Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill

It is a privilege to take a brief call in support of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I acknowledge and thank my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay, the member in whose name this bill has been brought forward. I acknowledge the very many people who have gone before, to bring this bill to the House today.

Work on this bill started some 30 years ago—30 years ago—when the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, Tony Randerson, now Justice Randerson, and other members of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society recognised that Auckland was growing fast and creeping stage by stage into the beautiful, unique area that we know as the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. They had a vision then that if our law did not catch up with the pace of change, and if it did not find some way of bringing together the long-term needs of future generations with the short-term pressures of subdivision and property development, then we would all be the poorer—we would all be the poorer.

This is absolutely the right thing for this Parliament to support, for several reasons. Firstly, it is an expression of the national significance and the nationwide uniqueness of this area, not just because it has beautiful bush, not just because it has significant biodiversity, but because it is one of those very rare gems of a natural ecosystem that is directly proximate to a major and growing urban city, and in that it is relatively unique. This bill is the right thing to support because it breaks new ground in dealing with the problem of incremental effects—the fact that each consent assessed on its own may be reasonable, but the combined effect of consent after consent being granted is such as to lead to an irreversible degradation in our natural heritage and the amenity values of the area.

I welcome my colleague Dail Jones and tell him it is good to see him back in the House. He raised the issue that this bill would somehow abridge private property rights and would be socialism by stealth. I would like to think so, but I doubt that 81 percent of Aucklanders are in favour of socialism by stealth. In a scientific poll, 81 percent of Aucklanders voted in favour of this bill, as did 77 percent of Waitakere residents. It does not trammel any existing property rights, nor does it change in significant measure the consenting process. What does it do? It ensures that the consenting process takes place with a set of objectives and a legal framework that provide for the long term as well as the short, and that is absolutely the right thing to do.

I said that this bill has been a long time coming and I have acknowledged some of the region’s tīpuna who have supported it over many years. Let me mention some others. I acknowledge the good work of Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki, who have been wonderful kaitiaki of this area and have engaged with local councils, and whose support for this bill is vested now in the Supplementary Order Paper that our colleagues in the Māori Party have put forward, as well as in their earlier consultation with the proponents of the bill.

I am happy to say that this issue was one of the first regional issues I embraced as a first-time candidate in 1998. In my first campaign in 1999 I travelled to the UK to look at the British national park system and at areas of unique national importance, and I brought some of that learning back into the discussion with my local and regional authority colleagues, working of course with my friend and colleague Lynne Pillay.

This bill has been a long time coming, because it has been the subject of extensive local consultation over many, many years. It has broken ground in cooperation between territorial authorities and the regional authority, which have all stood behind this bill. If anybody was in any doubt about whether supporting the bill was the right thing for this Parliament to do, I simply ask them to reflect upon the fact that the processes of local democracy, operating freely and through their democratic system, have seen all of those local representatives join together to bring this bill to the House.

I stand to speak on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, which is being promoted by the Waitakere City Council. First I will address the way in which the community has had to deal with this issue. Although differing opinions are a good thing, and it is good to come at things from different angles, there is absolutely no doubt that this bill has split the community to its detriment. That is a fact. The member speaking previously, David Cunliffe, spoke about surveys being put out that show 81 percent support it, but we need to ask what question the people answered on that survey. Is there any doubt from members of the public living in Waitakere that they want to see those ranges protected? There is none. I have not yet met one person who does not want that protection. Certainly members of Parliament from this side of the Chamber can stand proudly and say they wish to see those ranges protected.

The preamble to this bill talks a lot about what those ranges mean not just to the Waitakere area but also to the wider Auckland area in general. Yes, for those of us who live there and look at the ranges, we do think they are jolly special. The National Party stands up and says that if we really think the ranges are as special as that, then we should protect them, and we should give them the highest protection in the land by turning them into a national park. There are no national parks north of Taupō, and if we are serious about seeing the Waitakere area truly protected, then there is no greater protection that we could give the ranges and the regional park than to turn the area into a national park. That is what the National Party puts on the table. It is not the first time we have said publicly that we think that idea should go to the New Zealand Conservation Authority and that it should be given due consideration.

But this bill affects all those people who live in the area. The population was 21,000 in 2005, I say to Mr Jones, although I think it is more than that now. I do not have an exact number at this stage, but I think we are talking about significantly more people than that. As a consequence, this bill is putting a caveat over those people’s land, and if it is not, then why do we have the bill? It is as simple as that. If this bill will not affect detrimentally what people can do with their own land, then why do we have the bill?

