provision of the National Parks Act. These and other legal provisions ensure the protection in perpetuity of the land and the values of the parkland. 
Outside the park the heritage area includes 10000 hectares of private land including I say proudly my own home. It includes many distinctive communities: the rolling landscapes of Oratia the wild west coast beaches of Piha Karekare and Bethells Beach; the Manukau Harbour heads area of Whatipu the bush areas of Titirangi and Waiatarua and the urban villages of Waitakere and Swanson. In Waitakere we have a proud history of connection to the land from tangata whenua the early orchardists the gumdiggers to our now vibrant vineyards and arts communities. The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill is an expression of this connection. 
The bill operates within a framework of existing legislation particularly the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002. Amendments have been made to ensure that the provisions of the bill do not conflict with the Resource Management Act or other legislation. Some members of the National Party have mischievously promoted that the bill will add costly layers and endless restrictions to an already complex Resource Management Act and district plan. That is not the case and it was never the intent but the select committee has ensured that there is no longer confusion. 
The bill has majority support—just. I want to thank all supporting parties who shared with the people of Waitakere and New Zealand their vision of protecting this great land for generations to come. I thank Helen Clark for her leadership. I am with the westies on this; I brought support from the whole team. I give special thanks to my westie mates David Cunliffe and Chris Carter for their staunch support. Chris not only is a local MP but was the Minister of Conservation at the time. David Cunliffe laid the foundation for the bill to go through the parliamentary process. His electorate forms part of the heritage area. Beside me at all times David has advocated cajoled and got things done in true David Cunliffe style. 
Jim Anderton from the Progressive party and the Green Party have given their unconditional support. The Maori Party has worked with us. I commend its members for their constructive comments. Taito Field although he had concerns took the time to talk to the local Pacific communities and residents and put forward a constructive amendment. I thank him for that. 
Dr Morgan Williams a former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment drew much attention to the problem with his now-famous words “death by a thousand cuts”. I thank him for his inspiration. 
The mayors—Bob Harvey John Law and now Penny Webster—along with the chair of the Auckland Regional Council Mike Lee have been strong advocates for the bill throughout as have their councils and staff. Special thanks must go to Auckland regional councillors Sandra Coney Paul Walbran Christine Rose and Bill Burrill; Waitakere city councillors Penny Hulse Janet Clews Ross Clow and Judy Lawley and former city councillors Denise Yates and Greg Presland; and Rodney district councillors David Steele and Greville Walker. 
Tangata whenua support has been vital to the success of this bill. I specially thank Te Warena Taua and Saul Roberts from Te Kawerau-a-Maki and Bernadette Papa and Jane Sherard from Ngati Whatua. I also acknowledge the Te Tai Tokerau member Dover Samuels. 
I acknowledge staff from the three councils including Dr Graeme Campbell Jenny Fuller and Mark Tollemache from the Waitakere District Council; Hugh Jarvis Debbie Philp Neil Olsen and John Burns from the Auckland Regional Council; and Max Smitheram from the Rodney District Council. I acknowledge also of course Heather Ash and Emma Mosley from Simpson Grierson—the councils’ legal counsel. 
There has been overwhelming support for this bill at grassroots flax-roots and bush-roots level throughout Waitakere and the wider Auckland region through polls hui public meetings and submissions. There are many local people and organisations to thank and acknowledge in this House: the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society—of which again the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt is a founding member—is led by John Edgar and it has campaigned for over three decades for the area’s protection; Gary Taylor and Douglas Allan from the Environmental Defence Society; Forest and Bird; and all those other Waitakere groups that are committed to keeping Waitakere beautiful. I also thank Jack Colmar from Waitakere who tirelessly gathered pledges of support for a heritage area from politicians musicians artists sportspeople and celebrities including our very own Sir Ed Hillary. Sir Ed said: “I heartily support the establishment of the Waitakere Heritage Area. It is a magnificent piece of coastline and forest and Auckland is very fortunate to have it so close. … I enthusiastically support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area.” It is very fitting that the next of the summit walks to commemorate Sir Ed’s life is being held this weekend just as the bill is passed in the new heritage area. 
The third reading is the final leg of a long journey and we are almost at the summit. When the final vote has been taken and the bill is passed we can say: “We knocked the you-know-what off!”. I commend the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 National members have had one question for Lynne Pillay the sponsor of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill from the day that the bill received its first reading. It is a simple direct question: how will this bill improve the environmental management of the beautiful area of the Waitakere Ranges? We listened to her first reading speech we listened to her second reading speech and again today we listened to her third reading speech and we still have not had an answer. 
We are told that the bill is an expression of the local people’s connection with the Waitakere Ranges. We are told that it is recognition of the beauty of the Waitakere Ranges. What we do not have is any answer as to how the bill will actually improve the area. 
Jill Pettis 
: The connection with the environment is some kind of intangible thing. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask the “Paint Stripper” opposite Jill Pettis to explain why the Ministry for the Environment opposes this bill. Why the resource management section of the New Zealand Law Society oppose this bill? Why did numerous submitters come before the select committee and say that this unclear fuzzy law would only make the existing problems of the Resource Management Act worse? 
You see we have national policy statements like the Coastal Policy Statement which is designed to protect the coastline. We have regional policy statements and regional plans. We even have district policy statements and district plans. We have three tiers of documents that are meant to protect the Waitakere Ranges. How many people in this House really believe that by creating a fourth tier of local plans— 
Lynne Pillay 
: The majority. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Lynne Pillay across the Chamber how a fourth tier of planning processes and strategies will really make a difference. You see the overwhelming view of New Zealanders including those who live in the Waitakere Ranges is that we have a fundamental problem already with too many words and too much fuzziness in the Resource Management Act and that the very last thing we need is more of that but that is what we get from this bill. 
