Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill

The debate on this part also includes debate on schedules 1, 2, and 3.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Te Tiriti o Waitangi promised the protection of Māori custom and cultural values. The guarantee of rangatiratanga in article 2 was an investment in the rights of tangata whenua to possess and control that which is ours. It was a strong declaration about the value that the Crown saw in its relationship with Māori, yet local and national legislation has consistently sought to minimise the strength of such a relationship by making consultation an added extra—a discretionary provision available for the Crown to choose whether it would seek a relationship with tangata whenua.

The Local Government Act 2002 outlines principles of consultation for local authorities. It suggests that councils must provide reasonable access to relevant information in an appropriate manner and format and that they must provide clear information about the purpose and scope of that consultation. The Local Government Act 2002 also mandated councils to give emphasis to the participation and involvement of Māori in local authority decision-making processes. Principles are one thing; putting them into practice is quite another.

In 2004 Local Government New Zealand and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet surveyed 86 councils to identify practices used by councils in consultation with Māori. Over 90 percent of the authorities had established processes for informal consultation, yet the findings of the survey were revealing. The survey concluded: “How effective these processes were or are is not known; but the survey does show that consultation processes do exist.” It is not good enough that processes are established but lack evidence on whether they are actually used, and lack evidence that tangata whenua find them to be usable and appropriate. Indeed, a recent study of Māori in local government, He Wharemoa te Rakau ka Mahue, by Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tāwhai, concluded that structural changes to council processes are needed to ensure tangata whenua involvement in local decision-making.

The Local Government Act 2002 also makes it clear that the Treaty obligations are the Crown’s, and the role of local government is to help the Crown fulfil these Treaty obligations by providing opportunities for active participation in local and regional governance. Therefore, the amendments in my Supplementary Order Paper 173, which amends clauses 23B and 24, and inserts new clause 28AA, seek to clarify the relationships and also to ensure a level of specificity is adopted in order to achieve quality outcomes for all. In essence, the amendments will ensure a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, obligation on the Crown or local authority to enter into deeds of acknowledgment with tangata whenua in relation to the land within the area specified in the bill.

Clause 23B identifies the tangata whenua encompassed in this bill as Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki. Clause 24 details what would be included in a deed of acknowledgment; a deed that would be entered into through consultation. Clause 28AA places a positive duty on the relevant local authorities—namely, Auckland Regional Council, Waitakere City Council, and Rodney District Council—to “establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau A Maki to contribute to the decision-making processes” of these bodies. I want to particularly acknowledge Waitakere City Council, Ngāti Whātua, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki for the constructive role they have played in working through the amendments.

Our desire in bringing these amendments to the Committee today is to ensure that adequate and proper consultation occurs as a fundamental tenet of a healthy democracy. We believe that if the Crown, via local authorities, is to take appropriate account of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to maintain and approve opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making processes, then it is helpful to spell out the terms of the relationship in detail. We believe that our amendments to clauses 23B, 24, and 28AA fill in the detail necessary to articulate the way in which the historical, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationships of tangata whenua to the heritage area can be best expressed, and we welcome the support of the Committee to this effect. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I rise to speak to Part 2. The first part of Part 2 talks about boundaries, and I will address those for a little while. At the moment the boundaries do not take in just the ranges; I think that is really important for people to acknowledge. So the title of the bill, which we will discuss in a lot more detail later, totally misrepresents what the bill is about. When members talk about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, they actually mean the bill concerning the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. Those foothills are perhaps what is most at debate today, and they certainly are from my perspective.

We are talking about some of the villages within the Waitakere Ranges. I have to make a bit of a confession here in that I feel more sympathy for people living there than I do for those living in the foothills in other areas, because I see that the people in those villages are suffering from a bit of intensification and are trying to keep their landscape the same. I do not believe that this bill is the way to address those issues, but I can certainly acknowledge that people living in places like the beautiful Karekare, Pīhā, and Bethells beaches are restricted because of the landscape. Those places really are little coastal villages tucked into a certain area; only so many houses can be fitted in and only a certain type of housing perhaps suits the area. We can better acknowledge that situation, but the bill quite simply will not help those people. What would help them is a council that acknowledges the constraints of that area, a Resource Management Act that works alongside those constraints, and local area plans that can address the issues.

But we are talking about huge areas of the foothills—which go into Titirangi, Glen Eden, Henderson, Swanson, Waitakere village, and up to Muriwai—when we are thinking about how this bill works, land-wise. If some of those areas were simply not included in the boundaries, then I think we would have seen a lot more support for this bill in the Committee. I think we would have been hearing more from the National Party about how we might have been able to find a compromise if the boundaries had not been so broad, and if they had not taken in what in so many respects are actually residential areas that we notice when we drive around them.

How do the heritage areas the bill talks about differ? Clause 8(2)(a)(i) in Part 2 talks about heritage features including “large continuous areas of primary and regenerating lowland …”. Why is that land regenerating? It is regenerating because the people there love the land and care for it, and they have put in the effort to bring it back to its absolute natural beauty. Let us not pretend that that area, over time, was not bogged down and destroyed. When there was milling and everything that went on over a hundred years ago, the ranges, in fact, were quite a sad place to look at, in many parts. People moved in. People are not the enemy; people love the land, look after the land, and have actually nurtured and regenerated it to the state it is now. It can only get better.