Let us put a few other facts on the table at this stage, as well. This area is not being carved up willy-nilly for town houses and medium-density housing, let alone high-density housing. This area already has very strict rules about what can happen and the way in which it can happen. There are already rules about the land within the heritage area affected by this bill. People cannot just build a house right next door, and they are restricted in what they can do with their property. Communities within the Waitakere Ranges have spent not just months but years working on their land area management plans. They have consulted, talked, and met, and they have been in consultation with the councils and have decided what is best for their area. And now we have legislation coming along that says doing all that is not enough. That is fundamentally wrong.

What can happen in the land affected by this bill at the moment—the land mass and the boundaries that we are talking about—is incredibly limited. There are families on 8 hectares who would like to build another home for their families. That is the sort of stuff we are talking about; it is not mass land development. We are not talking about subdivisions like Henderson Heights, where I live, and places like that where some of us choose to live. We are not talking about areas like that. In the argument on this bill over the years, we have managed to have hysteria around mass housing and subdivisions, and there has been talk about the land being unable to cope with those things, but that simply is not true.

We are talking about development in an area such as Pihā, for example. I think I heard from the council just recently that something like only six sections are for sale now within the Pihā area. The development that can go on in an area like that is fairly limited. I would be one who would stand up to say that if we were to put any caveats on property, then perhaps that is the sort of area where we might do it. We might say that we do not want a lot more housing going into an area like that, purely because of the way the land is.

It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill. I note that the previous speaker acknowledged the Waitakere City Council, but I think it is important that we acknowledge the other two councils, the Auckland Regional Council and the Rodney District Council. I congratulate them on their vision, on the extraordinary consultation and community involvement they carried out in support of this bill, and on their ongoing support and energy, which has brought this bill before the House. I also acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee, led by Steve Chadwick, and the constructive recommendations made by the majority of that committee, which has brought this bill forward and recommended that it proceed before the Committee today.

I will speak very briefly about the comments made by Nick Smith, because, personally, I found them quite offensive. I would never dream of insulting the Committee by my Māori pronunciation, but I would like to give the translation of the words in the bill. The preamble states: “Listen all of the assembled tribes, to this talk of olden times, this land is a fish. The person who fished it up was Maui. I will remain here on it, indeed until I die:”. That was a Waitakere chief at the Kohimārama conference in 1860. It is acknowledging feeling, passion, and—even back in 1860—the desire to keep Waitakere and those beautiful ranges as they are and as they should be.

My good friend David Cunliffe acknowledged all those people who came before us—I think three decades ago—and really worked hard and attempted to get a bill such as this before the House. It was not successful. I will not talk too much to that; I will wait for the third and final reading stage. But I really want to acknowledge that this bill was supported by many. Dail Jones entered the House and hit the ground running, slightly losing the plot but being enthusiastic nonetheless.

In terms of Aucklanders, I agree with him in one place; Aucklanders own the regional park through grants and amazing goodwill. The Waitakere Ranges Regional Park is something we hold with great pride. I completely and utterly agree with Dail Jones on that. It is quite mischievous to suggest that the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park, and certainly it is a red herring before this House. But I do not agree with Mr Jones that, overwhelmingly, Aucklanders do not support the heritage area.

I will talk very briefly about the name of this bill. David Cunliffe and I, along with many regional counsellors and officials, plus iwi representatives, were on the committee, a working party that looked at this bill and really worked towards drawing it up initially. We decided not to call it a park, because of the perception that a park is something that is publicly owned. That is why it is called a heritage area. Every single consultation and poll taken with the people of Auckland and outside Auckland overwhelmingly supported the principle of having a heritage area.

💬 Paula Bennett: What was the question?

The member keeps asking what the question was. The question was whether they wanted more protection for the heritage area. The mistake that happened is that, unfortunately, the likes of poor old Nick Smith rode in one day and decided there were a lot of votes in opposing the bill, not taking into account what many of the residents and ratepayers groups wanted, or what the three regional councils wanted after their consultation. He completely overrode that. Basically, I am very proud to stand and speak in support of this bill. I do not agree with Paula Bennett that it has split the community. Misinformation splits the community. When people had the appropriate and real information, they supported it.

The first thing I want to reflect on is the valedictory speech given earlier by Ann Hartley. I have to say, it was the most political valedictory speech I have ever heard. It was a disgrace.