What concerns me about this legislation is that it is actually driven far more by politics by spin than by substance. When we go through the provisions of this bill and when we ask the real practical question as to whether the bill will stop particular roads from being built whether it will stop particular subdivisions from happening whether it will stop particular changes in land use whether it will kill any of the pests that inhabit the Waitakere Ranges or whether it will improve the quality of the waterways in the Waitakere Ranges the answer to every one of those questions is no. You see the problem is that Labour has become so desperate for votes in Auckland that spin has overtaken substance. Labour has become far more concerned with the protection of its own political survival with the protection of its own dropping support in West Auckland than it is with the protection of the Waitakere Ranges. 
The one substantive argument we get is that the Resource Management Act does not do a good job of dealing with cumulative effects. Well if it does not do a good job of dealing with cumulative effects in the Waitakere Ranges what are we doing about cumulative effects in Banks Peninsula? What about the Queenstown lakes? What about the beautiful areas of Otaki or Golden Bay? If the Resource Management Act does not properly deal with cumulative effects we should fix those problems with the Act rather than introducing this sort of piecemeal legislation. 
National also wishes to make this key point about the statute: everything that Labour proclaims can be done in this bill can be done in the regional and district plans that govern this area. But the process under the Resource Management Act says that the time it takes for a council to change either the regional or district plan is 9 years. That is ridiculous. So rather than dealing with the real issue of the bureaucratic constraints on the regional and local councils being able to get proper rules in place to manage the environment of the Waitakere Ranges rather than fixing what really will make a difference Labour’s answer is more law more bureaucracy more plans more strategies and more policies. I say to members opposite that it will not work. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I challenge Mr Cunliffe to explain why we need four tiers of planning documents to properly manage the Waitakere Ranges. Every consent decision that is now made in that area will have to compare four lots of different wordy documents. If a member of that community wants to have a say about what goes on with the Waitakere Ranges he or she will have to make submissions on the local plan the district plan the regional plan as well as the national plan. And National says that is just too much bureaucracy—too many words and not enough action. 
My colleague Paula Bennett has actually made a very constructive suggestion. She says that the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park. We have no national parks north of Taupo despite the fact that more than 50 percent of our population lives in that area. National thinks that is a good idea. We think that under section 8 of the Conservation Act a national park assessment of the Waitakere Ranges should be done. We think that would be a constructive mechanism because we all know that the National Parks Act provides real protection for the Waitakere Ranges. That is why we think that that is a far better way forward. 
Paula Bennett 
: Write to the Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Paula Bennett wrote to the Minister of Conservation Steve Chadwick and asked why we do not do a section 8 investigation to raise the legal status of that area to really increase the protection—to look at it being a national park. What did Labour say? No. How can Labour claim it has some affinity for the protection of the Waitakere Ranges when it actually rejected a serious suggestion as to the way in which we should look to provide greater protection for that area? 
What concerns National about this bill and this law is as has been said by the Ministry for the Environment and as has been said by the environmental law section of the New Zealand Law Society that it takes the Resource Management Act in exactly the wrong direction. How many meetings do we go to where people say: “I think we need to make the Resource Management Act more complicated.”? How many meetings do we go to where people say: “Ah the answer to the Resource Management Act is that we just need more plans.”? How many people dealing with the Resource Management Act say: “We just need more policies.”? 
The reality is that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill takes us in exactly the wrong direction. It is so telling that the Ministry for the Environment the agency charged with the job of championing good environmental law rejects this bill and says that it is flawed. It says that it is unnecessary and that it is full of wishy-washy language that will do very little to protect the Waitakere Ranges. Why can members opposite not answer those criticisms from the Ministry for the Environment? 
Lynne Pillay 
: What about confiscation by stealth? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite cannot answer the fundamental question: why does her Government’s own Ministry for the Environment not support this bill? The silence is deafening. 
The reality is that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill is all about spin rather than substance. It is all about a few members from the Waitakere Ranges area wanting to cloak themselves in green clothes to say that they care about the Waitakere Ranges when in reality this bill will simply complicate the management of that area. National says that we do need to make changes in the Resource Management Act to deal with issues such as cumulative effects. We do need to consider a national park in the Waitakere Ranges; it is one of the iconic areas. But this bill fails to provide better protection for that area. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Are you committed to that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge the next member to answer a question for me. The first recital of the preamble says “this land is a fish”. I challenge any member to tell me how we improve the environmental management of this area by passing laws with that sort of mush. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Over Easter I camped with my wife and two sons at Karamatura near Huia in the Waitakere Ranges. We tramped up the Karamatura Valley and we explored the dunes and rock pools of Whatipu. As the sun set over the ranges on that beautiful weekend I could almost feel the bush breathing a sigh of relief that its permanent protection was imminent. The people of Waitakere have been working for this day for 30 years and I acknowledge the presence in the House of the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt who was one of the founders of the movement to get this bill here today. So along with my colleague and friend Lynne Pillay it is with deep aroha and humility that we are here to recognise the work of all those who have gone before us. 
This legislation represents the deeply held desire by the vast majority of Aucklanders to enhance the protection of our unique Waitakere Ranges and I acknowledge immediately the key role of the bill’s sponsor Lynne Pillay MP for Waitakere who has worked tirelessly to guide this bill through local consultation select committee consideration and the House. I also recognise west Auckland colleagues the Rt Hon Helen Clark former Minister of Conservation Chris Carter and our friend Darien Fenton MP whose support has been critical to bringing this bill forward. Together we have heard the clarion call for the protection of the ranges because the environmental forces throughout the Auckland region—not just the west—have long been calling for it. That has been my experience since my first campaign in 1999. 
Extensive consultation with the public and four local authorities shows that around 80 percent of Auckland’s population supports stronger protection for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. This bill therefore carries with it the mandate of the citizens and councillors of Waitakere City Council Rodney District Council and the Auckland Regional Council. It responds to a clear and consistent local voice saying that the permanence of legislation is necessary to address the concerns. It is a united voice to Parliament from Auckland’s local and regional government. 
