Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill has been reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee with an amendment that I am advised is accepted by the Wellington City Council. I thank the members of the select committee for their careful consideration of the bill.

This is a small bill of just four clauses, dealing with a 1,500 square metre piece of reclaimed land known as Jack Ilottt Green, which is on the corner of Harris Street and Jervois Quay. It was once home to Wellington’s Circa theatre and is a very much-loved corner, not quite on the waterfront but just across the road from it. The site is the last remaining piece of land covered by the Te Aro Reclamation Act. Wellington always seems to be handling these fairly ancient Acts.

This Act required the council to sell or lease the land, by public auction, after at least 2 months’ notice and to use the proceeds to repay borrowings for the reclamation. That sounds familiar, except it is 100 years old. The council can sell or lease other landholdings not subject to the Te Aro Reclamation Act without a notified public auction. The bill before the House today seeks to remove constraints and allow the council to deal freely with the land in question.

I have sponsored this bill as I sponsor many local bills, because I do not believe that central government legislation, particularly that passed a long time ago, should unnecessarily hamper how local authorities deal with land under their control. I note that a member of this House, a former member of the Wellington City Council, issued a press release in which she said that this legislation was thought up “sneakily” by the city council. There is nothing sneaky about legislation that is put on the Order Paper, and is on the Internet for everyone to see. There was nothing sneaky about this legislation.

I met with people who were nervous about what might happen to Jack Ilottt Green, and I pointed out to them that under the existing legislation the land could have gone to auction, and no one would have had any control of what happened to it if it went to auction. This way there is some community control.

Some submitters to the select committee—I think they were the same ones who came to see me—were concerned that the bill could remove the council’s obligation to follow the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act. The select committee agreed that clause 4 of the bill as introduced was unnecessarily broad in the discretion it gave to the council. The committee recommended that the council deal with the land in accordance with the Local Government Act. I have no reason to believe that the local council intended to do anything other than work under the Local Government Act, the Resource Management Act, and district plans. However, that amendment will maintain the intent of the bill by removing specific constraints on the council, while ensuring that any sale be publicly notified and the community be consulted. So I welcome the change.

I am aware of some of the very exciting developments involving that land that are being considered by Wellington city councillors. I look forward to them involving the community in their thinking about those developments. I encourage everyone with an interest to engage with the council so that the best solution is reached for that land.

Again I refer to a press release by Sue Kedgley, a member of the Green Party, in which she thunders that this will be an election issue. I would hope that we were not into antagonism yet again in Wellington, but that we were about working constructively together. In this case, it is central government working with local government to remove an obdurate way of working, but I hope in the future that all of the Wellington community will work together, rather than set up for a pitched battle yet again. Too much time and effort has been lost in this community by pitched battles. It would be good if we could work together under the Local Government Act.

The Wellington City Council has advised that it accepts the change to the bill, and I commend it to the House.

I rise on behalf of the National Party to support this legislation. It is a local bill and there is nothing controversial about it, at all. I commend the Minister whose name the bill is in for the work that has been done on it.

I have one or two things that are probably worthy of comment—[Interruption] Yes, there are. I am sure there are two things worthy of comment. Firstly, the Minister who spoke on this legislation has already made the comment—and it is worth reemphasising it—that the present legislation will indeed take care of any concerns expressed by submissioners who were worried that the council might be allowed to run away and do some hip hops or something with the money it received from any sale. That cannot happen under the Local Government Act or the bill, as they preclude any suggestion of untoward action by councils. In other words, councils will be as good or bad as they are in anything else they do.

The other thing of interest—and I mean this seriously—is that we need to consider, given that the foreshore and seabed legislation is before us, whether that legislation will have any impact on any of this particular land. The Minister is nodding her head and saying no, but one of the things we are not certain about is how wide the foreshore and seabed legislation is, and what impact it will have. As that legislation develops, we may well find—

💬 Hon John Tamihere: It would impact on your mother.

No, this is not a “mother” speech. Mum has not read the foreshore and seabed legislation, but she will be appalled by it when she does get to see it, along with all other mothers and fathers in New Zealand.

