Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill

I move, That the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It has been reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee with the recommendation that it be passed. I offer my thanks to the members of the committee for their very careful consideration of this bill. It may be short and brief in its outline, but it contained some local issues that had the potential to be divisive. This bill repeals a statutory restriction applying to land the Wellington City Council owns at 45 to 53 Willis Street, in the city. The land is currently occupied by a number of retail shops, with The Malthouse—well known to some—occupying the upper floor. In broad terms the restriction prevents the council from selling this land; it can only lease it. It remains a mystery why this restriction was applied to this particular piece of land. It provides a statutory barrier to the council considering this land on the same basis as it does for other land it owns.

Adjacent to the Willis Street land is property the council owns in Victoria Street. It makes commercial sense for the council to consider these properties as a package in any sale and marketing strategy. I support the council being able to make local decisions about its property portfolio, free from the arbitrary restrictions of old and outdated laws. Before everyone leaps up and tells me that I am a socialist supporting business, I say that I always recognise when a council is doing things that may benefit, in other terms, the distribution of its rates and the money it makes to other good social practices here in this city that I love. The council might even give some more money to the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary as a result.

I note that in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 the council has consulted on and adopted an amendment to its 2003-04 long-term community plan, which includes the sale of the property at 45 to 53 Willis Street. In addition, I understand that the council’s draft plan for 2004-05 includes its intention to sell the property, so there can be more consultation on this proposal if necessary. At this stage I feel it is incumbent on me to draw attention to the people who live in Central Terrace who are very worried about the possible height of the buildings that might be built on this particular property. That is another issue on which they may wish to negotiate with the council.

An equally concerning problem for me was the future of the community groups that tenanted the Victoria Street buildings. These were the community law centre, Women’s Refuge, and the volunteer centre. The sale of their premises is a potential threat to the way they operate. There is value in them being able to work closely together—community law, Women’s Refuge, and the volunteers—and also for them to be close to such services as the police across the road; the Central Library, particularly where the elderly community meets; and the Central City Citizens Advice Bureau.

The council has confirmed its commitment to the community tenants, to me, and to the select committee that it will do its utmost to assist them in finding alternative premises following any decision to sell the land. I know that it has committed a sum of money as a one-off subsidy to assist five of those groups to meet their relocation costs. The council is still working with them—I will not actually name the particular building in town where they are trying to find accommodation, but it will still be in the central business district.

There are some remaining groups that have some difficulties. It is probably not as important for these organisations to be situated in the centre of Wellington as it is for the community law centre, Women’s Refuge, Vincent’s Art Workshop, the volunteer centre, and Courtenays mental health drop-in centre. The council has committed a sum of money as a one-off subsidy to assist these groups in the first year of rent. I understand that the five groups are close to securing alternative accommodation, and the council is continuing to work with the remaining groups. I am pleased to note that the committee has commended the council for its proactive approach in assisting these community groups. It is a lovely way of working between central and local government. Here was I, as the local MP, not wanting to impede local government in going about its business, but also speaking out for those groups inside the community who do a great job. The select committee heard that and really helped put the pressure on the council to listen very carefully and be proactive.

The committee recognised the importance of having these groups centrally located in Wellington City and urged the council to continue working with the current tenants until satisfactory alternative accommodation was found. These organisations carry out the council’s social goals, and it would be a tragedy for Wellington if they were suddenly lost from the central city. My joy is that central government, the select committee, and also the city council recognise that and are working proactively to do something about it. I give my thanks to the Wellington City Council, to the community groups, and to the select committee. This is about working together to solve a problem, and I made this comment the other day in the House. This is what I believe Government and leadership is about. It is not about working on divide and rule; it is about working together to reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to all. Once again I thank the committee for its consideration of this bill, which I commend to the House.

