Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill

I move, That the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I want to thank the House for its support and consideration of this local bill. I agree that lined up alongside the debates we have had on the Kyoto Protocol, or some of the not-so-pleasant debates that have ravaged this House in the last short while, this is a minor matter. I also happen to agree very much with those speakers who have said—and I have said this myself—that local government should control its own affairs. That is what this bill is facilitating and allowing to happen well before the Local Government Act that was passed last year comes into play. The reason this bill is going ahead now is to allow the city council to get on with it before the Local Government Act comes into play.

I also want to thank those out there who understand what it is like to be a constituency MP when one part of the constituency wants to do something and another part of it says there are things the city council might want to do that will have an effect on them, and they come to the local MP to try to get it sorted through. That is why I really appreciate the support of those people at the select committee who actually took on board that issue, and I thank them for it. Many of them had an understanding of what it is like to be an MP who is placed in between the city council and the really worthwhile local groups—both of whom are trying to achieve something positive for the Wellington community.

I say to those members who come into Wellington only 3 days a week, as opposed to those of us who live here, that we have a real push on space in this particular area.

💬 Phil Heatley: Where do you live? We are confused.

That is a very old story, and I would not go down that line.

Those of us who happen to live in Wellington know it is a very small space that we try to occupy. Therefore, every part of that space is very, very important in terms of fitting all that needs to be in there, whether for businesses and their headquarters, for Government departments, or for the social services that people need to be able to access. That is why I appreciate the work that is done. We are a bowl, if one likes, and people come down the hill. We do not want them to come down the hill and have to catch another bus to the outer regions of the city—maybe to Miramar—in order to access particular services, like the Wellington Women’s Resource Centre and some of the other centres we have been talking about here.

I appreciate the work done by the select committee. I appreciate the fact that the House agreed to allow this bill to go through all its stages today so that the city council can get on with its job—remembering that it has several jobs to do to keep the diverse community of Wellington happy.

I just want to refer to something I touched on previously. As this bill was going through—probably after the select committee hearings—residents of a certain street in Wellington came to me really concerned about whether very tall buildings were to be built in this particular area that might block the view of the residents of Central Terrace. That is another issue that will have to be taken up.

💬 Heather Roy: Ha, ha!

I would not laugh if I were that member. She may know somebody who is very close to this particular issue, who will know that it has to be taken through the planning process of the city council. I commend this bill to be read a third time.

In talking to the third reading, I would just like to take up some points raised across the House relating to the property in question. This property, owned by the council, was deemed to be private property and therefore not subject to treaty claim. That is the general case with private property, or with property owned by councils that is deemed to be private property. That is my very clear understanding.

It is interesting that the Minister is waxing lyrical about the council and its constraints in terms of the particular area she is in, yet councils, in endeavouring to do their business, do so when central government dumps a whole heap of rubbish and compliance costs on top of them. The foreshore and seabed issue will be no less an issue that she will dump on to local authorities, or, more likely, regional authorities. So this will be another issue she will have to confront with her council.

I would just like to raise those matters that she herself raised in speaking to this part. It will be very interesting in time to come—

💬 Rod Donald: It’s the third reading.

Yes, she raised those matters herself. We are all going to be treated the same in this debating chamber, are we not? The debate has been wide ranging ever since this bill was introduced to the House. So, yes, we are still continuing to support it.

Yes, we should all be treated the same in this Chamber, and those people who say silly things that are unsupportable by the facts ought to be criticised for making silly statements.

On that topic, I would like to refer to two contributions we have had from the National Party on this bill. One was from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the other was from Sandra Goudie. Both criticised the fact that this legislation is necessary and suggested that the Local Government Act passed last year would, if in proper form, have rendered this legislation redundant. I have to say that the simplicity and the naivety of that logic does not surprise me. When analysed, the logic of National Party arguments is often found wanting.

The suggestion that the Local Government Act 2003 could have prevented the need for legislation such as this is simply wrong. Endowment properties are properties that are held on trust by councils. Endowment properties come into the possession of councils, because property, or money for the purpose of purchasing property, has been endowed upon the council. A property is endowed on terms that require the council to honour the terms of the trust that created the endowment. The prior Local Government Act and the amended Local Government Act both quite properly require councils to honour the terms of those endowments.