The problem we have with the foreshore and seabed legislation is that because we are uncertain exactly what it means, and because its intent needs to be a lot clearer, we may find that while we think that the legislation we are passing now is clear, gives direction, and comes under the auspices of the present Local Government Act, the foreshore and seabed legislation, when actually passed, may interfere in some way with the intent of this bill.

I tell the House that we need to put that qualifier on it. There are things in the foreshore and seabed legislation that we are uncertain of. We seriously do not know how wide the changes to the Resource Management Act will be under that legislation. Until the legislation is developed, those changes will probably not be known until such time as it goes through a court process, and that may be some years away. However, we might find that that bill will come back to haunt us with regard to this sort of legislation. It may well put restrictions, limitations, and impositions on local government, and, as a consequence, on this sort of bill, which I am sure the House will support.

Of course, the other thing we are uncertain of is just how wide and far-reaching the foreshore and seabed legislation, as put down by the present Government with the support of New Zealand First, will be with regard to foreshore issues, of which this is part. When we look at the wider issue, we see that once again we do not yet know. The issues around “cultural connection” are undefined. Nobody knows entirely what that means. We have to wait and see what those definitions mean. As we pass this sort of legislation, we should be bearing in mind that this other legislation that is before the House has wide ramifications and may well impose, restrict, or influence the outcome of the legislation we are debating today.

As the select committee that is dealing with the foreshore and seabed legislation grapples with those problems to try to get some clearer definition of the things that New Zealanders are worried about in the bill, and the fact that it might impact on their private property or interfere with their ability to enjoy an afternoon picnic at a beach—

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This speech is totally irrelevant to the bill before us. After all, this bill has a title, and therefore the Foreshore and Seabed Bill would not apply. There is nothing in this bill about the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and I ask the member to return to the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It does concern a part of the foreshore. That is what the bill is all about. I am quite comfortable to let the member wander over the issue of the foreshore and seabed.

If the member actually read this bill, he would see that it is about reclamation. The member may not know, but reclamation—

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Where in this bill is the word “foreshore” used? I would like to know that, because there is no reference to the foreshore in this particular bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I have ruled on that point of order.

Obviously, the member is a bit nervous about the foreshore and seabed legislation that he supports. He does not want anyone to talk about it, and that is why he is trying to shut down my contribution.

The point I am making to Dail Jones, who raised the point of order expressing concern and hoping that no one would notice that New Zealand First supports the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, is that so many things are unclear in the foreshore and seabed legislation. As we pass legislation such as this, the House needs to take into consideration the impact that that legislation could have on a bill like this one.

I say to Dail Jones, and to his colleagues in New Zealand First, that they should take great care as they support the foreshore and seabed legislation as to what impact it could have and what the detrimental effects might be. What impact might the term “cultural connection” in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill have on this sort of legislation? I think that is a reasonable question to ask. It is a debating point, and not one that tends to allow a restriction on the bill before us.

This is a very good bill. The House will pass it, and so it should. However, I just say that as we debate it today, we need to take into consideration all the other legislation that is before the House, and, in particular, the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. I believe that that bill is likely to come back and cause this House, and this country, some significant problems because of the way it is written and the impact it is likely to have. I say that we need to be aware of that. As we pass this bill through the House, the select committee looking after the Foreshore and Seabed Bill will surely want to consider those things with regard to this sort of legislation,.

It is with great pleasure that I stand to commend the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill to the House. It is not often that I differ with the honourable Dail Jones. I agree with part of his view that much of what John Carter contributes to the House is irrelevant. However, in this particular bill, I would like to indicate the following. Reclamations are clearly ruled on within the foreshore and seabed legislation actually, although they are not within its purview. I invite members opposite to actually read that piece of legislation but, with respect, it has no direct impact in respect of the particular bill we are talking about. This is one of those kinds of circuit-breaker bills that most politicians come to Parliament to actually pursue. That is why Dail Jones is so enthused with it.

This is a small bill containing just four clauses dealing with 1,500 square metres. It is a piece of reclaimed land known as Jack Ilottt Green. I appreciate that pretty soon there might be an amendment at the Committee stage to try to rename that land “Dail Jones Green”. The reality is that this is a very small bill. It has no impact on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, notwithstanding the fact that it is subject to the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. That is dealt with quite carefully and clearly with regard to the legislation on the foreshore and seabed.