To “have intrinsic value:”, in clause 8(2)(a)(ii), is part of the heritage characteristics that are defined in this bill, as are to “provide a diversity of habitats for indigenous flora and fauna:”, in sub-paragraph (iii), and “to collect, store, and produce high quality water:”, in sub-paragraph (iv). The list goes on. The other challenge I put out, and something I would be interested to hear from the sponsor of the bill, is how that situation is different from, for example, that of my colleague and local MP Chris Tremain—who does a fantastic job—when he talks about the Napier hills and the hills that surround his very area. How is there a difference, really, when we look at that building-up and the changes wanted there?

💬 Mark Blumsky: A great local MP.

He is a fantastic local MP. The member is right; he is an outstanding local MP. There is no doubt of that.

I would like to hear from the promoter of bill, if she might just take a little time to talk. Some of us who sat through the select committee process understand perhaps how those boundaries were decided on, but I think a lot of people out there would like to hear that. One thing I commend the select committee for, as I think it did a great job with this—and I commend the council and officials, as well—is that it changed what was in the original drafting of the bill. Speaking from memory, I think the original draft stated that the boundaries could be changed by the council, but now the bill states that the legislation has to come back for boundaries to be changed only by an Act of Parliament. That is a good thing.

I will take only a brief call, but the first thing I want to do is acknowledge all parties who support this bill—in particular the Māori Party and Taito Phillip Field, who have also put up very constructive amendments to the bill. That support did not come just from nowhere, either; it came from them consulting with tangata whenua, on the part of Taito Phillip Field from meeting with the Pacific Island advisory board, and, indeed, from both the Māori Party and Taito Phillip Field meeting with many, many people within Waitakere. The amendments they put up add value to the bill. I really thank them for their support, and of course the Green Party and the Progressive party. We see people in this Parliament who are committed to supporting our beautiful areas within New Zealand where the councils have had the foresight and vision to look at and think about how they work with the Resource Management Act and how they can build on what is in place to ensure that what we have—a beauty that is so valued by the vast majority of people who live within the area—is protected for generations for come.

When I hear people saying that the member in the chair—me—should look really carefully at and reconsider my support for this bill, I remind them that, first and foremost, I am actually a resident who lives within the area proposed by the bill. I am really proud of that. I have to say that Paula Bennett and Tau Henare, despite all their rhetoric, cannot say that. I guess I am “walking the talk”. I am somebody who if I were to listen to them it would be confiscation by stealth. If I were to listen to Dail Jones—[Interruption] The member Paula Bennett said something; I could not quite hear it. If I were to listen to Dail Jones, it would be socialism by stealth. What a dreadful thing that would be in this country!

💬 Sandra Goudie: Well, it is.

The member says it is, but that is not the case. I remind this House, because I think it is important, that this bill was put forward after extensive consultation with every group possible—Waitakere City Council, Auckland Regional Council, and Rodney District Council—and was supported by many residents’ and ratepayers’ groups. The professional polls, which have been denigrated, were carried out by very reputable organisations.

Let us face it, the west is actually held by Labour members of Parliament, except for that one who never actually turns up and does not live in the electorate. We never see him. Who is that? It is John Key. John Key never fronts up and has a debate in this Chamber. He never fronts up on this bill. Do members know why? It is because he does not want to commit himself.

I am very proud to be accountable to the people of Waitakere. I know that this bill is driven at the grassroots by the people of Waitakere and is supported by councils who listen to the people and do what they wish. Waitakere City Council and the members who drove support on the Auckland Regional Council were absolutely re-elected. Mayor Bob Harvey, who was a very strong advocate for this bill—and I commend him in this House—was re-elected. That is an endorsement by the people for this bill. The “confiscation by stealth” Paula Bennett said the area is a divided community. She is right, but why is it divided? It is because National members divided the community by false information.

I am proud of the parties that support this bill and I am looking forward very much to seeing its progress through the House, if we can actually stop some of the silly amendments that are being brought in and that are designed just to delay its progress. Thank you.

I will follow on from the speech by the member who spoke before, Lynne Pillay, when she talked about the local councils—in plural—supporting the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. It raised the point that Dail Jones brought up about Rodney District Council not actually supporting this bill. I wonder whether Lynne Pillay is aware of the concerns the other member raised about one of the councils not actually supporting the bill in the sense of extending the heritage area into its boundaries. When we look at boundaries in relation to this legislation, we see that the issue is about boundaries. It is about Labour trying to put boundaries on people. It is about Labour saying it knows best about what people should do with their own land. It is about Labour telling people how to live their lives. Again, it is about Labour knowing what is right. It thinks it knows what is right. Labour thinks it has a God-given right to tell the people in this country what is right.