If, as the Minister and member for Wellington says, this bill is the great saviour for Wellington, I am somewhat depressed for the future of Wellington—and they obviously need a new member of Parliament. This is actually a very boring minor bill. National will support it, but let us be clear about it—if this is the boldest legislation that Marian Hobbs can bring through this House, then it will be a disappointing political epitaph that she leaves. All we are doing with this bill is letting the Wellington City Council control its own assets and land, and National will support it for that reason.

We say that the Wellington City Council bought and paid for this land, it was originally purchased for road-widening purposes, it is not needed for road-widening purposes, and we believe that the Wellington City Council should be able to sell it. It is pretty straightforward and simple. It will not save Wellington City; it will not shake great excitement around the traps. We would probably ask why we even need legislation of this sort. I remember when this House debated the Local Government Act. That was the great Act of Parliament from Labour that would provide councils with the power of general competence, so that we would not need little bills like this—yet we still do.

From a principle point of view the Wellington City Council is elected to manage the assets of the Wellington City area. We do not have a view about whether it should or should not be sold; that is for the elected representatives of the Wellington City Council to determine, but we do not believe that we should impose these sorts of restrictions. I do find it interesting that in that same Local Government Act we had members opposite wanting to put all sorts of restrictions on councils around New Zealand about what they could and could not sell—talked and preached principles of general competence, but practice was quite different. We on this side are quite consistent. We say that if the local council owns an asset, it is an issue for those local representatives to determine what should be the future of that land. That is why we support this minor legislation that gives them the power to do so, and why we are happy to facilitate the passage of the legislation as quickly as possible.

I rise to speak in support of the bill. The previous speaker spoke of it as being a boring minor bill. It is not boring, not minor, to the people and the communities directly affected. First, I take the opportunity of complimenting the Local Government and Environment Committee on its excellent work. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the local member of Parliament for Wellington Central, the Hon Marian Hobbs, and her excellent work in working with the communities, the select committee, and the Wellington City Council, as she outlined.

Why should I, as the member of Parliament for Hamilton West, be interested in this bill? Believe it or not, I have an intense and incredibly keen interest in this bill in that it represents a very, very good relationship between the local authority in this new era of partnership between the Government, the Parliament, and democratically elected local authorities in our country. Why should I be interested in this particular bill as a Hamilton MP? I am interested for the simple reason that, notwithstanding some of the democratic argy-bargy that may be happening on the Wellington City Council from time to time, as a Hamiltonian I am a little bit envious of the Wellington City Council and some of the far-reaching positive things it does.

In many ways, it is a role-model council. Let me take an opportunity—yes, it is a wee bit away from Willis Street—to applaud the wonderful initiatives that we are seeing in terms of the waterfront development. There is a wonderful sense of excitement that we get in this city, and this bill and this relationship in terms of giving the council the right, with a democratic mandate, to develop this particular section of property, and to look at managing a property portfolio appropriately for local conditions, is a very good, positive example of a forward-thinking city council.

I repeat, the purpose of this bill— apparently it was not captured in the Local Government Act—was to, if one likes, amend some historical circumstances. When the select committee spent quite a bit of time working through this bill, hearing some very good submissions and presentations, and a briefing from the Hon Marian Hobbs, it obviously had uppermost in its mind the power of general competence, which means returning decision making back to local communities.

I am very pleased and have been reassured. Commercially, obviously, the council pointed out that it makes very sound commercial sense to consider the Willis Street land in conjunction with those other properties in any future sale and marketing strategy. In terms of the commercial strategy, we had a very good example in Hamilton—when I was Deputy Mayor of the city of Hamilton—of the Hamilton property company at the time that was a subsidiary of the city council. In terms of the city council we set out the benchmark, and we made a split between things that were strategic purchases that would help the growth of our city and were appropriate property purchases in terms of the structure of our city. But, also, we had investment properties that obviously were, like any company, there to return a yield to the ratepayers and to council.