The select committee did a sterling job in taking a significant number of submissions in respect of this bill—in all, I think there were two. After much debate, covering no less than 15 minutes according to the report, the select committee agreed that clause 4 as introduced was unnecessarily broad in the discretion it gave to the council. We have to be very careful in giving lots of discretion to councils, particularly in the Wellington region.

The committee recommended that the council deal with the land in accordance with the Local Government Act. This amendment will maintain the intent of the bill by removing specific constraints on the council, while ensuring that any sale be publicly notified. The community would therefore be placed on notice and consulted. This is a constructive change that we welcome.

As an Aucklander, I am delighted to speak in favour of a bill that is going forward to support the Wellington region. As a consequence, on behalf of my colleague Mahara Okeroa, who helped to represent the area, we commend the bill to the House for its second reading.

EDWIN PERRY (NZ First): New Zealand First will support this bill. I speak on behalf of my colleague Mr Jim Peters who sits on the select committee that dealt with this bill.

I want to go back into a bit of the history of this bill. In 1874, the Crown granted 70 acres of land to the Wellington City Council in trust for the purpose of reclamation and public utility. In 1879, the Te Aro Reclamation Act gave the council the right from time to time to fill up and reclaim certain land on the Wellington harbour. The result was that over time since 1879 the area concerned became fully developed and now includes much of the present-day civic and commercial centre of Wellington. When the Wellington City Council decided to sell property it still owned in the area, there was some local concern and agitation about the purpose and the nature of the Wellington City Council’s property regime. A further consideration was whether the Tenths Trust had an interest under Treaty of Waitangi claims.

I want to touch a wee bit on the bill. The bill conveys to the Wellington City Council, firstly, the ability to deal with its land as it wishes, providing the relevant requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 are met with regard to the selling and leasing powers of the council. Secondly, the Local Government Act sets out from section 76 to section 90 the planning and decision-making processes required from the local authority in the course of its policy implementation. Thirdly, and particularly important, is section 78, which provides for community views in relation to decisions, and further sets out the procedures in relation to those decisions. Fourthly, section 82 sets out the principles of consultation, and section 83 provides for the special consultative procedure, which I think is very important to the bill.

New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill in its second reading. It also supports the ability of a local council to go about its business properly and legally with regard to its lands. Although section 81 provides for Māori consultation, the Tenths Trust has indicated that the reclaimed lands in question are solely within the province of the Wellington City Council.

I agree with previous speakers that the amendments that have been made to this bill are a victory for parliamentary democracy and for the select committee process. Marian Hobbs, the Minister who sponsored this bill, said there was nothing sneaky about the bill, but the interesting thing is that she did not come to the Local Government and Environment Committee and hear the submissions on it. The submissioners made it very clear that they thought it very odd that the Wellington City Council had not even discussed the bill in full council. It turned out that the bill had been proposed by a subcommittee of the council, and that it had come to Parliament through Marian Hobbs without the full council having been made aware of it, even though the land involved is, as many have pointed out, very significant—small but very significant—and without the people of Wellington having been alerted to the fact that this legislation was about to come before the House.

I too became curious about this bill, and when I saw it on the Order Paper I rang the Wellington City Council, because, as the Minister pointed out, I was a councillor there for almost 8 years. I asked what the purpose of the bill was, and why the council had provisions in it that allowed a prize piece of Wellington real estate to be sold without the constraint of any other legislation. However, no one at the council was prepared to ring me back and brief me on the matter. As the weeks dragged on and I was unable to get any briefing, my suspicions were aroused. The fact of the matter is that this bill as introduced, which was slipped into Parliament without it having gone through the full council, would have enabled the council to sell this prize piece of land without the constraint of any other legislation. Basically, it would have allowed the council to sell the land secretly—without informing Wellingtonians—and literally to disregard all other law. When the city council was asked why it had included this particular provision—which, fortunately, we have now struck out—it could not offer any plausible explanation as to why it would seek to sell the land without any constraint, in a way that overrode all other legislation, including the Local Government Act.