Well, that is not the way it is. People have their own ability to build their own lives. People invest in their houses and properties. People put major contributions from their life savings into their properties. Do they expect the Government to come along and tell them what to do with them? No, they do not. They go hard. They work hard. People save money, even though they are taxed to the death. They buy their own properties and build their own assets, only to have the Government come along and tell them that it knows better than they do. This Government thinks it knows better than the individuals do who have worked, saved, and scraped along in order to build something they wanted for their futures and lifestyles.

This legislation is not about an environmental issue. It is not a case of Labour coming in and saving one of New Zealand’s pre-eminent environmental treasures. This is a case of Labour dictating to people what should be done in their backyards. This is a case where the Labour Party members see the hand of the Government as being more important than the ability of humans and individuals to build their own futures. That is what the Labour Party stands for. It is a party that sees the Government as being the answer. It is a party that believes that the Government knows best. Well, that is not the case. The reality is that the Government serves the people. The people know what they want; the people can dictate their own futures. Why do we not give the people the chance to do that? Why do we not let the people make that choice about how they use their land? Why do we not let the people decide through their councils what should be done on their properties?

But no, these guys in the Labour Government say they know best. They know that they can pass another piece of legislation and put another tax on New Zealanders—and this is another tax. This bill will create more costs for the ratepayers in that area. They will have to fund people to go along and comply with the legislation. There will be more compliance costs, more taxes, and more rates. This bill is Labour through and through. It is classic Labour legislation. It tells people what to do, it puts a cost on them, it makes them pay for it again, and then they have to give up all their rights to go against it. The Labour members say people cannot complain, because the Government is greater than the people, and the legislation has come in and told people what is right. That is what those members are about. That is what the Labour Government has been about for 8 years, and that is why it will go out of office at the end of this year. Labour members have not listened to the people. They have not got out there and been on the streets, unlike our good MPs of the west. The Labour members do not know what the people want. They know what they think they want to see happen in this country, but what they think they want to see happen is not what the people want.

We are here to represent the people. We are not here to represent one political party’s agenda, and we are not here to represent Labour’s haloed vision of what this country should look like. The Government should let the people decide. It is their country and their properties. Let them have a choice.

E te whare, tēnā koutou katoa. To all of Aotearoa, who during the speech made by Mr Bennett may have fitted into a telephone box, I point out that that was the advertisement for Brylcreem. The man was talking about the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. He did not refer at any time to Part 2 of this fantastic legislation.

I have been pondering on the meaning of the term “Waitakere”. As members know, “wai” means water, and “takere” is the base of something, either a waka or a vessel. The term, of course, refers to the fact that unless the catchment area, the mountains, the valleys, the streams, the trees—the entire environment—are adequately cared for, the environment will not be protected in the future. That is why this legislation is completely and utterly embraced, except for a few malcontents who have been led astray by Paula Bennett and a variety of other members who realise they cannot compete intellectually, work-wise, or in terms of industriousness with the great stewards of the environment here.

It behoves me to mention Dr Pita Sharples. He supports this bill. Of course, it is a shame that he has not seen the light and supported me with my whanaunga Hone Harawira away in Waikiki and Australia, but let me come back to Waitakere. This bill will not divide the people of west Auckland. This bill will draw them closer to the ethic of stewardship. This bill will cause people to realise that when pressures are visited upon the environment, occasionally the legislature—the highest court in the land—has to stand, debate, and then, through democracy, vote to protect the fragile areas of the environment. That is the purpose of the legislature. That is why we have democratic opportunities to make a contribution, vote, and then move on. Of course, Mr Dail Jones is well entitled to make his contributions. If, however, his contributions reflect what we saw on the television, then despite his short appearance he may too be moving on.

In relation to the perspective of the Rodney District Council, I say that Rodney District Council is but a bit player in this bill. The main driving forces of the bill are the citizens of Waitakere and their very thoughtful council.

What elements will be protected? I have a strong connection with this, because quite apart from protecting pleasantness—and I can relate to that—and cultural integrity, the bill protects in particular the remains of ngā keringa kāpia, the gum digging, the flax mills, and the timber extraction. Those are remains of rather sad but still interesting chapters of our history, and they will be protected in this legislation when it passes, so that the environment is not just botany and biology but all those extractive industries that our people have worked in over the years.

Why on earth would a person come to Parliament and not show forward-thinking and vision like our member here, Lynne Pillay? Not even the ear-chipped dogs that run around west Auckland can stop this woman from being industrious and going out and extolling the virtues of this bill, which is soon to be an Act. She has joined forces with Dr Pita Sharples. He knows. He recalls that when the marae was developed it was like a barren wasteland.

A bill like this reminds the citizens and the property owners that our rights, in the end, are fettered by the imperatives of overall society. Overall society places its trust in people who are prepared to reflect long-term thinking, not short-term profit taking.

I think it is very disappointing that Paula Bennett this evening gave us the indication she is worried about the villages, as if she is the defender of some quaint, historic accident called a village. No, she did not stand this evening and reflect back to the people of Waitakere that this bill is well before its time. That is why—long after this debate has come and gone—the children, the mokopuna, will think back very, very admirably to Lynne Pillay, her supporters, and Mr Cunliffe, a man of great vision into the future. The people of Waitakere know it. Kapai, me whakamana e tātou tēnei piri.