I will move on to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I say first of all that the fact that the member Lynne Pillay was talking about 83 percent of the scientific poll that was carried out by somebody asking people whether they would like more protection for a heritage area is a bit like someone in the Labour caucus being asked whether they are opposed to Helen Clark. It is the same sort of question.

💬 Nathan Guy: Do you want more protection from her?

Yes, that is right. I mean, what a nonsense question. It is crazy. For Lynne Pillay to sit here in this Chamber and suggest that on the basis of that “scientific poll” we should support the bill, she has to be kidding.

I want to come to something I consider to be very serious. I want those members who support this bill to listen very carefully—particularly my colleagues from the Māori Party, who are honourable people. I make the point that when I went into the first hearing of the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill, I said to the officials: “Can you please tell me why we are doing this? Obviously, we are doing something extra, over and above the Resource Management Act, that cannot be accommodated under the Act.” The officials said no, that the bill just develops the Resource Management Act, but does not do anything extra. So I kept asking them: “Well, if it does not do anything extra, then why are we doing it?”. I wanted to know. There was no answer other than: “Well, we just need it to be there so people know that it is there. But it does not do anything extra.”

I constantly kept asking for the reason why we have this bill if it does not do anything more than can be done under the Resource Management Act. After about 3 months—

💬 Mark Blumsky: Longer.

I am not sure how much longer it was, but I have witnesses here to the answer. Finally, I had a concession from the officials that actually, yes, the bill did go further than the Resource Management Act. They had lied to the select committee—deliberately lied.

Even further, down at the local government conference last year I was talking to the Mayor of Waitakere City, Bob Harvey. I asked him: “Do you realise, your worship, that your officials lied to the select committee?”. He said he did not believe me and that it was not true. I said that he should come over and we would talk to some of them. So we went and talked to some of his officials who were there, and I said to them—

💬 Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point I make is that it is an accepted understanding in this House that we do not call members liars. It is grossly unfair for somebody to accuse officials of lying, when they are not in a position to defend themselves. I think it is inappropriate for the member to refer to officials in that way inside this Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I just have a query, Mr Carter. Were you referring to anyone in the House?

No, I was not referring to any members of Parliament.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you.

I want to make it clear that it was the council’s officials, not the parliamentary officials, who misled the select committee. It was not our parliamentary staff; it was the officials for the local authority. That is what I was saying.

I said to the mayor, Bob Harvey, that he should come and talk to his officials and ask them whether this bill will do more than the Resource Management Act can do, and ask whether they had told the select committee that it would not. Bob Harvey himself asked the officials whether they had told the select committee that the bill would not do anything more than can be accommodated in the Resource Management Act. They said: “Yes, your worship, we did say that.” Bob Harvey then asked whether they could confirm that the bill actually does do more than the Resource Management Act. Their answer was: “Yes, your worship. That is true. We have now told the select committee that it does.”

Those officials deliberately misled the select committee, and that really makes me angry. There may well be some purpose behind this bill. There may well be some good reason why there are people who want to support it. But the one thing I will not and cannot tolerate is being misled or deliberately lied to. Quite honestly, that is not acceptable. That really made me angry, and it makes me angry to think that now we have other parties who support this bill on the grounds that they have been told—because they were not there—that this bill does not do any more than the Resource Management Act, because it does.

💬 Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Given the comments made by the speaker, would it not be more appropriate for him to have those officials brought before the Privileges Committee, if he seriously considers that they have lied to a select committee?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, it is not a matter for us to discuss here. That is not a point of order, but if you were just clarifying something, then that is fine.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the preamble of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. The first thing I really must do is compliment my colleague Mr John Carter on drawing the attention of the Committee to the very, very loose advice that clearly some officials gave to the Local Government and Environment Committee. That in itself should be a major warning sign to the Committee. When I look at the preamble, I find myself asking whether this bill is really necessary. Why are we doing this? Then I reflect on a couple of things. I reflect particularly on the comments of the newly admitted member, Mr Dail Jones. I congratulate Mr Jones, and welcome him back.

💬 Dail Jones: Re-admitted.

Of course—for the third time, I think. Well done! He made the point that this is socialism by stealth.

💬 Dianne Yates: Oh, rubbish!

Away she goes again—the member who could not even hold her seat. She is squeaking and squawking in this Chamber again, instead of addressing the issues of this legislation. It was interesting to hear from the Minister who has a constituency out there. He is the bloke who is struggling with the health portfolio at the moment. It was interesting to hear him talk about socialism and say that 81 percent of Aucklanders would not accept it, or something like that. That is the point. These members operate by stealth. If members read the preamble to the bill, that is what they will see.