The central issue this bill seeks to resolve is that of the cumulative effects of subdivision and development and the need to provide long-term certainty. What makes the Waitakere Ranges unique is not just its combination of biodiversity and geography interlinked with the Manukau Harbour and west coast environments but its proximity to a major and rapidly growing urban area. As a result of Auckland’s growth there will always be extreme commercial pressure to subdivide and develop land around the city fringe. This reduces population density and makes infrastructure services more difficult to provide but crucially it means there will always be money in knocking down the trees in the first paddock past the fence between the city and the bush. There is a legitimate sound and deeply held public interest in addressing and arresting this long-term trend. Dealing with it on an individual consent basis without appropriate guidance at a framework level can never solve that problem. Indeed it risks an unfair burden being placed arbitrarily on individual consents. 
The bill is a solution to a complex conflict between the short-term and legitimate demands of property owners and the long-term call by residents and others to protect an iconic resource. There is a long history to the issue. Waitakere leaders and locals have been seeking greater certainty for decades. For example in 1995 the then conservative Waitakere City Council’s district plan proposed to lift the 1 hectare subdivision limit and to promote the Little Muddy Creek study to remove protections from the Titirangi and Laingholm areas. Fortunately the measures were not passed but that episode did underline the need for permanent protection. 
This bill therefore recognises the national regional and local importance of the Waitakere ranges and the foothills area and promotes the protection and enhancement of its historic features for present and future generations. As was formerly stated by the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment it prevents “death by a thousand cuts” or in technical terms those incremental effects. To assist the development of the legislation I travelled to the UK as a guest of the British Government to study its national park system. In the light of that I am pleased that this bill allows us to achieve what has kept the British moorland pristine for centuries—adequate protection that also provides for human habitation and public access within the boundaries of the area. The result for local landowners is undeniably an increase in the amenity and financial value of their land. A house in Britain inside a park boundary is easily 30 percent more valuable than a similar property outside. 
Importantly this bill fits within the Resource Management Act’s procedures and structures and does not violate Resource Management Act processes. Itensures that existing property rights are consistent with the Resource Management Act. This was a select committee issue that has been worked hard on and I recognise the work of the Hon David Benson-Pope the then Minister for the Environment in this regard. The select committee report also recommended changes to the clause on local area plans. The committee considered proposals to ensure that legitimate infrastructure changes could take place within the area covered by the bill. The interaction between this bill and local government legislation has been made more specific. The bill requires local authorities to comply with the requirements of section 77(1) of the Local Government Act. I acknowledge two Ministers of Local Government the Hon Mark Burton and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and their officials for their contribution to this aspect of the bill. The Auckland Regional Council will be required to prepare adopt and maintain a plan for the integrated management of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park. The select committee recommended that this be reviewed every 10 years. 
I recognise the kaitiaki of this area—Te Kawerau-a-Maki and Ngati Whatua—whose support for this bill is a foundation of its passage. I recognise the leadership of Waitakere City’s mayor Bob Harvey of deputy mayor Penny Hulse who is with us today and of councillors Greg Presland Denise Yates Judy Lawley and others who have steadfastly supported this bill. I recognise regional councillors Sandra Coney and Paul Walbran and councillor Christine Rose now of the Auckland Regional Council but formerly of Rodney District Council. I recognise another kaumatua Jack Colmar and John Edgar chairman of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society; Bruce and Trixie Harvey Kath Dewar and their colleagues at the society; Dr Peter Maddison and Ken Catt of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society; Tim O’Shea of the Henderson Valley Residents and Ratepayers Association; the late Ian Henderson and his wife June and Sue Hagen of the Titirangi Residents and Ratepayers Association; Hinne Hettema and Wayne McKenzie of the Laingholm and District Citizens Association—all of those champions who have given their best to ensure the long-term future of these precious ranges. 
I thank the parties supporting the bill all of our Labour colleagues the Hon Jim Anderton’s Progressive party the Greens who have been rock-solid the Maori Party and yes Taito Phillip Field. I want to recognise the work of the officials of sponsoring councils and especially Graeme Campbell and his team at Waitakere City who have brilliantly coordinated the support. You know Dr Seuss had a famous character called theLorax the spirit of the Truffula Trees. I think there is a little bit of the Lorax in all of these fine people and I salute them. 
This is a moderate bill that employs the processes of the Resource Management Act. It requires that any future change to a district plan be undertaken in harmony with the objectives and purposes of the 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. This bill provides a historic opportunity to put in place a Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area that will provide certainty for planning purposes preserve lifestyles for residents and protect the integrity of the landscape and the ecosystem. I feel safe in the knowledge that the passage of this bill means that long after I retire from politics I will be able to fish and tramp in the Waitakere Ranges. I will also know that all of the effort that has gone into this bill and a little of my time in Parliament will not have been wasted. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I will make a contribution to this debate as I have been involved in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill ever since it came to Parliament. First of all I compliment Paula Bennett on the work she has done in making sure that those who had an opposing view were given a full and thorough opportunity to express it. I also compliment Nick Smith and my other colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee on the work they have done. Even though we are opposed to the bill I will also compliment the staff and the various officials who worked on this bill because genuinely they have done a good job although I will raise one issue a little later. But I think that the staff who have been involved have given this 100 percent so on that they can be complimented. 
I would say to the local authority—it is primarily the Waitakere City Council but it is not just that council—and the first thing I would place on the record is that I am not certain this move is a good expenditure of ratepayers’ money. This bill would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to put through. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Millions. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Nick Smith says that it may be millions and it may well be that sort of figure. I am not certain that the council can justify that sort of amount of ratepayers’ money on this sort of legislation. The member who just sat down made this very point: it does not do anything more than can already be done under the Resource Management Act. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh it does. 
JOHN CARTER 
: We have to ask ourselves this question. If it does not do anything more then why is this Parliament spending taxpayers’ money and why are the ratepayers of the Waitakere City Council spending their money on a bill that ends up doing nothing? That is the point I would make to the member opposite who interjects. Right from the very beginning I asked the officials that question. I asked why we had this bill and what it did that was extra— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Over and above. 