I am pleased to follow Shane Jones, my colleague from the far north. The first thing I have to say to him is that the young boy from the north—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Is this the member who lost the cemetery records?

Actually, the one thing I did not lose was my temper when someone poked me and had a shot at me. So I would be quiet if I were Mr Mallard. The one thing that the young fellow from the far north needs to learn is that if he aspires to be the leader of the Labour Party at some stage, then he had better believe in what he is talking about. The way he expressed his argument was eloquent and interesting, but it needs to come from the heart. The member has to believe in what he is saying.

I can see the reason that Mr Jones spoke on this bill; I can see what he has in the back of his mind. He wants this bill to pass through so that he can then use it as a reason why he should put his land in the far north into a trust like this, as well. He has a vested interest. I can see him saying to the Jones whānau: “Look, we have done it down in Waitakere, so now we can have it up in the far north, and we will be able to look after it.” That is what will be behind it.

The second thing I will say is that Mr Jones was correct on one thing. He was absolutely dead right with one thing he said. He said that this bill would not divide the people of Waitakere, and he is absolutely right. It already has—it cannot divide them any more. They are divided all right. Members should have heard the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Talk about a divided community!

Local government is about local governance, is it not? That is what it is about, and here we have an authority that is meant to be representing the people of the Waitakere area, and what has it done? It has caused an astonishing amount of division amongst the people. It has caused serious acrimony. It is unfortunate that neighbours who have got on for years while developing the area will now not talk to each other. Now they cannot go into the same street and they cannot live together, because this bill has divided them. So I say to Mr Jones that he is right. The bill will not divide those people, because it cannot any more. They are already divided, and that is rather unfortunate.

The next thing is that I listened to Mr Jones, and I thought—

💬 Dail Jones: Shane Jones.

Yes—Mr Shane Jones. We should make that distinction now. We have two Mr Joneses who are list MPs, but we need to distinguish between Dail and Shane. The next thing is that Mr Shane Jones criticised my colleague Mr Bennett from the central North Island, who I thought made a particularly good speech. Mr Jones got up and said that Mr Bennett did not talk about Part 2 of the bill. I listened very closely to what Mr Bennett said and I thought that he actually made some very good points about Part 2, unlike Mr Jones, who wandered off all over the place. I was frantically looking through the bill when he was talking about gumfields, people up trees, and all sorts of things, and I could not see them in the bill. I ask whether any member can point out where it talks about gumfields and all that. I thought to myself that maybe Mr Shane Jones has not actually read Part 2 of the bill. I suspect that is the real problem.

What we need to talk about is the purpose of Part 2 of this bill, which is about managing the Waitakere Ranges, is it not? That is the purpose.

💬 Paula Bennett: And the foothills.

And it is about managing the foothills and the surrounding areas. That is what it is about. We need to pause and just reflect on this: who, until now, has been managing that area? The people who live there have been managing it, which is why it is like it is. The people who live there love it. They want it to be like it is, and they want it to be better than it is. They are constantly striving to improve it. We talk about the management of the Waitakere Ranges; well, bless my soul, that is already there. We do not have to have a whole lot of rules and regulations, idiocy and nonsense, and costs and bureaucracy. I can see that this bill will drive people mad.

I will be a bit boring during this stage, because I am going to look at this from something of a legalistic viewpoint, from the point of view of anyone who owns a house in the area, anyone who wants to sell a house in the area, and of the housing needs in the area. We have already heard a lot about the need for houses in New Zealand. There is a shortage of houses in New Zealand, and that is important in this part of the bill.

I have put forward two amendments. I have made it clear that clause 3 should be amended so that all people who own land in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area are notified that this bill is being passed and that the purposes of the bill itself are noted on their title by a Gazette notice, so that when someone comes to buy these pieces of land in this area they know that the land is subject to this bill. I am sure that when the existing owners get notices to say that they are subject to this bill they will be horrified, because they will realise that it will be harder for them to sell their houses. This will be another encumbrance on the title, another thing in the land information memorandum procedure that a buyer will want to go through. If, say, the buyer wants to do an addition to the house—put on a garage, or do something else that requires a resource consent, as everything does under this bill—it will cost him or her extra money because of this bill.

How many agreements for the sale and purchase of land in this area will collapse because of this bill? Of course, there will also be cases where lawyers will not be aware that this bill has been passed, and there will be even more complicated court cases. So it is vital that this is noted on the title. That is an amendment to clause 6.

The second amendment is very interesting. It is an amendment to clause 9. Clause 9 deals with heritage area objectives, and paragraph (j) states that one objective is “to recognise that people live and work in the heritage area in distinct communities and should enable those people to provide for their social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being:” I thought about that, and I thought that if people live there, presumably they live in something like a house.

I believe this clause must be amended so that it recognises that people live and work in the area in distinct communities and enables these people to provide for their social, economic, environmental housing needs, and cultural well-being. Without my amendment, are we saying that people can live there but we will not be concerned about their housing needs? That is what the bill says without my amendment. This Waitakere City Council bill is saying: “We do not care about housing needs in the area; people can live there but what they live in goodness only knows. We are not interested in their housing needs.”