Mr Jones made a second point, which also causes me to reflect, and that is that this bill is an affront to the rule of law. No legislation that is based on poor or weak advice, no legislation that is an affront to the rule of law, no legislation that takes away rights from people should stand in this House. It just should not happen.

I come back to the preamble to talk about it in a little more detail. This is a preamble to a bill that has split a community. No good legislation comes from a community that is split as this one is over this legislation. The preamble is telling us that there will be more bureaucracy, more rules, more frustration, more confusion, more uncertainty, and more work for those in our community who are not genuinely productive. The frustration that taxpayers and ratepayers will experience will know no bounds. This bill, with its preamble, does not serve the interests of either the people who live in Waitakere—which I agree is a beautiful part of New Zealand—or the people of New Zealand generally. If this Committee lets this sort of preamble stand and lets this sort of legislation stand, there will be no stopping the socialists on the other side of the Chamber from trying to get every bit of New Zealand covered under this sort of legislation.

It is not necessary, and it is not wise. I would have thought that when there is no valid reason for legislation, it would not be necessary. That has been made pretty plain by previous speakers on this side, such as the outstanding member from out west, Paula Bennett. Goodness me, is she not going to deliver a lesson to the Labour Party at the coming election! It has also been made clear by my colleague John Carter. This legislation is not necessary unless there is another motive, and that motive is socialism by stealth.

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.

Speaking to the preamble, I first of all say that I believe that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has clear historic significance. I am going to refrain from personal jibes across the Chamber, because I believe that the debate on this bill, through this Committee stage and through the remaining readings, is profoundly significant. We have to see it in context, as debates are being held on iconic areas abutting urban landscapes such as the English Peak District and the Sheffield and Manchester conurbations, Table Mountain and Cape Town, the Blue Mountains and Sydney, and the Dandenong Ranges and Melbourne—those iconic areas define those urban landscapes.

A member opposite talked about—shock, horror—socialism by stealth. I say that if we do nothing, we will have the destruction of this heritage by stealth.

💬 Mark Blumsky: You’re joking!

I am not hearing the interjections from the National side of the Chamber, because history will record the interjections of the narrow-minded and the short-sighted. History will record the West Auckland members Lynne Pillay, David Cunliffe, and Chris Carter, and the Mayor of Waitakere City Council, Bob Harvey, and his team as the visionaries. I doubt very much whether the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt is listening to the Parliamentary feed on the Internet—I am not quite sure of the time zone difference, it will be about 5.55 a.m. in morning—but if he is, he would be delighted because we are now on our way to protecting one of New Zealand’s major iconic landscapes. That is what this bill is all about.

I refer members to the notion in the preamble that “Local statutory guidance”—statutory guidance, those are the words—“is considered desirable to better protect the Waitakere Ranges and their foothills, and coasts, in particular in relation to—(a) managing the cumulative and precedent effects of development on the landscape, the desired future character and amenity of the area, and the ecological and biological environment:”. This is about maintaining heritage. If we do nothing, year by year, month by month, drip by drip, there will be cases like the submitter who said he really wanted the right to do what he likes because it was his sort of superannuation fund. I am sorry, but the superannuation fund that counts is the superannuation fund of heritage for our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. That is the fund that counts, and that is the future that counts.

That is why this country will see the Waitakere Ranges as an iconic landscape, just as the people of Sydney look upon their Blue Mountains in a similar way, the people of Melbourne look upon the Dandenong Ranges in a similar way, and the people of Cape Town look upon the Table Mountain and its environs in a similar way. That is why we are having quite a significant debate and discussion, even on the preamble. I acknowledge the contribution that Taito Phillip Field made previously and I express appreciation from members on this side for his considered support. I acknowledge, if I may, that he has done some soul-searching and a lot of consultation, and I think that is very valuable.

I hope to take more calls on this bill during its readings, but it is a moment of pride when we can stand up in this Chamber and actually have a very clear look at the future and frankly look beyond the horizon in terms of expediency and say that this is a very critical heritage area to be protected. What we do tonight and in the subsequent sessions is going to be reflected upon by grandchildren who live now, by great-grandchildren, and by history. In the future people will look back on this moment, and on this Parliament, and say that this bill was another significant step in saving what is absolutely a vital heritage area of national significance.

