Field Taito Phillip: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14428] 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in support of this bill although I am putting forward an amendment by way of Supplementary Order Paper 141. As an independent MP I have received many representations from concerned people both for and against this bill. Many of those people have given stark and passionate evaluations of the need for this bill and its effect on their lives and on the future of the area. Consequently I have examined this bill and the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee quite closely. I have visited the area the foothills and the ranges and I have talked to concerned people—to both promoters of the bill and those who oppose it. In addition I have met with representatives of the Waitakere Pacific Board who strongly endorse the bill as well as received supportive messages from tangata whenua. 
My first impressions were that those who opposed the bill had some valid points to make. They feared for example that certain wording especially in the revised clause 13 would add to the complexity time and costs involved in gaining a consent under the Resource Management Act. They said that the bill would effectively prohibit reasonable development of their private land. On further investigation I found that such consequences were certainly not the intent of the promoters or indeed of the select committee and I was able to allay some fears by reference to new clause 10AA which clarifies the “Relationship between this Act and Resource Management Act 1991” to clause 29 “Preservation of existing rights” and the “Transitional provisions” in clause 30. 
However some sense of alarm remained amongst sections of the Waitakere community and that disquiet was coherently expressed by Mr Arnold Turner a former Environment Court judge and a man whose family members have long associations with the ranges as landowners farmers and conservationists. Mr Turner is also a former member of the Auckland Regional Authority and chairman of the regional parks committee. He expressed concern about the consequences of the bill and the possibility of ambiguity in terms of the way it was drafted. That related to the district plan and in particular to compliance with section 75 of the Resource Management Act. I know that National members give a lot of weight to Mr Turner’s views and I say that Mr Turner and other opponents such as members of the Swanson group the Structure Plan Advocates Network were passionate in their desire to see the area managed in a way that protected its values for the long term and they were prepared to negotiate constructively on possible ways of improving the bill. 
As a result of those negotiations I agreed to promote an amendment to clause 13 which I believe will improve the bill and the relationship between the bill and the district plan. It narrows the matters to be considered in assessing an application for consent to those matters that are relevant. I must say I was satisfied that there was strong consistency between the Waitakere City district plan policies and the intent and provision of this bill. The two are not in conflict and should work together very well. Their joint administration should add to the certainty and cost-effectiveness of the consent process and certainly appropriate development will obtain consent. My amendment will contribute positively I believe to achieving that outcome. 
I said “appropriate development” because from my inspection of the proposed heritage area I can see there are real constraints on the kinds of developments that are sustainable. Even in the foothills high rainfall steep slopes and unstable soil make urban development unwise. The contrast between the intensive urban development of Waitakere City and the heritage area is stark and abrupt but so is the landscape change and particularly the ability of the land to carry such development. My amendment I believe is also consistent with the views of Mr Turner whom I quote: “I confirm that the wording of the amendment is satisfactory from my point of view and if that amendment is made to clause 13 by way of a Supplementary Order Paper I will no longer have any objection to the bill.” That comment is from Mr Turner who was very much part of those who raised concerns about and objections to this bill. 
I believe that this bill is appropriate. I thank the officials of Waitakere City in particular Graeme Campbell for the way they adhered to the need to consult the community widely. I believe that that work has paid dividends by and large in terms of unifying the community despite the comments that have been made on the other side of the Chamber about splitting it. I believe that a significant majority are actually in favour of this bill and I commend it to the Committee.