That is such a blatant omission from the bill, and it justifies my concern that the Waitakere City Council is not interested in any extensions to homes. For example, if a Māori family or a Māori group wants to set up a whare of one kind or another, well, goodbye—that will not happen. If there is some special need for one of those community places where items are stored and suchlike, we can forget it. It will not happen under this bill. This bill will prejudice the Māori people in the area very, very considerably, and I am sure they have been misinformed. We have heard from Mr Carter that Waitakere City Council officials have misinformed people. It is very clear that the Māori people have been misinformed by the Waitakere City Council.

Again, as a lawyer, I say that lawyers will make a lot of money on this bill. What does clause 9(c) mean when it states: “carefully consider the risks and uncertainties”? How can we consider risks and uncertainties? The consideration of a risk and an uncertainty, by definition, is never-ending. One never knows when a risk ceases to be a risk, or when an uncertainty ceases to be an uncertainty. One has to “take into account the best information available;” in considering these applications. How does one know that something is the best information? We have had a survey done that we know has the wrong information.

This bill will be a real lawyer’s dream. It will prejudice housing needs in the Waitakere area. It will lay out all sorts of problems when one searches the title and finds there is nothing on the title, and a lawyer will assume it is OK to go ahead and buy the place. Boy oh boy! A Minister of Housing who votes for this bill should realise that there are grave consequences. A proper Minister of Housing should ensure that people are warned about the risk. We talked about land agents not doing their job properly; well, the Waitakere City Council and anyone who supports this bill is not supporting homeowners.

Having listened to that speech I feel compelled to make just a brief contribution with regard to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I do understand that there is a lot of support to see the Waitakere Ranges protected, and certainly from my visit and discussions with the council that view was very strong reflected.

I commend Lynne Pillay and the members of the committee for their stewardship in moving this bill though. It has taken some time to work up a bill that we can all consider. I also commend the Māori Party for working constructively with the local member to ensure that we get a bill that will accommodate many of the needs in the area.

With regard to the amendments proposed by Dr Sharples I want to put in context the amendment that I propose to include, with the support of the Māori Party, to ensure there is no misunderstanding about the intent. It is very clear that the intention of the Māori Party here is that Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki are consulted with regard to developments in the area. My provision in particular is to ensure that private landowners will not be affected. In fact, the consultation provisions specifically refer to Crown and local authority lands.

The amendment is for the purpose of clarification. It does not take away any obligation to ensure that Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki are consulted, and rightly so. It is to ensure that the issues raised by Mr Dail Jones are more accurately put into some context, because these provisions will not affect the private landowner who wants to build a garage on his or her land. However, they will affect happenings on Crown land and local authority land. So I think many of the issues raised by Mr Jones are him scaremongering a bit and are not helpful to the purposes of the consideration here today.

That is the nature of the amendment I am proposing. It will be in addition to the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled by Dr Pita Sharples and I hope that with the support of members in this Chamber it will proceed favourably.

I am pleased to take a call on Part 2, and I will endeavour to stick to Part 2. If ever there was an endorsement by this current Government that the Resource Management Act was not working, this has to be it. One has only to look at clause 10 in Part 2, which quite clearly shows that the Government has no regard for the Resource Management Act. It actually has to bring in another piece of legislation because the Resource Management Act is not enough. It is not working.

This Government has done nothing to change the Resource Management Act. It has done nothing to streamline it, and it has done nothing to improve it to make sure that it is workable. So what does it do? It introduces yet another bill to control and manage private property, and to manage any area in this country. I am talking on Part 2 of this bill and that is why I can say what I am saying, because clause 10(3) states: “When evaluating a proposed policy statement, or proposed plan, change, or variation that affects the heritage area, ARC must also examine whether the statement, plan, change, or variation is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives (having regard to the purpose of this Act).”—right, but under subclause (4)—“The requirements in subsection (3)”, which is the one I have just read out, “are in addition to the requirements in section 32(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991.”

Now why on earth would one introduce a bill such as this when one already has a piece of legislation that gives one the tools to do what one wants to do—and, yes, there is a catch, of course. The community has to support that process, and as we have heard here tonight from my most excellent colleagues, the community is divided. So the elected representatives, instead of actually allowing the community to move in one direction or another, completely ignored the community’s dilemma and decided to ride roughshod over the community, to disregard the divisions in the community, which is, as we hear, evenly split, and to do what they wanted to do, which is not necessarily what everybody else wanted. They are doing what they want to do, which is contrary to what Nanaia Mahuta was saying. She said that there is no effect on private property. Well, all one has to do is go to clause 9(e), which states: “to recognise that, in protecting the heritage features, the area has little capacity to absorb further subdivision:” Well, what does that tell members? This bill will add nothing but cost upon cost for any property owner wanting to build a home on his or her private property. So much for the statements that this will have no effect on private property! Mr Jones—Dail, that is—talked about the fact that there will be increased costs on any housing, whether existing housing or new housing, because of what this bill does. It ties up any further use of private property.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Give us one example.

