Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)Amendment Bill

I move, That the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I am promoting this local bill on behalf of Wellington City Council. It repeals an old statutory restriction applying to methods by which the council can sell certain inner city land. That restriction is in the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. Under that Act, the council may sell or lease the reclaimed land in an area known as reserve K, but the sale or lease must only be by way of public auction with at least 2 months’ public notice of the auction. The Act also restricts all leases to a maximum period of 42 years. Additionally, it requires that the proceeds of any sale are paid into a sinking fund, to be used to repay money borrowed to undertake the reclamation. It is those restrictions that the council wants removed. The other thing this bill does is to change the name of the Act to the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Act.

The practical effect of this legislation will primarily be on land leased to commercial building owners in downtown Wellington. However, I understand that the Sir John Ilott green and the site of the old Circa theatre are part of the so-called reserve K. Understandably, some people are concerned that once this bill is passed, the council will sell that land, which they consider to have important public value. While I do not want to express a specific opinion about that today, I do want to note the Council’s obligation to engage in a robust community debate before it sells any land that people consider publicly important.

Finally, I repeat what I have said when I have sponsored other local bills through the House, which is that historically it may have been appropriate for central Government to place restrictions on what local government can do with its property, but in 2003 local government should be able to deal with its land free of central Government restrictions that limit the process by which properties can be sold. I support the council being able to make local decisions about its own property, free from the arbitrary restrictions of outdated laws. I look forward to this bill being referred to the appropriate committee, and I commend it to the House.

I am concerned that the Minister is taking a rather cavalier approach to this bill. I have taken the trouble to read the Te Aro Reclamation Act, passed in 1879, which I have in my hand—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: You were here then!

It seems like that, sometimes. I have taken the trouble to read this bill, and the important point that the Minister has raised in her speech is, as I understand it, that the land is leasehold land. I and New Zealand First want to make sure we protect the rights of the people who bought the lease of that land, understanding it to be owned by the Wellington City Council in terms of the 1879 legislation, and whose lawyers would—like me, as a lawyer—have taken the trouble to check the ownership and history of the land and the rights of the tenants with regard to that land. I am sure some of those lawyers would now be concerned at the thought that the leases are being changed by Parliament. That is virtually a breach of the indefeasibility principles of the Land Transfer Act. Parliament is changing the contract between the tenants, the lessees, and the landowner, and it is being done in a fairly casual way by the Minister.

I make it clear to the people in Wellington who are on those properties and to any other people who may be affected by similar Wellington City Council legislation that New Zealand First will be ensuring, on behalf of any particular tenants who may be involved in acquiring the freehold—and I would expect that this legislation will make sure that the first person who can acquire the freehold is the tenant—that the select committee takes all that into account and protects the tenants’ rights to buy that land. We will be ensuring that any prospective owner of the land—who might not be the tenant, if the tenant cannot afford to buy the land—buys it subject to what must be clearly the registered lease in the land titles office. New Zealand First will be ensuring that all the tenant’s rights are protected in the future. That is the only point I wish to make at this stage.

The Green Party supports this bill going to the select committee. We can see no reason that Wellington City Council should not be able to sell or let land, other than by having to do so through a public auction. That seems a bit old-fashioned. But, like the member from New Zealand First, we have some concerns about the bill and we will want to address those concerns at the select committee.

There is a little paragraph in the explanatory note of this rather technical bill that raises concerns with us. That paragraph states: “In addition, the Council will be able to sell or lease the reclaimed land without being constrained by other enactments such as the Reserves Act 1977, which would otherwise apply as a result of the original grant of land as a public reserve under the Public Reserves Act 1854.” I have spent a considerable amount of time today trying to figure out why that piece of land should be exempt from the Reserves Act. I have even had a couple of letters sent to me about it. Clearly it is a very technical issue, but the letters and the other documents that I have received ultimately do not seem to answer the question. Indeed, they seem to increase the mystery surrounding why that particular land should be exempt from the Reserves Act.