JOHN CARTER 
: —over and above and outside the Resource Management Act and the council’s district scheme. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What did they say? 
JOHN CARTER 
: They said that it does not do anything. It does not do anything. They kept repeating that assuring the committee that it does not do anything. Then we asked why we were doing it. There was no answer. Well the unfortunate thing was that after a while—and I cannot remember the length of time—we finally got the officials to admit that it actually did do something over and above the Resource Management Act and the district scheme. It would go outside those boundaries. The officials actually lied to the select committee. That really upset me. 
But then of course we had to go around and make sure that a local bill could not have higher status than the Resource Management Act. So we worked and the officials worked and they brought it back so that it came within the Resource Management Act. Then we have to ask ourselves the question again: why are we doing it? What is the purpose of a bill if it does nothing that we cannot do under the Resource Management Act? The fact is that we have never had an answer to that question and that really concerns me. 
The fact is that we have to ask ourselves—as Nick Smith has already commented—why the Ministry for the Environment is opposed to this bill. Surely we would think that it would be supportive of it but no it is not. Why is the resource management sector of the New Zealand Law Society opposed to this bill? It is opposed to it because it is bad law. It is putting more legislation on our books than is necessary and under the Labour Government that is a normal thing of course. Most of the laws it passes are unnecessary. 
That is the unfortunate thing about this whole debate. Here we are wasting taxpayers and ratepayers’ money to achieve nothing other than a feel-good political thing for the Labour Government. The members opposite who promote this bill who supported it are playing politics and the sad thing is that the council bought into it and its staff had to obey the wishes of the politicians. Sadly it is all about local government - central government politics not about what is in the best interests of the area. 
We have heard the comment that a survey was done and 80 percent of the people responded positively and said that they wanted this bill. Well that is absolutely inaccurate. The question was: “Do you want the Waitakere Ranges protected?”. I am surprised that only 80 percent said yes. I would have thought that it would be 100 percent because would people not want to protect the Waitakere Ranges? Would we not want to protect the Bay of Islands Queenstown or the lakes down in Rotorua? Of course we do. It is one of the things we pride ourselves on in this nation. It is a part of our reputation that we look after our environment and we look after the places we care for. 
We could ask ourselves this question: why are the Waitakere Ranges the way they are today? It is because the people who live there care for them—absolutely. They do not just care for them but also they have rehabilitated them. If we look at photos taken in years gone by—80 years 100 years—many areas were burnt out cut over trampled and farmed. They were bare hillsides that today are covered in lovely bush again. There is wonderful birdlife. The area probably has a few stoats and ferrets in it unfortunately but nevertheless— 
Paula Bennett 
: Not much. 
JOHN CARTER 
: There are not too many I am told by my colleague Paula Bennett but the fact is that the area has become the way that it is now because the people who have lived there for many years care for it. They do not need to have legislation to tell them to look after that place. They go and live there to make sure that it is looked after. It is unique because of the people. 
If we wanted to look at people’s views then we should look at the submissions made by the people who are directly affected. I am told that there were 221 submissions and they were split right down the middle—50:50—on who supported and who opposed the bill. That to me is a far better guide than the 80 percent that is often touted by the Labour Government. 
I say to this House that I think what we are doing today is absolutely unnecessary. It will achieve absolutely nothing. Not one person has stood up and said: “This is a reason why we should do this.” There is no specific reason. If we could say that the bill will stop a house being built stop a tree being cut down stop somebody taking a bird’s life away or something then maybe we could say that there is an argument for it. [ 
Interruption 
] They are to stop the what? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh dear oh dear! Seriously the problem with this bill is that apart from costing the ratepayers of Waitakere hundreds of thousands of dollars and costing the taxpayers a significant amount of money by using parliamentary time it achieves nothing. 
They are telling us— 
Darien Fenton 
: Why are you opposing it? 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is a waste of time and it is a waste of money and unlike Labour National cares about people’s money. We understand that people have to write out cheques for these things unlike the Labour Government that has no understanding of fiscal management at all and does not understand about writing out cheques. Most Labour members have never had enough money to be able to write out their own cheques. We care about the fact that this is a waste of ratepayers’ money and a waste of taxpayers’ money. We do not want to see this bill because it is a waste of time and money. It will achieve nothing. The members on that side of the House tell us that it will do nothing and no one will be employed because of it. I finish with this question “Why are we doing it?”. There is no answer. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes this bill. Many of the reasons have been set out already by Mr John Carter and by Dr Nick Smith. This bill is poorly drafted and poorly researched. It will do great damage to those people who live in the outer area of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and in particular to those people who live on the 10000 hectares—about 25000 people. 
I say that the bill is badly drafted. It was badly drafted from the very beginning even in the Maori saying that is set out in the preamble. What I wish to do is to read out the actual pepeha or tribal saying of Te Kawerau-a-Maki which I believe should have been the way in which this bill began. After I have read it out I will be asking whether the Maori translator who has a copy of the words in English and the translation in Maori from  
West Auckland Remembers 
 edited by James Northcote Bade can read out the Maori translation. I have shown it to Dr Sharples as well who is a well-known authority in these matters and the translation is accurate I believe. 
First of all I will read out the English and then I will seek leave for the Maori translator to read out the Maori translation which is the reverse of the way things are often done in the House. I cannot see why on the basis of equality that approach cannot apply. The pepeha or tribal saying in English is: “Puketotara is the mountain; Waitakere is the river; Te Au o te Whenua is the man; Te Kawerau a Maki are the people.” 
I seek the leave of the House—the House being the master of its own affairs—for the translation to be read out in Maori. I seek your direction Mr Deputy Speaker as to whether that is possible. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You were quite right in your earlier remarks—that what you seek is a reversal of the normal practice. It is indeed a reversal of why we have an interpreter in the House at all. Many Speakers’ rulings have laid down that matters uttered in Maori are for the interpreter to give the English version of. There is no provision for the interpreter to interpret words uttered in English. I have to be guided by Speakers’ rulings all of which lead to that conclusion. It is not a matter of seeking leave; it is entirely in the hands of the Speaker. Being guided by earlier rulings I have to say no. But the member may of course table the Maori version. 