That is why I consider that the council had sought to sneak this bill through. Fortunately, members of Parliament were not asleep on the watch. We were alert. We enabled submissions to be heard and we rectified the bill by requiring that the council, when leasing or selling the land, be subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act. That Act requires the council, when leasing or selling off the land, to consult with the community before doing so.

We have to remember that there has been significant concern about this land—as I know full well, having been on the council. Indeed, I can remember when we named it the Jack Ilott Green. We all stood around, and said: “Isn’t it wonderful that we’re going to name this wonderful little piece of land after one of the great benefactors of Wellington, Jack Ilott?”. All the city councillors were there and we all praised ourselves, saying: “Isn’t it wonderful? There is so little green land in Wellington, and here’s this lovely little bit of land named after Jack Ilott.”

It then emerged that the council, having gone through that naming procedure—to the great delight of Jack Ilott—wanted to sell the land and build a large building on it. The problem is that such a building would not only block views to the waterfront but would also mean a loss of public space, and would in fact cast a huge shadow over the whole of Civic Square. That prospect has created huge concern in the community. There has been a lot of debate about it. Basically, the community is saying—in terms of all the submissions I have seen and all the comment I have heard—that it wants to preserve this special piece of land. It feels that there is so little land in Wellington, and it does not want to see a large building overshadow Wellington’s very important and precious Civic Square.

So it seems to me that the council did what it did to try to get round the inevitable controversy that it feared—that is my assumption, anyway—would emerge if it were forced to consult on the selling of the land. It was really seeking legislation that would enable it to sell or lease the land without it being required to go through proper consultation or, indeed, being constrained by any other legislation.

The Minister said that I have thundered about the fact that the sale or lease of this precious green space would be an issue in the upcoming Wellington City Council elections. I have not thundered; I have simply said in my press release that I predict that the potential sale or lease of this precious green space would be an issue in the upcoming Wellington City Council elections. It is a prediction I am making, and I am not thundering it. I am not being divisive here; I am simply making a prediction. The reason is that there is strong support in Wellington for the retention of this land as a green space in the city. Certainly, the Green Party and our local campaign team running for the Wellington City Council will be launching a campaign to ensure that the land remains as green space.

We are very, very pleased that as a result of the select committee process, chaired by the Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons—and I personally made a point of being on the committee—the offending provisions have been removed. We have now required the Wellington City Council to follow due process and consult with its community, and we have prevented it from being able to sell this priceless piece of land in a rather secretive and sneaky fashion.

As a Wellington-based MP, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT party and speak to the second reading of the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill. This bill should be well supported by the entire House, because it allows the Wellington City Council to progress and go about its business unheeded. Previously, the council could not sell or lease the land without a notified public auction, and not less than 2 months’ notice of such an auction was required. The bill now removes this constraint, and that is exactly as it should be.

There has been quite some discussion about clause 4, which repeals and replaces sections 8 and 9 of the principal Act with the power for the council to freely deal with the land in question. ACT, because it thinks that the council should be able to go about its business unheeded, would support this. As we have just heard, the Local Government Act of 2002 will apply. Therefore, the consultation that Ms Kedgley spoke about will go ahead. I am not sure that we are entirely happy. ACT’s position on local government legislation has been well documented, and I would certainly hate to see the constraints previously imposed on the Wellington City Council removed and replaced by a completely different set of constraints. However, it is the right thing for this bill to be proceeding.

I think I should point out, just for anybody who might be in any doubt, that the Wellington City Council does have a very good record of consulting with its local community and fulfilling its obligations in this regard, even since Ms Kedgley has no longer been on the Wellington City Council. I think that Wellingtonians, in particular, need not fear that consultation will not happen. It certainly will.

It is good to see that Labour and the Greens are in favour of this bill. I think that, at times, Wellingtonians might well question the commitment that both of those parties have to progress locally. I refer very briefly to the progress of the bypass, which was talked about 30 years ago. In fact, the recent announcement that the bypass will happen had its beginning 30 years ago, and it should have been built at that stage. But the money was diverted by the then Minister of Works and Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Hugh Watt. That money was diverted to “Spaghetti Junction” in Auckland where his voting base was. So it is good to see that the Labour Party is supporting, at long last, progress in this Parliament for Wellington.