I enjoy having the chance to speak on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill before the dinner break. I wanted to speak in this part, because I am hoping some of the officials are still within the precinct. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee considering this bill, and it was a very long and a reasonably arduous process. For a Luddite like myself, for want of a better word, I am not good on the Resource Management Act, at all, and this bill was an education and a half on the Resource Management Act. It was also an education on how to rewrite a bill. This bill has been just about totally rewritten by the select committee. When we look at the changes that have been made, we see that they are quite comprehensive, and I think that the bill is better for it. The Parliamentary Counsel Office has done a sterling job on guiding us through that, and I acknowledge it and the other officials who have been involved in the process.

There is always an upside to everything. For me the upside to this one—and for this I thank the Auckland Regional Council—was that we had a stunning trip on a helicopter to view the Waitakere Ranges, which is something I had never experienced. Being a Wellingtonian, I did not fully appreciate the beauty of the Waitakere Ranges. They are stunning, and of course they are worth protecting. I can fully understand why there is passion in the region, passion in Auckland, about these ranges. I was also lucky enough to be sitting beside Marian Hobbs on the helicopter. It was a good thing they had shut the door on the helicopter, because there was a debate at the time about who would push whom out of the helicopter! That was the upside.

The downside is that I have found this to be very disturbing legislation—totally. There are a number of reasons why I found this legislation very disturbing. The first is that it came before us in 2006; it is now 2008. This took a heck of a long time to get through the select committee process. In fact, it took so long that I just about had to reread the papers to remind myself of a lot of the issues, because it did not get the numbers to bring it to the Committee of the whole House until just the other day. This is controversial legislation. For it to sit on the Order Paper for as long as it has means there was concern about the numbers. Obviously those have been rectified, but the fact that it took so long to come before the Committee was a concern.

For me the second concern is in regard to the council activities. I am uncomfortable with the way that the local community has not picked up on this local bill as with other local bills that have come before the select committee I have been on for the last few years. I would have thought that when local bills come before us, they actually have a pretty high degree of local support, but I do not believe that this one has. I think that is incredibly disturbing and sad.

There has been talk about the poll, and the sponsor of the bill rabbited on beautifully about how fantastic the support was. But as the deputy chair of the committee, John Carter, alluded, the question was a sop. When people were asked whether they supported protection, no one would have said no to that. The result was a bit different from the result of the poll I heard that Labour had in its caucus, and I must let people know about that. The poll on protecting the heritage area was a farce. To use that poll as the reason for assuming that the population of Waitakere supports this legislation is wrong.

But I became most concerned about the public submissions. Picking up from the commentary on the bill, we had 221 submissions, with the majority coming from individuals and groups in the Waitakere area. To quote from the commentary: “Submissions were almost equally split between support for and opposition to the bill.” I repeat what I said earlier: I think it is wrong that a local bill comes from the area and has that sort of division in it. The amazing thing about this bill is that neighbours were on absolutely different sides of the fence with regard to the arguments about this bill. Neighbours were arguing with each other as to what they thought the ramifications of this bill were. That is not good local government.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Can I take this chance to congratulate the New Zealand and the English cricket teams on a great game of cricket.

There are a few points I want to get through on the preamble, and one we have much concern about really is the vagueness of the bill—the fact that it is open to interpretation—and it is the opinion of this side of the Committee that the only winners out of the whole bill will be lawyers. We will see more litigation, we will see lawyers in courts, and we will see them try to battle out this piece of legislation that, quite frankly, is not succinct and does not accomplish anything. I would like to add that I think some good people in the community have gone into this with perhaps a good intention, and their intention, I think, has been to protect the very ranges and the heritage area that the bill lays out in the schedules. But, all good intentions aside, what we are dealing with in this Committee is the fact that the bill will be enacted legislation. The concern on this side is that we actually believe it will be yet another layer of bureaucracy, and we will see lawyers having to interpret statements a little bit like “natural and dynamic character;”, clause 8(c)(i).

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Give us examples.

Now that phrase may actually even explain the member who just interjected. We may speak about that very member and say he is natural, and of a dynamic character in some way or another, but do we define a piece of land that way? What does that mean? I think that in this Committee alone we could come up with 121 definitions from members of what “natural and dynamic character” actually means. Another example, which we could apply to that member, is “the quietness and darkness of the Waitakere Ranges”, in clause 8(e). So are we concerned about bird calls? Are we concerned about cars driving through the ranges on a scenic road and heading out to Pīhā?

💬 Hon Member: Turn their lights out.