There has been much debate in my own community, and, the council became involved and took a key part in, for example, the purchase and development of an international standard hotel—now called the Novotel Tainui Hamilton—which, again, has won praise from my city because it has been a very useful adjunct to our tourism strategy. Some other property was purchased and the buildings were pulled down to improve access to the Waikato River. I just use those as examples. Day to day, Hamilton Properties Ltd operated as an independent company, with a clear brief. But, again, as shareholders we, the city council, gave an outline of the kinds of things that we wanted to see.

Marian Hobbs very eloquently identified her concerns and her role as a local member of Parliament to represent local community groups, and I think it is very important. Again, I compliment the select committee on observing the fact by noting the words: “some of the tenants of these properties are extremely important community groups, including (but not limited to) the Wellington Community Law Centre, the Women’s Centre Trust, Mokai Kainga, Pacific Islands Community Arts and Cultural Centre, ALAY Community Centre for Refugees and Migrants and the Wellington Volunteer Centre.” I note the words of the committee—I guess this is a message or point of view expressed to the Wellington City Council: “We appreciate the value in having these community groups centrally located and in close proximity to each other and were, therefore, very concerned about what may happen to the tenancies of these groups should the council decide to sell the Willis/Victoria Street block. It is noted that there are, however, no community groups based within the land located at 45 to 53 Willis Street.”

The report goes on to say, very importantly: “We received a briefing from Hon Marian Hobbs … who informed us that the council and the community tenants have formed the Victoria Street Community Tenants’ Liaison Group, which aims to address the concerns of groups that may be affected by the possible sale of the land. We sought assurances from the council that they were assisting these tenants to find suitable, alternative accommodation.”

Basically, obviously, I want to note in the Hansard, very clearly we have received assurances from the Wellington City Council that those very important groups will be treated appropriately and fairly, and that their great and wonderful contribution to the community of Wellington will be taken into account in any future development of the land in that area.

It is interesting that the parliamentary committee focused, also, on complimenting the council for taking a proactive approach in assisting these community groups. Again, we recognise the importance of having these groups centrally located in Wellington City and urge the council to continue working with the current tenants until satisfactory alternative accommodation has been found.

I take the opportunity that is presented to me around this bill to observe the really critical role that the Wellington City Council and other local authorities have around the country, my own council included, in fostering and assisting community groups, which in a way this bill highlights. This happens all around the country. My own city council is a major provider of accommodation and assistance for community groups. There is a real benefit to residents and ratepayers in these community groups functioning effectively and being proactive within our community.

Again, obviously, local government is not just about basic structural infrastructure—the roading system, or the sewerage system, etc; it is about the health and welfare of communities. I am here to give praise this afternoon, and I think the Wellington City Council, in its proactive involvement with this community, and in its focus on the economic and social development of the Wellington City, is in many ways a role model. I have even said that, in terms of my own draft annual plan submissions to the Hamilton City Council, we have to look at some best-practice models, albeit in terms of its wealth and capital structure, Wellington is a lot wealthier than the city of Hamilton. Let me commend the leadership of the Wellington City Council: the mayor; the Deputy Mayor, Alick Shaw; and the other councillors on their excellent leadership.

I go back to my own council to give members an example. We are having a debate about our river bank development. We are debating some resource consents, and Wellington is getting on and debating where it will put the “Waterfront Hilton” and all those things it is doing. This bill is an example, in my view, of a progressive city council that came to a progressive parliamentary committee. I think we have a very, very positive result. Let me commend, absolutely, the hard-working, focused member of Parliament for Wellington Central, the Hon Marian Hobbs, who gets in with the community. She does not sit and poke borax. She does not sit and get negative. She does not say that this is a minor, unimportant bill. She gets in and works for the people of Wellington Central in getting the best outcome for her community. I commend this bill.

New Zealand First supports this legislation. I listened to the speech made by the Labour Party member from Hamilton. It was such a vigorous speech in support of Wellington. He made so many points with regard to this legislation that one wonders, with the way things are going at the moment, whether he will be looking for a job in Wellington after his demise at the forthcoming election. He gave very, very good support for Wellington, and I commend him wholeheartedly for that. He is obviously an electorate constituent member of this House, and I know what it is like to be a constituency member. He gave this legislation everything it was worth, and he is to be commended for his support and the trouble he has taken to understand it.