I might say that Mr Darren Hughes over on the other side is being very vocal about this, but where has his commitment been to improving transport in the Wellington region since he has been in Parliament? I would say that it has been sadly lacking. In fact, six of the seven Wellington region MPs are Labour MPs, and they have been noticeably lacking in their support of progress in the Wellington region. It has been the list MPs living and being based in the Wellington region who have stood up for progress.

💬 Hon Member: The Mount Victoria tunnel!

That is right. My colleague has spoken up in favour of the Mount Victoria tunnel in Wellington, and I have been very vocal in my support of the bypass. Unfortunately though the seventh seat is the Hon Peter Dunne’s Ohariu-Belmont seat, and he campaigned quite hard for various things before the last election, but now that he is supporting—

💬 Gordon Copeland: He is still supporting the bypass.

Is he? Well, his support has not been very loud, I hate to say. His colleague in United Future has been much better at representing the Wellington region than he himself has. But anyway, back to the matter in hand. ACT New Zealand does support this bill. We do, perhaps, highlight the uncertainty that might come about over this piece of land due to the foreshore and seabed legislation, when it is a piece of reclaimed land that we are talking about, as was highlighted by my colleague from National, John Carter. But it is a move forward. We hope that the Local Government Act 2002 will not hinder the progress that this bill will make for the Wellington City Council, and for the benefit of Wellingtonians.

Ms Kedgley’s concerns about this area of green land owned by the Wellington City Council might well be an election issue in the local body elections in October this year. But that will be a case of democracy at work and, of course, it will be a very good issue for those contenders—those who we have yet to see put their names forward—to campaign on. In conclusion, ACT does proudly support this Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill.

The Hon John Carter of the National Party and you, Mr Assistant Speaker, in your very clear ruling, are quite right to say that this bill—the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill, does, in fact, link to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. Would it not be a great thing if indeed the Foreshore and Seabed Bill did refer to the concept of “public domain”. I think it would relieve a lot of the uncertainty that John Carter spoke about if we just had those two simple words, “public domain”, back in the bill.

Why have those two words been taken out of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill? We all know the reason, do we not? Three members of the Labour Party could not make up their minds. Then two of them finally did make up their minds to vote against the Government and it had to turn to New Zealand First. New Zealand First, with its chest puffed out, breathlessly informed the nation that “public domain” was an American republicanism concept. Well, ha, ha! Let us tell that to the people of Auckland, who well know about the Auckland Domain, and try to tell it to one Gordon Copeland, Member of Parliament, born in Mapua, ex - 3-mile specialist who used to run his races on the Mapua and Motueka domains, both of which have been there since time immemorial. So much for the nebulous, ridiculous reason given by New Zealand First for dropping those words! I hope they find their way back into the bill.

Coming now to the issue at hand in terms of this particular bill, I would like to say that United Future will vote in favour of its passage through the House. However, I say to Wellington City councillors that they should proceed wisely, and certainly they should consider the original intent of the 1879 Act that the proceeds from the sale or the lease of the reclaimed land should possibly be applied to the reduction of debt on the city, especially if the land is sold. If it is sold, the city will be realising a capital asset. Therefore, ideally, the proceeds should be used as a general principle for the reduction of the city’s liabilities.

I express the hope that the councillors, especially in this election year, will consider that matter carefully, because, just like in a business or a family, selling some of the family jewels—and this land is a jewel of the city—-and frittering away the proceeds on somebody’s expenditure wish list, normally turns out to be a mistake, and a costly mistake at that. So I tell the people of Wellington that if they want to get their rates down, then, when they select their new councillors this year, they should vote for prudent people—and next year they should vote for United Future, because we will take GST off rates and leave, just for once, some extra cash in the pockets of every Wellington residential ratepayer. I think that all the people of Wellington would welcome that change. We support the bill.