Well, I have just told members that it states in the bill that there is no further capacity to absorb further subdivision. All one has to do is go to clause 9(b), which states: “to ensure that impacts on the area as a whole are considered when decisions are made affecting any part of it:”. What area is actually being talked about here? How large is that area? The area should be defined. How far away is it from people who might want to build a house on their property, or to sell their property for future housing? Let us face it, the bill is all about getting rid of houses because it is to protect and restore the area and its heritage features. So why not get rid of all the houses and all the people who live there already?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: That’s a dreadful interpretation.

Look, I tell Mr Jones—Shane, that is—that I am reading from the bill. Maybe he might try reading the bill. I find it astounding that the members on the Government benches do not even understand the wording in their own bill. Clause 9(c) states: “(i) carefully consider the risks and uncertainties associated with any particular course of action;”. That is a euphemism for “Let’s not make a decision, because it is too hard.”

When one reads through Part 2 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, one realises the work that has been done by the Local Government and Environment Committee on it. The most common words used in Part 2 are “struck out”, “unanimous”, and “new”. I raise that because when we read this bill, we see that it has literally been rewritten by the select committee, with the support of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and officials.

There has been talk about the divided community, and it has been acknowledged by the member who brought the bill forward that there is division. It is caused by confusion. There is confusion in this bill—it has been rewritten—and one has to ask whether arrogance was shown by the bill’s promoter, by the local council, in bringing the bill forward without going, as is normal, to the Parliamentary Counsel Office for advice on the best way to bring it forward. That did not happen.

The local council—the promoter—and its lawyers, Simpson Grierson, showed arrogance in totally thinking they had the answer written down here. Because guess what? We have rewritten the bill. There is confusion and there has been confusion. Even now, tonight, there are people such as Andrew in Glengarry Road, who asks: “Is my house included? Is Glengarry Road included?”. I say to Andrew that we have no idea. No wonder he is confused. It is an issue; there is confusion. As I said, was there arrogance on the part of the council in bringing the bill forward? There is a divided community. The bill’s sponsor admitted the community is divided. We sat—

💬 Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I said quite the opposite. I did not say the community was divided.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, no.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I have dismissed the point of order.

You have? The member actually stood and said that we in the select committee had caused the division by the confusion. I remember those words specifically, because we took exception to them. So I will accept the member’s apology in writing.

The bill is confusing. It has been rewritten by the select committee. The community is confused; it does not really know quite what is happening. Will the bill protect the community? Is it adding further cost? Will it stuff up property rights? Will it enhance property rights? Members of the community do not know. The Waitakere City Council, I believe, has done this wrong. It should have stepped back when it saw that the community was not on board as much as it should be for something that is so damn important. It should have stood back, had a cup of tea, and had another discussion with the community to clarify the issue. It should have brought forward a bill that would not be rewritten by the select committee, and brought forward a bill that was understood by all. For sure, we do not expect something that is 100 percent to come forward, but we do not expect a bill as split and divisive as this bill is to come forward.

I rate Bob Harvey as a mayor, but I think Bob Harvey got this one wrong. I fully buy into his vision—I fully buy into what he is trying to do—but I think this bill has not delivered the vision. I think it has left his community not as cohesive as it should be. Bob Harvey’s role as mayor is to make sure the community is onside, and I think his officers have led him wrong. As I said, I think an arrogance came through in the way that this bill was presented to the select committee, and the way that the lawyers tried to argue and jockey with the officials to present the arguments. Bob Harvey cannot blame the community for being confused.

The interesting thing is that the community is absolutely passionate. We have to take our hats off to all parties who came forward, to everyone who made submissions—they really do care. They really do care, but they want to draw the line at what the Government is doing to them. They do not believe that the Government has the right to impose new conditions on them. They believe that the existing scenario that they bought their houses under, the existing Resource Management Act conditions, are actually appropriate. They should not be redesigned and rewritten halfway through. That confusion is not necessary.

To finish, as I said, I think it is sad that the Waitakere City Council has not brought this bill forward cleanly, sharply, and with the community behind it, as the council could have, should have, and really must do.

I move, That the question be now put.

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 Kohimārama. 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 hapū 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 1,000 houses on to that beach, which in summertime would increase the beach population to between 5,000 and 7,000 people. Hawke’s Bay people have come out strongly against that particular situation. They do not want 1,000 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 hapū 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 1,000 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.

It is interesting to take a call on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. The logic behind why this bill should not go forward, should not be voted successfully on tonight, has been well canvassed. Those arguments have been well documented on this side of the Chamber.

When we talk about the interpretation of this bill and when we look through the changes that the member Mark Blumsky talked about, we see that so much has been rewritten within this bill that there is much confusion. As a member who originates from the eastern side of the north part of the South Island, I say that I am very concerned, because this very bad legislation sets a precedent. It is something that has been touched on tonight. We have the beautiful quotation of the Māori chief in 1860, and we have the commentary that goes with it, and it is borne out in the interpretation. I just make the note that there are many other parts of the fish. Dr Nick Smith in his opening comments referred to the fish mentioned in the preamble. When Māui pulled the fish up he actually had his foot on Kaikōura. When we stop and think about that aspect of it, in terms of the interpretation and the notional aspects of this bill, we see that it does have a national connotation.

