Bennett Paula: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett Paula: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12027] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I thank the House for the opportunity to talk on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear little threats from the opposite side of the Chamber that my speech will be sent to wherever the members there like to send it. I say: “Good luck!”. I say to the previous speaker the chairwoman of the Local Government and Environment Committee if that was a promotional speech then it was not a particularly good one. As chairwoman she sat through the submission process and heard from both sides about just how hugely contentious this bill is in the west Auckland area and in Waitakere. I say that for her to stand in this House and try to blame the Opposition for stirring up a process is wrong. This issue was already well on the way before I came along as a candidate and was well on the way when there were meetings with over 600 people present where the things being raised were real concerns. The member thinks that if one has an opinion one is stirring up feelings out in the community. That is another example of how nervous Government members feel about having a debate on the actual issue instead of making personal attacks and doing everything else that they do. That is all good and all fine and I tell them to bring it on however they like quite frankly. 
Never before has a local bill in the experience of some of my colleagues who have been around Parliament far longer than I have been as contentious as this bill in a local area. The people who spoke in the submission process were heartfelt genuine and emotional about the bill and that came from both sides of the argument. That is the reality; both sides sat there. It was bad enough to read their submissions but to hear them speak—and we heard over 90 of them in the Waitakere area when we went there—really struck us. It would be fair to say members of the committee from both sides felt that way and we could see the issue was very personal for a lot of people on both sides of the argument. It was interesting though that the argument pretty quickly turned into one of the Government members of the committee trying to espouse the view as they were today as well that it was one between eco-angels and devil developers. Of course there is nothing further from the truth. I have yet to meet anyone who wants to see any sort of tight-fitting subdivision in either the ranges or the foothills. That is the reality. 
It is appropriate to hear about some of the problems and to give a voice to some of the people who are absolutely struggling under what they perceive this legislation will actually mean for them. One states: “My whanau owns a 6 acre property surrounded by an urban environment a long way from the Waitakere Ranges. We made an application to the council to gain consent to build a granny flat for our whanau.”—for the parents actually. The person goes on to state: “At the time of lodging our application we were advised that although a discretionary activity there was no issue from their perspective. It has now cost our whanau $9000 to try and meet the council’s existing RMA requirements.” So the whanau had got all the neighbours’ approval without any difficulty and it was easy to get the council’s consent. However the person then states: “We have since learnt that the proposed Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has been influential in stalling the application process in gaining resource consent and may prevent us from building suitable accommodation for our parents.” We heard those sorts of stories time and time again from people. 
Let us get some of the realities into this debate and talk about what this legislation means for people. It is easy to make legislation that will go across the area and be woolly in its language and it will be interpreted by lawyers at the end of the day because that is what happens. Government members can put up all the arguments in the world but this issue is about people and is about what this legislation means for them in their area. That is what is really important. 
I was really taken by one story of a family that had been in the area since 1860. The family talked about its forebears having been part of the milling process and said one could certainly see the changes in the area that have occurred in well over 130 or 140 years. The family said one would be almost ashamed to think one’s forebears were part of the milling process at that time. But that family is now very proud of the regeneration its members have been a part of. There can be as much research as one wants on the other side. One can certainly see the results of that and can walk around and see the evidence of the regeneration that has taken place because of the input of local people and what they are doing in the area. 
I put a challenge forward in all seriousness to my own colleagues and to all MPs including those in the Maori Party I say to Mr Sharples. I put a challenge forward to the House. I ask those MPs who are voting in support of this bill to demonstrate their understanding and appreciation of the effects of it by voluntarily covenanting their own titles to properties within their personal control those properties being anywhere in New Zealand with the same classification and restrictions that will apply to landowners in the Waitakere area covered under this legislation. If they are not prepared to do that their own consciences should direct them to vote against this bill. As my colleague pointed out many areas within New Zealand could come under provisions like those in this legislation. MPs who are prepared to support this bill should stand up and say they will have their own whanau and own land affected by the same restrictions that they are putting people under in the Waitakere Ranges area. So all MPs who support the bill should stand up—including Maori MPs—and be proud that what they are doing is putting in place a covenant that will have restrictions on the use of their land. If that makes us all feel better then I say good luck to us. 
Now there is no actual protection greater than that given to the land in a national park. There is no Act that gives greater protection than that so if we are truly serious about giving this land the greatest possible protection then that is what we should be doing. There are no national parks north of Taupo as we have already said and giving the Waitakere Ranges that status would actually lock in that sort of protection. The National Parks Act states in section 4(1) that its provisions are “for the purpose of preserving in perpetuity as national parks for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit use and enjoyment of the public areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality ecological systems or natural features so beautiful unique or scientifically important that their preservation” should be covered. That covers the Waitakere Ranges without a doubt. 
We can look at the argument and see that it has been turned into one of groups being absolutely pitched against one another and we can look at the numerous surveys that have been done. It was quite interesting to find in the process of hearing submissions that when my colleague Mr John Carter asked every submitter whether he or she had been surveyed about the bill not a single one of them could stand up and say that he or she had. It was really quite fascinating to be unable to find the people who had been surveyed and there were questions about whether the survey was truly as representative as had been said. People choose to live in areas like the Waitakere Ranges because they absolutely love them. I think there is evidence time and time again of the care and protection that people give to this area. In all fairness when one looks at some of the properties and the way they are treated one sees they are treated better than the Auckland Regional Council and the local councils treat their properties. That happens because the owners care more about them than the councils do about their properties and they actually make sure they put their energy into them. 
I truly truly believe that it is a bad precedent for Parliament to bypass the checks and balances of the plan-making process in the Environment Court and impose what is an overriding plan. I fundamentally in myself think this bill is bad legislation. It is an absolute shame that it will not do what those well-intentioned people hope it will do. Some people have gone out and said that this is the way they want to protect the ranges. I unlike the members on the other side of the House am not going to stand up and lambaste those on the other side who have a different opinion from mine. I actually think that they are quite well intentioned and that fundamentally they are trying to protect the ranges. I think that is what the council is trying to do and that it is well intentioned. But it is our fundamental belief that this legislation will not protect the ranges and that its ramifications actually go far outside that briefing. 
This bill has been a learning experience for me—I do not make any pretences about that. I have learnt more than I previously knew about local area plans about district councils about councils and their own regional plans and about long-term council community plans. I have learnt about the process of going to the community and asking what it wants and boy at times I heard that it was a very very long process to achieve what it wants. Oratia is actually a classic example of a community with its own long-term council community plan. The people there were actually saying that they felt they had gone through a process that was long term and understandable and that to see legislation like this come in and cut through what they as individuals had already participated in was hugely hurtful and detrimental to them. 
In conclusion I say we just do not believe that this bill will protect the ranges to the same extent as such a process would and for that reason we will be voting against it.