Tremain Chris: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:675;Page:14454] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 and particularly to clause 6. I want to speak about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and I want to contrast it with the Ocean Beach area in Hawke’s Bay. In clause 6 subclauses (1) (2) and (3) focus on the specific area of the heritage area and the ranges. Clause 6(3) gives a legal description of its boundaries and clause 6(2) refers to the schedule that deals with the boundaries in the area. It is this area that Waitakere chief Te Waatarauihi spoke about when he was at a meeting at Kohimarama. He said as quoted in the preamble to the bill: “Whakarongo mai e nga iwi ki ta te korero i mua. He ika tenei whenua. Ko te tangata nana i huti ko Maui. Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.” I will just repeat that last part in particular: “Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.” When the chief spoke he was speaking from his heart about his passion for the area for his whenua and for the land that he had grown up on and lived in. He said in the last part of the quote—“Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.”—that he would remain there on the land until he died. 
I think the same could be said by many people in this Chamber tonight whether they are from the north from Christchurch from Heretaunga where Pita Sharples is from or from Waitakere which is where my colleague is from. These are places that we love in our hearts and we will cherish them until we die. That applies to many places around this country so the question we ask is do we need to introduce legislation like this to protect every area around the country? Do we have to have a Part 2 in numerous bills to protect each and every area? 
I have a place in Heretaunga in Ocean Beach which is currently under threat of significant development. If we relate that to Part 2 we see that Ocean Beach goes from Cape Kidnappers south to include the surf club and the hapu that has a small village at the bottom of Ocean Beach. This area is under severe threat from development and the developer there is looking to put 1000 houses on to that beach which in summertime would increase the beach population to between 5000 and 7000 people. Hawke’s Bay people have come out strongly against that particular situation. They do not want 1000 houses on Ocean Beach. But are they going through legislation like this to protect that area to protect the beauty and isolation of Ocean Beach and to protect one of the most amazing natural resources up by Cape Kidnappers where there is a heritage area that people in Hawke’s Bay would die for? There is a hapu at the end there and “Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.”—they will live there until they die. 
They do not need legislation like this; they are using the Hastings District Council through a Resource Management Act process and they are using protest with banners around the place to make sure that that development does not go ahead. The reality is that some form of development will happen there because currently property owners there have a property right. They could develop property across the beachscape at Ocean Beach. They could add maybe 150 to 200 properties. Do we want that? Do we want telegraph poles separate sewage tanks on each of these 10-acre blocks? No way. It is far more sensible under the current district plan to put together a smaller development—not 1000 houses but something that is contained that is right there in Ocean Beach and that can be managed. 
Once again we do not need a Part 2. We do not need legislation like this to achieve its goal; we just need concerned citizens who stand up for their rights and concerned citizens who are prepared to take the Resource Management Act on to take proceedings and to take them all the way to the Environment Court. That is what that process is for: to make sure that beautiful areas places that we would stand and die for are protected for ever and a day. So I am totally against this bill and National is against this bill. We believe that it is a case of bureaucracy gone wild. It is totally unnecessary so we will not be voting for Part 2. Thank you.