We would be very happy to let this bill proceed expeditiously. There may very well be a good reason for that provision. The people in the council that I spoke to today mostly did not realise that the land would be exempt from the Reserves Act. They were a little perplexed at that, as well, so I have not been able to get to the bottom of that issue. But I will take a great interest in the bill when it goes to the select committee and, unless there is a very good reason for it, I will seek to remove that exemption from the Reserves Act. I think the land should be subject to that Act, as is any other land that is public reserve. I give notice that the Green Party has some real concerns about that particular provision. We have not had any good explanation for it, and we will pursue that vigorously in the select committee.

I absolutely, positively support the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill, and say United Future will vote accordingly.

ACT New Zealand proposes to support this bill. In fact, it makes a good deal of sense, and we are in favour of good common sense. Far be it for me to stand in the way of common sense or, indeed, of what may the jewel in the crown of the member for Wellington Central: allowing the Wellington City Council to sell or lease land from the Te Aro reclamation.

I find the history of that land very interesting. The history of reclamation in Wellington is very interesting, indeed.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It’s very interesting!

It is. It is a very interesting subject, and I became more acquainted with it recently when my son was given a school project on the 1855 earthquake. That is the way of things; parents often learn a lot more from school projects than their children. Land was scarce in Wellington when the settlers first came. In 1840, 1,100 town acre lots were pegged out. There was little land for public buildings or, indeed, for parks. Small reclamations were carried out in the early years of settlement, and those were mostly private concerns.

It is interesting to note that the early settlers were good, hard-working folk who were prepared to set about and do things themselves. Reclaiming the land was time-consuming and very hard work, though the settlers had patience and a strong work ethic. Reclamation did not happen overnight, as we know. Today that attitude is something that is not nearly as common as it was then. Too many New Zealanders now expect that sort of public good to be done for them for nothing, and they expect it instantly. It is a constant source of disappointment to the ACT party that this Government is only too willing to oblige them.

The Historic Places Trust has placed 14 plaques around the city—they have the words “Shoreline 1840” on them, for those who have noticed them on the footpaths along Lambton Quay—which trace the original shoreline of Lambton Harbour. The closest plaque to Parliament is outside the main entrance to Bowen House, for those members who want to go and have a look. I did so myself this afternoon, with one of my media staff. Those plaques give us an idea of the amount of land that has been reclaimed over the years, and of how much development Wellington City owes to the reclamation carried out over the past 150 years.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I love these backbenchers who do school projects.

It was a very interesting project, I say to Mr Cullen. Around 1880, the Te Aro area was extended seaward, and the Te Aro reclamations were carried out by the city council.

In 1840 the Te Aro flat, along with Thorndon, was the only area of flat land in Wellington. It was, however, swampy and therefore less attractive for housing. It became quite industrialised and, in fact, there is still quite a lot of industry based in that area. In 1853 the Te Aro swamp burst the narrow bank that at that time divided it from the sea, and flooded the town acres on the waterfront. The huge 1855 earthquake left Wellington looking much the same as it does now. The benefit for Te Aro was that the earthquake raised the land and drained the swamp. There was room for development at Te Aro, but as it was not the city centre, reclamation occurred after that at Lambton Harbour. The first reclamations did not take place until the 1880s and were completed in 1886, by which time 9 hectares had been added to the Te Aro foreshore.

It seems now that the Wellington City Council is keen to sell some of that reclaimed land. Part of it is affected by the Te Aro Reclamation Act, while other parts are unaffected and without the need for a notified public auction. This legislation will remove the requirement for the council to sell or lease the land only by way of a notified public auction. In other words, the bill is about removing red tape. ACT New Zealand has always been in favour of removing unnecessary red tape. The Wellington City Council, as the rightful owner of that land, should not be required to jump through hoops in order to sell it.

It is not often—in fact, this is the first for me since coming to Parliament—that I have had the pleasure of supporting a bill for the reasons of acknowledging property rights and cutting the aforesaid red tape. Unfortunately, I fear, it may be quite some time before another occasion like this arises again for me, but it gives me great pleasure to support this bill on behalf of the ACT party.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.