It is hugely concerning that this House continually passes bills into law and what drops out of them are regulations—truckloads of regulations. That is what we have received under this Labour Government. What I see here is a senior executive of the Waitakere City Council controlling the elected members, and that was borne out, effectively, by the way that the advisers treated with contempt the importance of honesty and frankness towards the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Part 2 is typical of what Labour is responsible for. We see there an increase of bureaucracy in order to enact these values that the bill talks about; values that are at present maintained by the very well-intended, carefully minded, and passionate residents of Waitakere. When we look at the comment in clause 9(c): “to adopt the following approach when considering decisions that threaten serious or irreversible damage to a heritage feature:”, we see that people who are seeking permission to develop their garages or patios in that area will have to prove that they will not adversely impact on the environment there. We have already heard that this will cost them heaps. There will be a process, and lawyers will make a living out of that process. Unfortunately, under Labour we have had to endure enormous amounts of that.

Those of us from other areas of New Zealand are exceptionally suspicious and worried about the precedents that this bill sets up. For instance, when we look at the city of Christchurch, we see that there has been a long, convoluted process of engaging and combining Banks Peninsula into the Christchurch City Council. It will not be too long before somebody starts to eye this up—some future council that wants to show the level of arrogance that we have become very used to from this Labour Government. People from such a council will want to leave a monument to themselves. They will use this bill as a precedent of good law, when, all the way through, we have all heard about the division about this ideological notion of a new level of protection. It had to be rewritten so that it did not usurp the responsibilities of the Resource Management Act.

Clause 9(l) states: “to protect those features of the area that relate to its water catchment and supply functions:”, and clause 9(m) states: “to protect in perpetuity the natural and historic resources of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment …”. Is that not happening already?

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I am going to call Dail Jones, because he has two amendments and he sticks very closely to Part 2.

I do want to speak to the amendments, especially given the quizzical look I am getting from the Minister for Building and Construction, which I also got earlier on. Quite clearly in the ranges area we own the land as the people of Auckland, and the ranges area is protected. So I am talking about the extra piece of land in the foothills: privately owned land.

If people live in the foothills, how do they go about getting additions to their houses, garages, and patios, as the case may be? Clause 9 states that the objectives of establishing and maintaining the heritage area are—and I am trying to be brief, as well—“(f) to ensure that any subdivision or development in the area, of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect,”—that is how it adds on to everything else that is there already—“(i) is of an appropriate character, scale, and intensity; and (ii) does not adversely affect the heritage features; and (iii) does not contribute to urban sprawl:”. Inevitably, as soon as one builds something on to an existing property, one is contributing to urban sprawl. That is the very definition of urban sprawl. But what is the meaning of the word “development”? Is the addition of a garage, a patio, or two bedrooms a development? I looked up The Concise Oxford Dictionary, and if one looks at the meaning of the word “development”, one sees it is a fact, event, or happening, especially one that changes a situation. And that is what an addition to a house, a patio, or whatever else the proposal may be, is: it changes a situation. So a thing as simple as that is caught by this legislation.

What happens next?

He’s only been here 1 day and we have to put up with this.

I say to Mr Shane Jones, the Minister for Building and Construction—if only he would listen to me—that he should go to clause 12 and note what the simple homeowner in the Waitakere City area will have to do. Clause 12(1) states: “A local authority may reject a request, in whole or in part, if the request is inconsistent with the purpose of this Act or the objectives.” Well, how do we know it is inconsistent? But clause 12(2) states: “To assist the local authority in deciding whether to act under subsection (1), the person making the request must explain how it is consistent with the purpose of this Act and the objectives.” But what does “consistent” mean? Clause 12(3) states: “For the purposes of this section, an explanation under subsection (2) must be—(a) treated as if it were information required under clause 22 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and (b) supplied to the local authority in accordance with that clause.”

So what does the poor bloke, or the husband and wife who have been living in the Waitakere Ranges for 15 years, and who have a couple of kids and a third one on the way, do? Mum might want to come and live with them. Gran might want to come and live with them. They might want to do a home extension for grandma, but they have to make a request to the council and explain how the addition of a granny flat, or how helping out their children in a growing family, are consistent with the purposes of this legislation.

For heaven’s sake, that would cost people another $5,000 at the very least. They would have to get a consultant to explain how they can get their addition. At the end of the day the consultant’s and lawyer’s fees will cost more than the addition would ever have cost. Such people will give away the idea of the addition altogether and will live in cramped housing conditions in the Waitakere heritage area, because no one will buy their place. Who would want to buy it? A lot of the homes in that area are quite old; I am talking about homes that are 50, 80, or 100 years old. Who will buy a place that cannot be altered or extended? That is what will happen to people who live in the foothills area.

