Carter John: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
Carter John: Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12037] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The first thing I want to put on the record is that the National Party recognises the Waitakere Ranges as being iconic. We made that clear in the minority report we presented to the House. I would be very surprised if there were anybody in this Parliament who is not of that view. They are a special set of ranges and it is unique in lots of ways in our country—and in any city in the world—to have a range of mountains behind our Queen City. We think it is important that that is recognised. Indeed that is one of the reasons why we want to put it in the annals of this House. 
The second thing we want to acknowledge is the fact that a lot of the reasons why the Waitakere Ranges are as they are today is because of the people who live there. If one looks back over the history of the Waitakere Ranges—going back 50 or 100 years—one sees that a lot of areas were burnt desolate raped— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Felled. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes whatever. They were used for a whole lot of purposes as was the wont of those times. What has happened is that over time people with absolute and keen interest in the environment and in the Waitakere environment itself have bought into the area. A lot of the people who live there have a long long history in the area. They have worked with the newer residents to re-establish the environment that is there today. They are to be commended for that. Those people can take great pride in the fact that the Waitakere Ranges as we know them today are primarily there not because of something the Government local council or regional council did but because they as residents and citizens of that area have taken pride in their own environment. They are to be commended for that. 
That brings us to the reason we are debating the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. It is a view that there needs to be some special recognition of the Waitakere Ranges. But I ask the question that if they are as good as they are—and they are because the residents have made them so—why do we suddenly need to protect the ranges from the residents themselves? I would have thought having looked at the history and at what has developed over the last 20 30 and 50 years and longer that the residents have done a good job by themselves for themselves and are capable of continuing to do so. 
Then we come to the bill. It needs to be put into  
Hansard 
 that one of the first questions we asked of the officials who presented to the Local Government and Environment Committee was why we need this bill. We were told repeatedly—I kept asking the question as did other members of the committee—that the ranges could not be protected under the Resource Management Act and the district scheme and that we needed something special. Then we were told that the bill does not actually do anything more but we needed something special because we could not do it under the present Resource Management Act. 
Paula Bennett 
: And you asked again and again. 
JOHN CARTER 
: We kept asking again and again whether we could do it under the Resource Management Act. They told us we could but that the Resource Management Act does not do it and we need this bill because it can then do it. I kept saying that there was a conflict and that we were getting conflicting advice. On the one hand the officials were saying we need the bill because we cannot do it but then they were assuring us that we could do it under the Resource Management Act and the present district scheme. You know I do not know how many times I asked the question. In fact we got to the stage where we asked the officials whether they could tell us the status of this bill as opposed to the Resource Management Act. My colleague Nick Smith asked that question. We debated that issue and received advice that if the bill had continued in the form in which it was then it would have had a higher standing than the Resource Management Act itself. Paula Bennett Nick Smith and myself—and others on the committee—then had to get advice on how we could reduce that status because we cannot have a local bill that has a higher status than general legislation. 
So the bill was changed which brought us to the position where the question was that if it is now of lower status and if we can do what the bill intends to do under the Resource Management Act why do we need it? I have to say that having questioned the officials time and time again we finally got a concession from them that they had misinformed us. They had actually deliberately lied to the committee. That is the best way to put it. They had told us that we needed the bill because they could not do it. Finally they conceded that they could do all the things we needed to do under the present district scheme. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Who lied? 
JOHN CARTER 
: The local government officials. 
Paula Bennett 
: You were indignant. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I was seriously upset by that. I was so upset that I took it to the mayor and said: “Do you understand what happened? Your officials who came before us lied to the select committee.” He said he did not believe that. I said: “Well let’s go and ask.” At the local government conference I asked the officials and we had confirmation from them that they had misled the select committee. I say to this House that for that reason alone—the fact that the officials felt they had to go out of their way to lie to the select committee and to this Parliament as a consequence—we should not be passing this bill. We cannot have a local bill that is not based on the truth. I have to say that I was seriously disappointed upset and indignant as Paula Bennett has just said that officials came before a select committee of Parliament and misled us. 
The fact is that as the bill is drafted at the moment we have been assured by officials time and time again now that under the Resource Management Act and the district scheme we can do what this bill allows. One of the things I have always fought against in this Parliament is passing unnecessary legislation. If this legislation goes through today—if it goes through the process and is passed into law—then we will have passed legislation that is unnecessary. If this bill was as necessary as we have been told it is then there are other ways in which the matter could have been addressed and it should have been done that way. The local authority has the power under its district scheme to do the things this bill intends. The local authority has the power to change the district scheme to allow— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Make its rules. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Absolutely! Indeed another worry we have with this bill is that it will add another layer of bureaucracy and another layer of law. It is unnecessary. It will not achieve anything. But here we are today debating legislation that will put more bureaucracy and rate costs on to the local people but will achieve nothing. I say that for that reason this Parliament should not support the bill. 
The National Party supports the Waitakere Ranges. We think they are iconic. We have said so in our minority report. The caucus is fully of that view. But we do not support unnecessary legislation. Today I say to this House that that is exactly what we are doing here. For that reason—and that reason alone—I will vote against the legislation and I know my colleagues will join me in not supporting this legislation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.