By coincidence, I happened to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee when this matter came up. I found myself present once or twice when this legislation came forward, and my initial reaction to this bill was: “Well, what is Wellington City going to do about the existing tenants? Where will these people go if they are booted out by the Wellington City Council?”, to put it bluntly. I am pleased, having read the report from the select committee, that every effort is being made to accommodate the people who are currently there. New Zealand First is delighted that the local member, Marian Hobbs, has been working with Wellington City Council and with the select committee to ensure the best possible resolution to this problem.

As I read from the report with regard to the Victoria Street Community Tenants’ Liaison Group, I see the select committee noted that, separate to the specific situation, the council has recently agreed a Policy on Accommodation Assistance for Community Groups Seeking to Reduce Disadvantage—that is a long name to give to policy—and intends to establish a new accommodation fund for central city community groups. Clearly the authority being given to the Wellington City Council by this legislation to dispose of this land, if it so wishes, will enable it to have sufficient funds to help people. Really, in New Zealand we must not lose sight of the fact that there are new comers to the country all the time, not only from overseas but also from the outlying areas, who come to Wellington for the first time. It is handy to go somewhere and get legal or other advice as to where to go and what to do. Regarding the sale of endowment land: “We sought clarification”, the select committee states in its report, “from the council on provisions relating to the status of the property as endowment land. The council confirmed that the land in question is held as an endowment for municipal purposes. The council assured us that it would undertake any sale process for the land in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions for the sale of endowment land.” This is a local body and there will be elections later on this year, and if the people of Wellington are unhappy with the way in which the Wellington City Council has handled the matter, they can take the appropriate action at the local body elections, as happens to all of us in this building and at a local body level.

One thing that New Zealand First was concerned about was the Treaty of Waitangi implications. I think we are still entitled in this House to talk about Treaty of Waitangi implications without being branded by one side or another with a particular viewpoint, and New Zealand First, and the committee as a whole, took a close interest in the attitude of the Wellington Tenths. May I say, as a totally disinterested member, that I was a little disappointed at the slowness in response on the part of the Wellington Tenths to the efforts of the select committee to try to get some answer from it as to what its viewpoint was.

One can take it for granted in New Zealand, and at any parliamentary select committee, that the select committee will try its very best to get the views of anyone who might be interested in a particular topic. This select committee was no different and tried to get the view of the Wellington Tenths on the matter. Finally, we were informed and the report clarifies that this is not a matter for further consideration by the Wellington Tenths Trust. That matter has been resolved by the select committee, as well.

New Zealand First supports this legislation. My colleague Jim Peters would have spoken on it today, having spent more time on this than I have done, but he is away from Parliament and asked me to make this speech on his behalf.

I rise on behalf of United Future to express our support for the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill. It is a reasonably straightforward piece of legislation that is needed in the City of Wellington, and we are happy to see it passed through the House reasonably expeditiously today. Although it is a fairly simple bill, it does not mean that some issues did not come up that the Local Government and Environment Committee needed to look into properly in order to fulfil our responsibilities—not to interfere in what the council’s responsibilities were, but when submitters came to us with issues of concern, we, of course, had to address those. I believe the committee has done a thorough job on that and has now recommended to the House to see the bill passed.

I do want to make a couple of quick comments about some comments that the member from National—who plays a very important role on our select committee, and a very active one—made earlier. He was speaking about the fact that the new Local Government Act was, of course, supposed to have rendered such things redundant and there was no need for these small bills to be coming to this House any more. It is important that the people who read this Hansard, and those who are following the debate here, would be aware of the facts in this regard, and I am sure the member must be aware of what the committee put in its report regarding this piece of legislation, which began its journey prior to the Local Government Act. In fact, it began its journey in 2002.