Should drivers turn their headlights off to protect the darkness of the ranges? Should we let only a certain cc rating of vehicle drive through the ranges so that we actually protect the quietness? As a westie, I could say there is the odd person who likes to hoon it up a little. So are we actually going to start restricting the cc rating of vehicles that can run—[Interruption]

For those who cannot hear them, I tell members that the Greens are speaking up now. I will be most interested to hear them speak on this bill, because during the bill’s first reading I must say that at least Nandor Tanczos said they had some very serious concerns about it. During the first reading they raised concerns about singling out one piece of land within New Zealand and asking why one particular place was being singled out for special attention in a bill, and they had real concerns about that practice being shared throughout the country. I think that concern is incredibly legitimate.

I will give just one more example, because I know that the member Shane Jones is excited about hearing one, and it is a quote from clause 8(i)(ii): “the distinctive harmony, pleasantness,”. So to reiterate, the types of things we could expect to hear in future court cases, and could expect to hear time and time again, will be the sorts of language around natural and dynamic character, the quietness and darkness of the ranges, and distinctive harmony and pleasantness. They are just three examples that are picked out quite easily from the bill, and that this side of the Committee has genuine concerns about. If we debated them quite openly I think members would find there would be many different meanings from many different people. How can a piece of legislation possibly hope to legislate for that sort of language?

When we talk about the ranges, it is so easy to do the sort of “devil developers” and “eco-angels” labelling used during the submission process but, quite frankly, I think that that is a very naive way to try to define this argument. People on both sides have come from both sides of the argument. We certainly heard people in the submission process talking about the environment, the rehabilitation of the ranges and their natural resources, and the fact that people who live there and who have moved in during the last 50 or 60 years have done more in relation to the natural resources of the land than those who were there before. They are the ones who have replanted, they are the ones who have looked after the land, and they are the ones who have regenerated it. That is something that the Greens should take into consideration. People are not always the enemy.

In the preamble, as I have mentioned already, there are, clearly, two areas of land being considered. One is the 17,000 hectares that belong to us all in Auckland, and the other is the 10,000 remaining hectares.

When one reads the preamble and looks at, say, recital (9) we see that it is worded in a way to give everyone fear about what is going to happen to the 17,000 acres. Recital (9) suggests that it applies to the 17,000 acres, which, of course, it cannot. Recital (9) reads as follows: “The area is subject to development and urban intensification pressures.” Well, that cannot apply to the 17,000 hectares because it belongs to the people of Auckland and the Auckland Regional Council. Nothing can happen there.

Recital (9) goes on to state: “These pressures are compounded by the area’s proximity to metropolitan Auckland, and threaten to undermine the unique natural, landscape, cultural, historic, and community features of the area, including its farming and rural character:”. In so far as the 17,000 hectares is concerned its unique natural landscape and its cultural, historic, and community features are always protected because we in Auckland will make sure they are protected, and no law is required to give them any further protection, because shared ownership means that we in Auckland, as ratepayers of the Auckland Regional Council, will make sure that nothing will happen to that land.

However, where we are today, of course, is in dramatic comparison with the way in which the founders of the Auckland regional park area established it. They bought the land. As they required more land, they went out and bought it. They added to it, so, over time, the people of Auckland came to own 17,000 hectares of land. Nothing can happen to it. What is the contrast today? Today, instead of going out and buying the land—this additional 10,000 hectares, which has been in private ownership for a long time—the Waitakere City Council wants, effectively, to gain control as if it were the owner of the land and control the way in which people use the land. That is what I call socialism by stealth by the Waitakere City Council. The council has restricted one’s use of one’s own land. In the old days that land would have been bought, but the council does not want to buy it; it wants to restrict people’s use of it.

I have put forward a couple of amendments that make it clear that on every title in that 10,000 hectares there is to be a note stating that it is subject to this bill, because that will be important when one comes to sell it. Any lawyer acting for a prospective buyer will have to advise buyers: “Look, I can’t tell you what is going to happen to that 10,000 hectares. It is subject to this bill.” It will reduce the saleability of the land in the area. Lawyers will make $500 to $1,000 a time when advising purchasers on how the land can be used. I have suggested in another amendment that it should be noted on the title, because a principle of the Land Transfer Act is that one should have a clear definition of what is on one’s title. There should be a Gazette notice stating that this land, the 10,000 acres, is subject to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill.

If the member in charge of this bill says that it is not socialism by stealth, I say “Well, prove it.” Let us make everybody aware of what is happening. Let us get something registered on the titles so that everybody knows, and so that everybody advising a person—and I suspect that one may be a real estate agent; there are real estate agents in the Committee—on selling a piece of land is able to say to the buyer: “Look, this bill will stop you from doing additions to your house.”, for example. That is what this bill will do. Because of the nature of the land, owners will be prevented from putting additions on. That is why my other amendment refers to housing needs—so that it can be made quite clear that those people who live and work in the area will also be protected in respect of their housing needs.