I will take a brief call in support of this legislation. It has been interesting to hear the comments from Wellingtonians who have a vested interest in what the outcome of this legislation will be, and how it will affect those people who live in Wellington, and of course, the responsibility that the Wellington City Council will have once this legislation is passed. One of the points that has come out of it—and I think it is important—is that the bill will allow flexibility. It will allow the council to decide what is best for the land. But it is also interesting to note—and I guess this is a word of caution to those who may be seeking to be candidates in the local body elections—Sue Kedgley’s comment that this will become an election issue. So I guess there is some forewarning there for those who may be seeking to stand, certainly as to what their position is with this land, and whether it can be sold or leased, or whatever the outcome is likely to be. It is also important that the council take notice of the pending foreshore and seabed legislation, and that has been mentioned by previous speakers. The foreshore and seabed legislation will impact on this legislation, and the council needs to be very mindful of what the likely outcomes of that would be in the future. National is very happy to support this piece of legislation.

I seem to recall that towards the end of last year I had the opportunity to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I listened to some of the submissions on this bill, and got some idea of how the Local Government Act and suchlike would affect the land involved. I note with interest the confused view that has been given about the effect of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill on this legislation. Today, in 2004, this legislation amends the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. The area concerned may have been the foreshore then, but I understand that today it is no longer the foreshore. The definition of the foreshore is very simple: is it a wet bit or is it a dry bit, and does the tide come up to Jack Ilott Green any more? If the tide came up and covered Jack Ilott Green, up to the high-water mark, then it would be the foreshore. But if it is a dry bit now and the tide gets nowhere near to it today, then it is not the foreshore. It is as simple as that—dry bits; wet bits. Most people can understand the difference between a dry bit and a wet bit. The National Party, it would appear, cannot, and the Greens and United Future have some difficulty with that, as well. In relation to the definition of foreshore and seabed, those of us who can tell where the tide goes up to at the high-tide mark know that that is a wet bit. Those of us who cannot understand that somehow think it is still a dry bit.

The area referred to in this bill is, from my understanding, quite some distance away now from the high-water mark area. Therefore, it cannot be affected by the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It really is as simple as that. All that the National Party is doing is trying to be suspicious. United Future was going to support the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It was the removal of three little words from the purpose clause that made it change its mind and not take a very unctuous position. The removal of three words from the purpose clause made United Future change its mind. That was not common sense; that was spitting the dummy. As far as anyone else is concerned, that was just a fit of pique on the part of United Future.

So I conclude by saying this land is a dry bit, and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill cannot apply to it. Most people who have any degree of common sense understand that fact. It is regrettable that neither the National Party nor United Future has any common sense with regard to the area referred to in this bill.

I want to join with other members of Parliament in welcoming the second reading of the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill, which was promoted by the Hon Marian Hobbs, in consultation with the Wellington City Council. The Hon Marian Hobbs does play an important role in coordinating the Wellington electorate members of Parliament, and as a group we certainly welcome the opportunity this legislation will provide for this piece of land. It is, of course, a small bill, with just four clauses. Mention has been made of Jack Ilott Green by other speakers. As my colleague the deputy leader of the House says, this is a small but perfectly formed bill.

Comment was made by the ACT list member, who I understand lives in Wellington, that not enough action is being taken on Wellington transport issues by Wellington electorate members of Parliament. The member clearly has not looked at the record of the effort and energy that Wellington members are putting into trying to address the transport needs of the region. Those needs are challenging, but we are trying to meet them. There are already runs on the board. The member said that nothing has happened, but of course if she is focused only on her small suburb—as I suspect she is—she would not know of the developments at Mackays Crossing that Winnie Laban, Peter Dunne, and I have worked very, very hard on, to try to make sure we help to make that part of State Highway 1 function as an entrance to the Wellington region. Unlike that member, who wants to talk down Wellington’s chances as a region, what we do as Wellington electorate members of Parliament is to stay positive about the transport and other issues confronting Wellington.

Finally, in closing, I note a very important event that has happened this afternoon. The member for Rotorua, Steve Chadwick, has had a granddaughter born, called Tiki. I am sure that members would like to join me in congratulating the extended Chadwick whānau.

Bill read a second time.