The select committee’s report to the House actually makes it very clear that this bill is to come into force on 1 July 2003. I will quickly read out the reasons why, so that the member might be brought up to speed with what happened. Perhaps it went through the committee too fast for him and he was unable to catch all of the relevant details: “The Willis Street land is held as an endowment for municipal purposes, and is therefore currently covered by section 230 of the Local Government Act 1974. However, from 1 July 2003, the new Local Government Act 2002 will come fully into effect, and the Willis Street land will be covered by sections 140 to 141 of the 2002 Act. For reasons of clarity and simplicity we consider that this bill should come into force on the same day as the new Local Government Act 2002 comes fully into force, that is, 1st July 2003, and we recommend that clause 2 be amended accordingly.”

All this palaver and criticism about the Local Government Act 2002—which we worked so very hard on at the beginning of my term in this Parliament; and select committees have worked on it in previous terms—for the fact that this one has to come through is very unfounded and misleading. I am happy to correct that impression in the House today, and again reiterate our support for this bill. I hope all members will help it to go through the House quickly this afternoon.

I support the comments made by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith with regard to this bill. If things were simplified, this process, which is at a considerable cost to taxpayers, would not have been necessary. I would like to mention a comment made by the Hon Marian Hobbs in a speech she made in the House on this bill at an earlier time. On 4 December 2002, she said: “I support the council being able to make local decisions about its portfolio property, free from the arbitrary restrictions of old and outdated laws.” Well, I think it is a shame that councils are not free to make those sorts of decisions, and make decisions for themselves, even with the new law that has now been passed by this current Government. We support the passage of this bill, but thousands and thousands of dollars have been spent on this process, which should have been absolutely unnecessary.

I was overcome before by the grovelling of the highest order with regard to the Wellington City Council. While it is to be commended for all its efforts with regard to the community service groups that it housed in the buildings concerned, I put it to the House that local authorities generally do look after their community groups, do consult with their groups, and do the best that they can for their communities as a whole. I would not want to single out any particular council for doing that. It is only right and proper that the Wellington City Council, in this instance, has done that also. It is to be commended for doing the best that it can for these groups, but this is by no means concluded. I am sure that the sale of the properties will assist in that regard, as already mentioned.

I think it is a shame indeed that the new Local Government Act has not supported councils and has not lessened, to any degree, their compliance costs—nor has a number of other measures that have been implemented by this current Government. On that note, I will leave it at that and say that National supports the passage of this very, very minor bill, although we are very disappointed that this process has cost so much and taken the time it has. Was it really necessary? That question was raised at the select committee, but, of course, an answer was not forthcoming.

On behalf of ACT New Zealand I rise to support this bill. It makes very good commercial sense. The Wellington City Council is the rightful owner of this land; there is no dispute about that. It should, therefore, be able to sell the land if it so wishes.

I would like to commend Mr Gallagher on his enthusiastic support of Wellington. Those of us who live in Wellington, of course, know what a great and vibrant city it is, and it is a pleasure to live here. But it is always good to hear that other people also appreciate the things that a city one lives in oneself has to offer.

With regard to the piece of land in question—the part of Willis Street where The Malthouse is, with community groups housed downstairs—the council should be commended for the responsible attitude it has taken to the community groups that are tenants in the building at present. By assisting them to relocate, the council is taking its duties very seriously, and it should be commended on doing so.

I was not on the select committee that heard the submissions from the Wellington City Council and the Wellington Tenths Trust, but I read with interest the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It states that in 1929, when the council was considering the sale of the Willis Street land in order to use the proceeds for street-widening purposes, the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act was passed. It is clear later in the same report that there was really no indication why section 13(2) was enacted. It states that the council’s archives do not give any explanation. I think this sends us a message that as lawmakers we have a duty to consider very carefully why we are putting legislation in place, what the future might bring, and whether in the future the legislation is going to cause problems. The previous speaker alluded to that.