The bill is silent on housing needs. If a person had a family of one that rose to three, and that person wanted to extend his or her house and put in a second bedroom, a third bedroom, or a garage, this bill would prevent that person from doing that in this area. That person would have to go through an extra resource consent process to establish whether that particular extension affected the area. If the member in charge of this bill is quite clear that it is not socialism by stealth, let us make sure that everybody in the area knows what is happening. Let us have it done by 30 September 2008, and let us see whether this member is returned to Parliament at the next election.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Later on I would like to speak to Part 2—I have a Supplementary Order Paper—but I would like to respond to some of the comments made about the preamble. To begin with I refer to Dr Nick Smith, who opened his remarks by saying: “ ‘This land is a fish’—who believes that?”, and so on.

I am surprised that Dr Smith has not read the explanation in the bill, which states that the saying was said by a chief, Te Waatarauihi, way back in 1860 at a conference in the Auckland area. The point is that he was making a spiritual and cultural expression relating to the occupation of the area. He used Māori mythology to do that. In these days, when religion is used metaphorically and references are made to supernatural happenings, I find it strange that Dr Smith would not allow a Māori reference to ownership or occupation. The whole idea of saying that the land is a fish is a reference to Māui, which is a spiritual and cultural reference to the beginning of time. He is saying that his tribe has been here forever, so that is the reference. I say to Dr Smith that we do not really think that the land is a fish, at this time.

There has been talk about the fact that consultation has split the people. I do not know of another bill where Māori have been so united. The tangata whenua, Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara, and the five marae representing the hapū of that area, Rēweti, Haranui, Kakanui, Arapārera, and Puatahi—the whole five—are unanimous in supporting this bill, and they approached me to support it. Te Kawerau-a-Maki of Tainui Waka, the other major tribal interest in the area, also support the bill. In addition to that, the taura here, the visiting Māori intertribal communities of whānau Waipareira and Hoani Waititi Marae, also support the bill. So there is no division amongst Māori over this issue, and I just wanted to make that point.

I have spent some time on the Regulations Review Committee, and on researching various bills for speaking in the House, and the one thing that I find common to most bills is the lack of true consultation with tangata whenua. Yet in this case I do not know of a better example of consultation with tangata whenua than is evident in this bill. They are in my electorate, I have a mandate to support them, and I do support this bill.

I want to take just a short call to put on the record my support for Part 1of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Unlike most members of this House I actually live in this area, in the foothills of Waitakere. I have lived there for 20 years. My child went to school there. My family have grown up there. The people in my street are not rich people. They are ordinary New Zealanders who, like me, have chosen to live in an area that is special and has cultural, historical, and ecological importance.

This area is important to all New Zealanders. I can confirm absolutely, being in touch with my neighbours and having been at the meetings and other things, that this bill reflects the desire of the people of my community to ensure that the magnificent Waitakere Ranges are kept for the enjoyment of future generations.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: How is the National waka burning?

That is right. May I say that I live at the working-class end of the Waitakere Ranges, so I am not one of the people who have high-value, very expensive properties that they might want to develop and sell for megabucks. Where I live is a wonderful area, and there has been a wonderful opportunity for my neighbours and me to grow up in this area near the wonderful Te Henga/Bethells Beach, where people have lived for a long, long time—for 1,000 years. The nearby village is Swanson.

If people have any doubt about the importance of this bill, they should go along to Swanson Road and look at the scar on the landscape caused by one developer locally. It has taken years and years and years to mend. The developer not only scarred the landscape but also polluted the waterways and put ordinary ratepayers like me to a whole lot of extra effort and money. People have had to get out and clean that pollution up. One developer thought that he or she had the right to go and screw up the landscape.

I just want to say that I live in the Waitakere Ranges. I live in the foothills, I treasure them, and they are precious not only to my family and me but to my community and all of our country.

💬 Sue Moroney: They want to subdivide the Waitakere Ranges.

I know they want to subdivide them.

💬 David Benson-Pope: They want private developers to subdivide them.

Well, that is right; they want to allow developers to make huge amounts of money. I do not support that.

My neighbours and my community do not support what the National Party wants to do. We support this bill.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Kaumātua!