DAIL JONES 
: I am willing to read it out but bearing in mind the comment that was made on my efforts to speak in Maori the last time I did so I was trying to avoid that situation recurring. I will give the Maori translation but I ask only whether that means that as I am speaking in Maori the Maori translator will then have to translate it back into English. I will leave that for members of the House to consider. 
“Ko Puketotara te maunga; ko Waitakere te awa; ko Te Au o Te Whenua te tangata; ko Te Kawerau a Maki te iwi.” 
As I said that means: “Puketotara is the mountain; Waitakere is the river; Te Au o te Whenua is the man; Te Kawerau a Maki are the people.” I make that point because I believe those should have been the opening words if we were to be fair and reasonable to the people of the area. That should have been the quotation in the preamble to the bill—being the pepeha or tribal saying of Te Kawerau-a-Maki—instead of the statement referred to in the bill. Of course the bill in the very few words after that is again incorrect. It refers to Te Waatarauihi and it does not give his surname which is Tawhia. 
This bill is terribly drafted. It shows no regard for the people of the area—Te Kawerau-a-Maki—who in Maori terms I understand hold mana whenua or traditional ownership of the land. That is one of the many systematic failings of this bill. 
Another thing I would like to have seen in the preamble to the bill as I am interested in history is making sure that anyone in this country in the future who looks at this bill understands the meaning of Waitakere especially in regard to the meaning given by Shane Jones the other day. In this context many people do not seem to realise or know that the name Waitakere is strictly the name of the large flat rock in the small bay between Te Ihumoana Island and Kotau Point. The name refers to the action of the sea in sweeping over this rock. Originally this was not a name of great significance but after the death of a Te Kawerau chieftain Te Rapatu Te Hore and the display of his remains on the rock the place took on an immense significance. Therefore the small bay became known as Waitakere as did the river that in times past flowed into it instead of to the south of Te Ihumoana as it does today. Most people think of the Waitakeres as the ranges but it seems that Waitakere had a different meaning originally and as a result of European settlement the name was given to the ranges themselves. 
As I say I believe that the bill is hopelessly flawed and there are many reasons for that. If we look for example at clause 9 and at clause 9(f) in particular there we have the nuts and bolts of this bill. This is what the bill is all about and it is where all these pages we have before us get down to the thing that some people are concerned about and wish to prevent those people who live in the 10000 hectare area from being able to enjoy. The provision states: “The objectives of establishing and maintaining the heritage are—” and it goes on and on. Hidden in the middle of it all is subclause (f) which states “to ensure that any subdivision or development in the area of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect—(i) is of an appropriate character scale and intensity; and (ii) does not adversely affect the heritage features; and (iii) does not contribute to urban sprawl:”. What does that mean? 
I am not surprised that the Auckland branch of the Law Society or whichever branch it was opposed this legislation. This will have a dreadful effect on anyone living in the 10000 hectares. It means that when people come to extend their house to put on an extra room because the family is growing or to put in a garage or something they will have to ensure that any development—and that is what it is—of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect is of an appropriate character and scale and does not adversely affect the heritage features. That is what all those people in all the societies mentioned by Lynne Pillay and David Cunliffe want to achieve. Otherwise as John Carter said what is the purpose of this bill? That is what it comes down to. That is the key as far as that is concerned. 
Of course Lynne Pillay also mentioned that this bill does not affect the Resource Management Act. Well if we look at clause 13 “Resource consents” it makes it quite clear by stating: “(2) The requirements in subsection (1)(a) are in addition to the requirements in the Resource Management Act 1991.” This bill is in addition to the Resource Management Act. The Resource Management Act is not subject to this bill; this bill is in addition to the Resource Management Act. 
When people buy a house in Glen Eden or Oratia when they are living in one of those areas and want to get something done or when they want to sell in those areas their lawyer will have to explain to them that this legislation will be another encumbrance on the title of the property. That is why the Law Society was upset. The lawyer will have to try to advise what buying a property in that 10000 hectare area will really mean to people who want to do that. The lawyer for the sellers will have to try to explain what it will do to the value of their property. It is all very well to say that property values within the 17500 hectares in the Waitakere Ranges might go up but that was always protected. That is a different matter. Outside that area people’s property values will be affected. That will be thanks to the Waitakere City Council and to those people who have supported this bill. 
As has been mentioned by David Cunliffe the really smart people have—very fairly—taken advantage of clause 30 of this bill. It says that people who have already lodged an application or have commenced whatever type of proceeding under the Resource Management Act that is applicable are still safe because their proceedings will have to continue under the old law. We can imagine how full the council must be of applications lodged under what are called transitional provisions. As far as the future for all of those Joe Bloggses—Joseph or Joanna Bloggs—is concerned if they want to do work to their house in that 10000 hectare area then they will have great problems. 
I wanted to have a provision in the bill whereby everyone living in that 10000 hectare area would be notified but my amendment was lost. I wanted a provision whereby everyone living in the 10000 hectares would have a notice on their property’s title but that provision was lost. I wonder why the Waitakere City Council did not want the actual owners of property in that area to know the way in which their property had been affected by this bill. New Zealand First opposes the bill. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for the good grace with which he accepted the ruling on the issue that he raised and I offer him special thanks for giving it to the House in Maori itself too. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I take a very short call on this bill. It has been waiting to be passed for about 2 years now and I think it is very timely that it is done as soon as possible. It is a very good bill and the Greens are very proud to have supported it through all its stages. This bill is about protecting the vision that New Zealanders have about their country. We are a clean country we have room to move we have beaches and bush that we can all enjoy and these are common properties and commonly understood values by the community as a whole. This bill protects those values and gives the community the right to have a say over how land-use issues should be managed as communities have done in New Zealand for generations. It ensures that those values are protected for many generations to come. We are very pleased that it is coming to this stage in the House. 