What has happened in this unusual case is that back in 1929 the legislation concerning this particular endowment became confused. Back in the 1890s a piece of land was endowed upon the council. In 1920 the council purchased a separate piece of land in Willis Street. Subsequent to that purchase, the endowment land was mixed up with the private purchase of the Willis Street land, and the same legislation—the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act—was passed in 1929 and caught up both the Willis Street land and the endowment land. As a consequence of the mistake made in 1929 to include the privately purchased land in the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act, the land that had been purchased with council money from a private owner was caught up with the endowment land.

The suggestion that that should be fixed by the Local Government Act that was passed last year is, with respect, in error. Specific legislation always overrides the general. General legislation never overrides the specific. It would have required a specific provision in the Local Government Act to deal with empowering legislation like the 1929 Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Are you sure about that?

Yes I am.

💬 Mita Ririnui: He’s a Government member.

That is right. I do claim to understand this area of law better than the National member. The suggestion that endowment lands should have had their endowment qualities removed by the Local Government Act last year would have meant asking the Government to strip away the natures of the trusts that underlie each and every one of these endowments all around New Zealand.

💬 Mahara Okeroa: That’s right, theft.

That is right. It would have meant trying to rewrite those trust terms in respect of endowment properties up and down New Zealand. First, it would have been inappropriate, and second, it would have been an impossible task—except if there was a generalisation that caused great injustice by overturning the carefully considered terms of the donations that have been made by benevolent New Zealanders through the centuries.

To do that would have caused an injustice. It would also have enabled the terms of endowments to be ignored by future councils up and down the country. For example, if a forebear of Sandra Goudie had made a generous donation to a council for recreational purposes, then notwithstanding that that endowment was made for those purposes, that member might try to empower the council through general legislation like the Local Government Act to ignore the trust that was created by that endowment and use the property for whatever purpose the council chose to use it for.

The Local Government Act last year does amend the provisions in respect of the use of endowment properties. It does empower councils to sell endowment properties and utilise the proceeds of sale for purposes that are consistent with the endowment. So the Act does what I think councils should be able to do—that is, sell an endowment property and acquire a replacement one that honours the terms of the original endowment and the terms-of-trust that were originally set down. What the Act does not do is permit councils to go past that original intention and apply endowment properties for a completely different intention. That is why this bill is necessary.

In the case of this bill, the Wellington City Council found that the endowment that applied to the Mangahao endowment property—through an accident, I suspect, back in 1929—also applied to the Willis Street land that had been purchased by the council from the council’s own funds in a private purchase. In order to separate the Willis Street land from the terms of the endowment that applied to the other property, it was necessary for the council to seek the assistance of Parliament to separate the Willis Street land from the other land. So the council asked the local member, Marian Hobbs, to sponsor a local bill.

Local bills come before Parliament only if a parliamentarian is willing to sponsor them. That is a statement by the local member that he or she thinks it is worthy of consideration by Parliament. It does not necessarily mean that it should be passed. In this case, it will be passed, because all parties are supporting it. None the less it requires the support of a local member to bring it before Parliament.

Having brought it before Parliament, of course, causes some cost and expense. Sandra Goudie is quite correct. A cost and expense is incurred as a consequence of this process, but there is no alternative to that, other than the Wellington City Council being stuck in the position of not being able to deal with that land, dispose of it, and put the proceeds of sale to a worthy purpose. So the council came to Parliament and said: “Look, this is the history of it. Can you help us out?” Parliament is doing that by passing this legislation.

The select committee, as is its duty, looked at the issues thoroughly and considered whether there were any treaty implications. There were not. Sandra Goudie pointed out—and I agree with Ms Goudie on this point—that the land was privately acquired, so there are no treaty ramifications. That point is interesting, because at times suggestions are made by people who are trying to foment concern unnecessarily amongst non-Māori that their assets might be seized for treaty purposes. But interestingly, this is a case in point where, even though the land is local authority land, it is treated exactly the same as other private land—as if it was land I had acquired privately using my own money—so no treaty claim can be made against it, and there are no treaty ramifications.

Other members have already spoken about the efforts that have been made to help the council find new premises for some of the community organisations based there.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Would the member answer a question?

The member has answered two questions that were raised by the Opposition, both of which were incorrect.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Would you answer another one?

The Speaker is now asking me to sit down, which I will do.

It is amazing, is it not, how a poll result can change the mindset of Parliament. The Government is on 35 or 38 percent, or whatever it is, with its members filibustering and acting like the Opposition, and the National Party, on 45 percent, is acting like the Government-in-waiting. Accordingly, I recommend the passage of this bill through the House.

Bill read a third time.