No, I would never aspire to that title. I am speaking as a weather refugee from Wellington who for the last year and a half has lived in the Waitakere Ranges, in Laingholm Drive, in a regenerated kauri forest, and I have never enjoyed an environment more than the environment that I am living in. I have the strong sense that this debate reminds me of the old phrase “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”. It reminds me of the phrase about people talking past each other.

Let us be honest here: we have all become green in the last 20 years. We have all been influenced. We have not necessarily gone completely to madness, as have some of the former members of the McGillicuddy Serious Party who are currently in this Parliament as representatives of the Green Party. But in one way or another, in our own individual way, we have all been deeply influenced by the environmental movement over the last 25 years. Part of that process is, I would say, a strong shared sense in this Committee, and amongst the people who live in the Waitakere Ranges, that the older style of suburban development is absolutely anathema. We have turned our backs on that; we will never go there again.

As I sit in the weekends, when I have time off, amongst the regenerated kauri forest that I live in, I am shown something that I did not understand until I went there to live, which is the amazing capacity of the forest, if it is given some minimal protection, to regenerate itself. It is quite extraordinary. These are trees that were, I assume, clear-felled by our predecessors about 100 years ago, and they are, from guessing here, 10 metres high. They have not developed the breadth and the girth of the magnificent kauri that have been left untouched by exploitation, but they are well on the way towards that.

I come to this bill from that perspective. I genuinely feel either that I am perhaps missing something here or that we are talking past each other. As far as I can say, from the discussions I have had with colleagues on my side of the Chamber, we absolutely want to protect the Waitakere Ranges from the appalling exploitation of the past. That is not what this issue is; the issue is, do we need another level of bureaucracy over the top? We feel that the answer, unequivocally, is no.

Coming from the South Island—the home of eight beautiful national parks—I fully appreciate what it is to be able to live amongst beautiful scenery, wonderful heritage areas, and special and significant landscapes. Like most New Zealanders I have become a bit green over the years and the quality of the New Zealand natural landscape is very important to me. The thought that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill might protect the beautiful Waitakere Ranges is very attractive, but it is not as simple as all that. This bill is not what it first seems, and in many ways the Labour members of Parliament have misrepresented its intentions and misled the public.

From listening to the Labour speakers it might be concluded that everyone in the Waitakeres supports this bill. But when one looks at the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee—all 221 of them—the support and the opposition were about even. Earlier this evening Minister Cunliffe also quoted an 83 percent support by locals, which he had ascertained by survey, but when we dig a little bit deeper his unscientific survey merely asked locals: “Do you want to protect the Waitakeres?”. Well, of course, they did. Why not? All Kiwis want to protect their local environment.

I would like to refer to more robust research, which was done by the Growth and Innovation Advisory Board in 2003. What this told us was that 87 percent of all New Zealanders surveyed felt that the quality of the natural environment was “important”, or “very important” to them. That was beaten only by the argument about the quality of life. Ninety-three percent of people felt quality of life was “important” and “very important” to them. But when one considers that the quality of the natural environment in New Zealand absolutely underpins our quality of life, one can see that New Zealanders really do want to look after their natural environment. So that makes me quite surprised that only 83 percent supported the Minister’s survey. I wonder whether they were a little suspicious about what that survey would be used for, and what the Minister was going to use it to support.

Submitters on the bill were concerned that the bill was unnecessary. They considered that the bill’s purpose and objectives could be achieved through existing legislation. There was real argument by the submitters and in the select committee about whether the bill would do anything more than the Resource Management Act. This issue was further clouded, as we heard from John Carter earlier tonight, by the Waitakere City Council officials who seemed to be confused themselves, and that is a charitable explanation of it. They were confused about what the legislation would do. At one stage they said it would do nothing more than what the Resource Management Act did. But then they had to revise their opinion when they were asked the obvious question: “If it will do nothing more than the Resource Management Act, why would you bother to have it at all?”.

Many submitters were also concerned that the bill constrains existing private property rights without addressing compensation, and well may they be concerned. We have heard this discussion from Dail Jones tonight, who talked about the erosion of property rights as socialist stealth. I would like to contrast Labour’s position on this bill with the rhetoric we have been hearing in the House for the last week or so about homeownership. Labour has been talking about the value of homeownership; the importance of families being able to own their homes because that gives families more control over their lives and builds community. But this bill does exactly the opposite. It undermines property rights. It adds more rules, more regulations, and more bureaucracy to homeowners who live in the Waitakere area.

There was also some debate over the national significance of the whole area. There was no debate over the Waitakere Ranges, but there were some parts of the 27,720 hectares that were not considered significant.

I move, That the question be now put.