I very briefly reflect on what I think is the scaremongering of New Zealand First about the property values around the Waitakere Ranges. What is actually true is that real estate agents support this legislation because they see that there is a significant marketing opportunity in having a Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and indeed we are seeing houses for sale being marketed as within the heritage area this bill covers. It is very important to New Zealanders to have this kind of area protected for all of the good reasons that have been previously stated. 
I echo Lynne Pillay’s thanks and greetings to all of those who were involved in the bill. I particularly thank Kath Dewar and the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society for the work she and that organisation did. I also thank the public law team at Simpson Grierson for whom I have a great deal of respect for their efforts in the proceeding of this bill in supporting the select committee and providing the good advice we needed to get this bill right. I thank them very much for all of their work. I look forward to this bill passing its third reading. Kia ora. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. First I would like to pay my respects to Tumu Putaura. Kai te rangatira Tumu Putaura takoto haere. Haere ki te okioki o o tipuna matua. 
[ 
To the chief Tumu Putaura lie there farewell. Depart to the resting place of your ancestors. 
] 
It is a pleasure for me to talk on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. There is a Maori tourist company in the electorate of Tamaki Makaurau that is picking up awards almost as fast as the Maori Party is climbing in the polls. Potiki Adventures won the best Maori women in business award Te Mana Wahine Tohu last year. It took out the outstanding business citizenship award the best new business award at the national women’s business awards and  
Vogue Australia 
 recently listed it as one of the top 15 things to do in Auckland City. The reason for its success is twofold: the breathtaking landscapes that Potiki Adventures takes tourists to and the pride of the two owners in sharing the beauty and the knowledge handed down from their tipuna about special locations all over Auckland. 
A particularly popular tour is that through the Waitakere Ranges rainforest and it is easy to understand why it is popular. The coastal belt to the west of the Waitakere Ranges—the real name of the ranges is Te Wao Nui o Tiriwa by the way—exudes a rich Maori heritage. There are signs of early habitation particularly on the islands and the headlands that constitute natural defence areas. The tour may also include an opportunity to view the unique and ancient inhabitants such as geckos rare frogs kereru etc. or one may wander through the mature native forest and marvel at the majestic sight of manuka kanuka kahikatea horoeka rata rewarewa rimu and kauri. The wilderness of the Waitakere Ranges rainforest the exuberance of the untamed coast and the warmth of the black sand come together to create the unique environment that will linger in the memory long after visitors leave the park. 
The unique landscape of the Waitakere Ranges is today being protected preserved and promoted by the mechanisms established in this bill. The distinctive tourist value of this area is however only one aspect of a space that positively resonates with an appreciation of a unique cultural heritage. Today we are taking a very important step in an investment in our future by preserving and caring for the history of past and present habitation in the environment. We are standing up to protect the national regional and local significance of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park on behalf of those who call this land home. 
We know just how important a step we are taking by the heat generated within the debate and by the intensity and vigour of the positions put forward by people on both sides of the debate about the bill. It was obvious to us all that those who live in the land of the Waitakere Ranges fiercely locate themselves and the generations before them as a distinct community of interest in this bill. One after another submitters traced back over the experiences of five or six generations in maintaining the Waitakere foothills bush environment. It has been a very inspiring process to feel the strength of the attachment that people from all walks of life have with this distinctive environment. 
In the spirit of inspiration I want to acknowledge the strength of this process as it has evolved in terms of soliciting the active participation of mana whenua. I commend Lynne Pillay who right back in February 2006 was recognising the solid contribution and support from iwi—support that she openly declared was central to the success of this bill. Kia ora Lynne. I commend the local authorities the Auckland Regional Council the Waitakere City Council and the Rodney District Council which have willingly endorsed the amendment I brought to the bill to establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki to contribute to the decision-making processes. We in the Maori Party were extremely impressed by the ways that tangata whenua have demonstrated such fine leadership in working with all players in relation to the land specified in this bill. 
The Maori Party is very proud of the progress we have been able to achieve in creating processes to ensure that tangata whenua are actively involved in local decision-making. We are very pleased with the way the amendments to clauses 23B 24 and 28AA were received by the House. The amendments establish a mandatory rather than a discretionary obligation on the Crown or the local authority to enter into deeds of acknowledgment with tangata whenua. The amendments place a positive duty on the respective local authorities to establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki to contribute to the decision-making process. That is unique. 
The key point of this bill that really stands out is not just about the nature of collegiality and cooperation reflected in the engagement of mana whenua of the local authorities of the sponsor of the bill and of the Maori Party. A crucial outcome of this process has been the precedent that has been established in enshrining the existing rights of mana whenua as a basis of recognition. The reaffirmation of tipuna entitlements is essential to the full expression of tino rangatiratanga. We have a whakatauaki—a proverb—from my own people Ngati Kahungunu that symbolises the concept of tikanga entitlements or tipuna rights: “Kaore koe e tu mokemoke ai.” 
[ 
You will not stand alone 
.] 
That whakatauaki speaks to me of the fact that no one stands alone because we are born of whakapapa and live within its embrace. So it is that Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua came to the Local Government and Environment Committee speaking of the need to protect the whenua their wai maori and the natural resources of taonga tuku iho designated within their tribal rohe. We heard about Ngati Whatua tribal constructs and both Ngati Whatua o Orakei and Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara working together with the mayors of the three councils to ensure the respective mandate and participatory authority that are to be maintained by whanau marae and hapu across their takiwa. We heard also the perspectives of Te Uri o Hau Ngati Rongo Te Kawerau-a-Maki Te Taumata Runanga Te Runanga o Te Taou and how the significance of their ancestral associations could be protected and preserved within this bill. 