I would also like to point out that when the council, in 1929, was considering the sale of this land for street-widening purposes, it was showing a lot of foresight. It is a shame that, at the time, that foresight was not given to what might happen in the future. A very good example that springs to mind of some foresight shown by Wellington councillors of years gone by with some vision is in my own suburb of Karori. I recently read the history of the building of the Karori tunnel One councillor, who obviously had quite a lot of vision, fought long and hard with his other councillors in the late 1880s to make the Karori tunnel wide enough to allow two horses and carts to pass each other. I, in particular, and the other residents of Karori are very grateful for the vision that this gentleman had, because we now have a tunnel that two cars, if not two buses, can pass through. With regard to the wideness of the roads in Wellington, we certainly wish some were a little wider, but they do add to the character of the city.

ACT New Zealand supports this bill, mainly because of the good commercial sense that it makes. I come back to the issue of property rights: owners of land must be free to sell it as they see fit. So ACT New Zealand supports this legislation.

This bill has the purpose of repealing section 13(2) of the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act 1929. The history of this particular land is a bit lost in the mists of antiquity, as so often happens with bills that relate to local councils. We have instances of this in the House from time to time. Although they might seem a little trivial to those of us who are not directly affected by, or caught up in, the provisions of them, they are, as other speakers have said, particularly important for the people who are affected by them.

This particular piece of land has restrictions on it that have forced the Wellington City Council into the position where it is not able to make the best use of the land. This amendment bill will allow the city council to exercise its own judgment about what happens to the land. In 1929 the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act prohibited the council from alienating the land by selling it. All that it was allowed to do was to lease the land. That Act actually gives no indication why it was enacted, and the council’s archives do not offer any explanation, either. So we are left in the position of having only to guess at what motivated the legislature at the time.

The history of the land is linked to another piece of land, which adjoins the borough of Pahiatua—the Mangahao endowment. That land was vested in the council as an endowment for municipal purposes. In 1924 the Wellington City Mangahao Endowment Sale Empowering Act allowed the council to sell that piece of land, provided that the proceeds of the sale were used to purchase land as an endowment. In 1929, when the council was considering the sale of the Willis Street land in order to use the proceeds for street-widening purposes, it passed legislation that allowed the proceeds from one endowment sale to be used for street-widening purposes, but the Willis Street property had to be retained as an endowment for municipal purposes.

Why the restrictions are there is a bit confused and muddled. At this time it is up to the House to remove that confusion and those restrictions so that the Wellington City Council can use its own judgment about what is the best way that the land can be used. We want to remove the statutory barriers to the council being able to consider the land in the same manner as it does its other properties.

The Wellington City Council owns several other properties that are situated adjacent to the land in question. It needs to be able to consider them all in a parcel so that it can make sensible decisions about how to dispose of them, or use them. There have been some difficulties with the tenants in the properties, because there are a lot of community groups there, but the council has done its best to ensure that those community groups are catered for and can be rehoused in suitable premises that enable them to carry out their functions. It has provided assistance in finding suitable alternative accommodation. We commend the council for this proactive approach in helping these community groups, and we urge it to keep working with the current tenants to make sure that these difficulties are smoothed away.

The select committee sought clarification from the council on provisions relating to the status of the property as endowment land, and the council assured the committee that it would undertake any sale process for the land in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions for the sale of endowment land. The council has no intention of doing anything except to make the best possible use of the land, in terms of its long-term community plan.

The committee was also keen to ensure that there were no Treaty of Waitangi issues associated with the land. The departmental advisers assured it that the land in question is not specifically mentioned in any of their databases, or registered as wāhi tapu, a site of significance, or a historic or archaeological site. The Wellington Tenths Trust was also consulted, and it acknowledged that the contents of the bill do not give rise to matters that would lead to any further litigation under the Waitangi Tribunal.

It is important that this House recognises the right of the Wellington City Council to determine the future of this land and its best use for the purposes of the citizens of Wellington. The Government is pleased to support this bill and commends it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Procedure