We are looking at homes in Sunde Road, from Ōrātia going through Swanson and around and up to the Goldies Bush area. The main areas are Green Bay, Ōrātia, Henderson Valley, Swanson, and Waitakere village. If people live in the area leading up to the actual Waitakere Ranges park itself, they are in big trouble if this bill is passed. At a time when we need to care more about housing needs and do more for housing, we will restrict even alterations to existing houses. Those people love the area and they want to stay in it. Their mothers, fathers, and grandfathers have lived and/or worked in the area since the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s. They are the real tangata whenua, because they have been there for all that time. What will happen to them? Because of this legislation those people will not be permitted to stay there. They will have to try to sell their house to someone who has only a small family and move out of the heritage area.

This bill is opposed by New Zealand First. It should never be passed.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I will take one more speaker. I was giving preference to those members who have been on the select committee. I sense that the Committee really wants to move on to Part 3, and there are a lot of amendments.

I am indebted to you for your wisdom, Mr Chairperson, in allowing me an opportunity to speak on this bill. I was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee and I heard the submissions on the first part of the bill. I spoke in the first reading debate and I have travelled over the Waitakere Ranges and observed the suggestions made in regard to this bill. So thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. However, in coming back to this bill after being away for most of the deliberations the select committee has made, I find myself very confused.

I think the initial point was that there needed to be some clarity around the purpose of the bill. Recital (2) of the preamble states that the area is of local, regional, and national significance. I have some difficulty with that, particularly “national” significance, because my background is in Fiordland, Stewart Island, and places where there is a much more pristine and exciting experience. However, if this area is of national significance, as I think Paula Bennett suggested, we should protect it. But with this bill we have created the most litigious legislation I have ever seen, and the previous speaker, Dail Jones, highlighted some of the difficulties in terms of wanting or needing to do something.

I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 8, which talks about the area being of national significance, and its heritage features. I am particularly drawn to new paragraph (i) of clause 8(2). I would like the member in charge of the bill to explain to me precisely what those words mean. We want to get a blueprint where some people can make the decisions that the honourable member Dail Jones illustrated, if there is a need to do something. Paragraph (i) states: “the subservience of the built environment to the area’s natural and rural landscape”. What does that actually mean, when we come to hearings, and a consent is required? Could the member in charge of the bill also explain new subparagraph (iii). She must have agreed with it, because it is marked “unanimous”. It states: “the rural character of the foothills to the east and north and their intricate pattern of farmland, orchards, vineyards, uncultivated areas, indigenous vegetation, and dispersed low-density settlement with few urban-scale activities:”.

In terms of wanting to get consents, I can see litigation after litigation, lots of lawyers’ fees, and procrastinations, and hold-ups. But let us go back to first principles, I say to Lynne Pillay: if this area is of national significance, and having heard the discussions in the Local Government and Environment Committee, and five generations of submitters saying in their presentations: “You want to capture my private land, and put restrictions on me.”, we then come up with the words: “the subservience of the built environment”, meaning that these people are subservient to the built environment, in a land where property rights are important. We heard from people representing five generations of lineage. I have a view that the Waitakere Ranges are important, and I think there is a significant portion of them that should be protected, but if we want to protect the area, then we should set out and protect it in a national park, or in some provision for which there is clarity, and allow those areas that are on the fringe, or are necessary for Auckland’s development, to have a clearer road map to be able to do the things they need to do.

There are others issues, too. I have grave concerns about clause 7, “Boundary extension by Order in Council”. The House has got into the habit of issuing delegated responsibilities on a regular basis, and as I have said, as a member of the Regulations Review Committee, I happen to see a goodly number of them coming before us. We say that we are protecting this heritage area for national and local reasons, and then we put in a provision where that boundary can be extended by Order in Council. Who are the people who actually have this right to extend this area? Well, it is the Minister, but rightly there are some provisions in the Local Government Act that the Minister has to consult. But then I ask the member in charge of the bill to tell me what the appeal procedures are in terms of this power to the Minister to annexe further areas into the heritage area. What are the procedures for those people who have private property rights in that area, and who will need to know their options, should this be about to occur, and who have lost confidence in the process, which, as have said, will be litigious, litigious, litigious?

We have an issue of property rights coming in here, and clearly those members who sat on the select committee with me would have seen the passionate, heartfelt call by some of those families—in one case, three generations—representing a historical lineage in that area of five generations, and here we have a provision where the Minister, through Order in Council, with delegated authority, can annexe private land into this area. I want some answers to those questions before we proceed with the vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The question is that Part 2 stand part.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, I think I made it fairly clear before that I would put the question. The question is that the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Were you just making a call, or a point of order?

I was going to take a point, but Mr Roy is now looking to do that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is my understanding that if a member is calling and you do not have a closure motion, the tradition of this Committee would have it that you take that call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Well, that is correct; that is the tradition. But I think I signalled on the previous call, on your first call, that that would be the last. In fact, I should have put it to the vote then. I was well into that before Mr Carter sought the call, so I will proceed with the vote if members do not mind.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point is that if the Government wanted a closure, then its members, quite honestly, should have sought the call and put the closure motion—which would have then assisted you in the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is a procedural matter, which I will take. Mr Gallagher was seeking the call first, then.

I move, That the question be now put.