Te Tiriti o Waitangi anticipated the protection of Maori custom and cultural values. It also guaranteed the right of tangata whenua to possess and control that which is our tino rangatiratanga. It was an absolute declaration about the value that the Crown saw in its relationship with Maori. It is a matter of great joy to be speaking in this House about a model in which outcomes are anticipated that seek to exemplify the strength of a Treaty relationship. This bill provides us all with a model that shows how easy it can be for local authorities to establish a process to facilitate the involvement and participation of Maori in local decision-making processes. We have been extremely pleased that our Supplementary Order Paper succeeded that the voices of mana Maori and mana whenua were heard and that actions were agreed to that consolidate the formal relationship with tangata whenua. We in the Maori Party are proud to support this bill. Thank you. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to begin by acknowledging the contribution of the sponsor of this bill and the dedication of the local authorities in and around the Auckland area to achieving a level of protection and commitment to the future of the Waitakere Ranges that belies their respective significance to the people of Auckland. I think it is great that that objective has been put before the House and I agree with Minister Cunliffe’s comments earlier about these wonderful pieces of land and tracts of bush and hillside being available for him and others to enjoy their recreational possibilities in their retirement. But I think that applies to all parts of New Zealand. 
All of us can claim in our respective locations that degree of pristine beauty and that degree of natural integrity that we would want to see achieve the highest level of protection and the highest level of if you like heritage value for the future. That is what I have real problems with when I come to this legislation—the selective nature of it. I do not deny the people of west Auckland or the Auckland region the right to call for the high level of heritage protection for a particular part of their location but I do not deny that right to other New Zealanders as well. 
It seems to me that in the framework the Resource Management Act sought to put in place we actually have that level playing field that sets the circumstances that all localities in New Zealand can work to achieve and apply in their own circumstances. I am not persuaded that there is a case for special legislation to be passed in respect of the Waitakere Ranges or indeed any other area. If that is so then I think we need to come back to basics and ask: “Where does the Resource Management Act fit what are our local planning ordinances in respect of those particular locations and how should they perhaps be changed? 
It is for that reason that United Future has opposed this bill from the outset and will be voting against it at the third reading today. It is not a statement to say that the Waitakere Ranges do not have significance and are not of importance and value to the people of Auckland and the wider New Zealand community. It is a statement that recognises that that level of attachment that level of protection and that level of commitment should be able to be applied equally across the country. We are not in favour of what is essentially discriminatory law being passed in respect of one particular location—even though we acknowledge the significance it has to a large number of people. 
So although I take my hat off to those who promoted this bill for their dedication their commitment their sincerity and their determination to do well by their region I think they are fundamentally wrong in their application and I think that this legislation is not good legislation. For those reasons United Future will be voting against it. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I wish to take a short call because as others have said this bill has been a long time in the making and the debate has been fast and furious and spread over many many months. 
It is a real pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I have the privilege of being a resident in the Waitakere foothills so I am one of the property owners affected by this bill. I value the opportunity to express my gratitude to the people in my community to all of those Waitakere residents who campaigned long and hard for this bill to become law and to the councils who are promoting this bill—Auckland Regional Council Rodney District Council and the Waitakere City Council—for their foresight and determination. As a local resident I thank my local Labour MP my staunch friend Lynne Pillay who along with those other Labour MPs—the Hon Chris Carter and the Hon David Cunliffe—has worked diligently in her efforts to see this bill shepherded through the parliamentary process. 
All the people whom I know from where I live—from my neighbours friends and family in the foothills of Waitakere to my friends in areas like Te Henga Swanson Oratia and Scenic Drive—are watching the progress of this bill with intense interest. They are particularly keen to see whether National can get over its natural propensity to stick up for the interests of developers over the interests of communities. This is a chance for National to go beyond paying mere lip service to the environment for a change. Interventions like this bill are essential if we are serious about our environment and our planet. Economics cannot always be the dominant concern and sometimes as in this case the environment needs to come first. 
As a property owner in the heritage area I know the concern of my community is to ensure that the ranges are protected for all time and for all generations to come. I believe that just as we acknowledge former generations who created the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park the supporters of this important bill will be acknowledged in the future for having the astuteness and wisdom to protect the broader ranges area. I am proud to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I must say there are a few things said by the previous speakers that I certainly agree with. One would be when the Greens said it has been a long 2 years. It certainly feels like it and it certainly feels like it for the residents of Waitakere and I am sure for the councils and particularly Waitakere City Council which sponsored the bill. 
I stand up with a smile because this bill has been a true reflection of democracy in New Zealand. I think in some respects we should stand up and be quite proud that there has been most certainly robust discussion around it. There has certainly been debate. I would certainly say that the residents of Waitakere support the Waitakere Ranges as does the National Party. I do not think there can be any question of that. 
On the poll just for one moment when people were asked whether they supported protecting the ranges the majority said yes. I say with a wry smile that I think if I had been called I would have said yes as well. But there is no doubt that 221 submissions on a local government bill means that there was a strong interest in this legislation in the local community. The community was split and it was split pretty much fifty-fifty. 
The local community has been split about this. I have been pretty upfront and available and have spoken to those who I believe support this bill. I have had no hesitancy in going to meetings where I have known I would not be the most popular person because the majority at those meetings were in favour of the bill and I have had no hesitancy in making sure that my office door was open and that I listened to those who were at times rather zealous and incredibly passionate about the issue. 
What I think is a bit of shame is that there has not been quite that feeling of openness and transparency from those who support the bill. In fact we have just heard a speech—just before mine—that tries to paint the people who oppose this bill as being “devil developers” who want to cut up the ranges into a thousand pieces and see houses galore in a tight-fitting subdivision. That is grossly unfair because it is so far from the truth. If we ask around the residents who live in Waitakere we will find that no one wants to see that sort of tight-fitting subdivision within the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. Certainly that is the answer we got when we talked about protection. So I do not think there is any question as to whether the debate was about a tight-fitting subdivision by those “devil developers”. Unfortunately that is how the debate progressed. 
I want to pick up on a few things which some of my colleagues have already mentioned. One has to be the fact that landowners are not necessarily the enemy. They are not the ones who barged in and cut down all the trees and turned this into a high residential area. In fact it is the opposite. In fact the people and the landowners in Waitakere have restored and rejuvenated the area. They are passionate about it and they need that opportunity. I think that to paint National members as the big baddies who want to carve it all up may fit the agenda of some people but the reality is we do not believe that this legislation will achieve its intention and we have been consistent in that view. 
We believe that this legislation is unnecessary and will potentially create huge litigation costs for ratepayers—and it should be done throughout the nation if we see cumulative effects as being vitally important. I for one do not stand here and negatively go against those who have put forward this bill and are supporting it. I think the intention has been genuine and I think the desired outcome is actually quite good. But will this bill do it and will it be any good for Waitakere? My answer is absolutely and categorically no. In the Local Government and Environment Committee we were not at any time assured that this bill would fulfil its purpose. I have heard that 25000 people—that is the latest count—live in the area and will be affected. To say they are not affected is to ask why we need the bill. It is a simple as that. 
There are other ways to get the desired results of this bill and it is through the Resource Management Act and a local district plan. Let us let a district plan do what it should do and plan how a district should be. This bill will not improve the quality of environmental management. It will simply add to the bureaucracy of existing plans and laws. 
I commend the members of the select committee who worked on this bill. What we see today is certainly not what we saw when the bill was first introduced. There will be so many people—well not so many; I do not believe that many people actually listen to these debates—who will find it quite hard to believe that at the select committee even on a bill this contentious we saw cross-party support to work our way through it. We may certainly have come at it from different angles and we certainly had different beliefs and wanted different outcomes but as the bill was to become law we had a desire to make this legislation as workable as possible for Waitakere residents.  
I want to touch on the potential for New Zealand. Let us have no disbelief that we have opened a can of worms that means that legislation like this can now come throughout the country. I want to pick up on what the Hon Peter Dunne said. He said that no one can deny the Waitakere area its natural beauty. I look at clause 8 and note one of the heritage features must be “natural scenic beauty”. I challenge members in this Chamber to stand up and tell me of somewhere in New Zealand that does not have that. But I can say to my Waitakere colleagues and the residents who may be listening that I do know of one place that does not have natural scenic beauty and that would have to be the Glen Eden overbridge but I will deal with that issue in another format I think. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: You’re probably right. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes—bring it on ONTRACK! I want to talk about a couple of clauses. One which was an improvement made by the select committee means that the boundary of the heritage area can now be extended only by an Order in Council and has to be by way of a legislative amendment. That is certainly an improvement on the original provision. The features of the heritage area which are mentioned in clause 8 are still perhaps of the most concern certainly to us because they are the most ambiguous and carry the highest risk of litigation. So the clause still seeks to “protect restore and enhance”. It still talks about the quietness and the darkness but that sort of stuff is so open to interpretation. I cannot help but say to the Greens that a lot of their party members are involved in the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society and I sincerely hope it does not cost the Greens some membership and thousands and thousands of dollars to be debating in court what the quietness and the darkness of the ranges really means. 
It is important that the bill at least categorically states that if there is a conflict the Resource Management Act prevails. Thank goodness! But then why have the bill if it will not do something that the Resource Management Act does not do? 
It is fine for people to make little comments. It has been a personal attack for me quite frankly the whole way through and people can go on about how completely awful I am or where I live and the fact that I do not actually live in the foothills area but live instead in poor old Henderson which gets the raw end of this deal more often that not. It was fine for Mr Cunliffe to sit there earlier and talk about how no new person has been employed. That is not true. Already the Waitakere City Council has advertised for someone to work on this bill. 
I finish with a final plea and that plea would be that we turn this regional park into a national park. Let us give it that highest protection and let the foothills and the rest of the area covered by this bill actually be under the National Parks Act the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act. If we had stuck with them instead of yet another piece of legislation and bureaucracy the Waitakere residents would be getting a better result. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I rise to take a very brief call on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. In many respects some would think that one has to be from Waitakere to be able to portray the feelings that local people have towards this particular part of Auckland City. It is a very distinct part of the Auckland region and many of the previous speakers certainly on this side of the House have attested to the cultural natural and historical significance and heritage of the Waitakere Ranges. In many ways only they could because they are from there they understand the community they have been brought up in the area they have raised their children in the area and they can attest to the reasons why a bill like this should be brought to the House. 
In fact listening to the member who has just spoken Paula Bennett one would think that she had not actually lived in the area herself. I am assured by many many members on this side of the House—such as Lynne Pillay the member in charge of the bill Darien Fenton David Cunliffe Pita Sharples from the Maori Party and Chris Carter—that this bill is supported by local people. Yes it has taken some time to get there but not without the tireless effort and commitment of a number of stakeholders to ensure that this bill will achieve an outcome for the benefit of that community. That is as it should be. 
What stakeholders have been involved? There were two councils—Waitakere and Rodney. Numerous local members of Parliament from west Auckland have become involved. Various Government departments have offered advice to try to work on some of the local issues that have come through the select committee process. A number of Ministers such as myself as Minister of Local Government have raised issues and sought solutions to be able to get something into this House that could be passed and that could be useful to ensuring the preservation of the Waitakere area. 
Lynne Pillay should be commended for her tireless endurance if nothing else in lobbying across the House at the select committee and in the community to ensure that the balance of interests was reflected in something in this House that could be moved forward positively. 
That is really all I have to say. Many members have exhausted themselves discussing the bill. What I think we will see overall is a model of an approach whereby communities can work together ultimately for their own interests. Members opposite say that the Government is trying to stop any type of development. That is simply not so. We need only to look at the  
Hansard 
 record of the Committee stage of the bill to see the response to those types of issues. 
In the long term I think we will see a model that may be looked at by other regions to offer the same type of protection. We are not sure about that but in time we will see some of the benefits emanating from this particular bill. I certainly support it. I am disappointed that Paula Bennett a local member from west Auckland did not seem as a thinking member to be able to support the bill. That is a shame but never mind with the support of the Maori Party the Greens and Taito Phillip Field this bill will continue through. No reira tena koutou katoa. Kia ora. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive: 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time.