Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)Amendment Bill

I move, That the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Since we began moving this bill through this House, it has become somewhat contentious locally—not the bill, but the subject of what might happen to Jack Ilott Green. So there are three points I wish to make in this third reading. I want to reiterate what the bill does, I also want to make a point about what a local member’s responsibility is with local bills, and then I do want to canvass, as a Wellingtonian, the possibilities that might happen to what is known as Jack Ilott Green.

This is a small bill. It has only four clauses, and it deals with a 1,500-square metre piece of reclaimed land known as Jack Ilott Green, on the corner of Harris Street, which is currently being dug up, and Jervois Quay. It was once home to Wellington’s Circa Theatre. The site is the last remaining piece of land covered by the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. That Act required the council to sell or lease the land by public auction after at least 2 months’ notice—not just to sell or even lease it but to do it by public auction—and to use the proceeds to repay borrowings for the reclamation. The council in its own right can sell or lease other landholdings not subject to the Te Aro Reclamation Act, and it can do so without a notified public auction, but it cannot do so with this piece of land under the Act that the bill we are debating today amends. The bill before the House seeks to remove the constraints and allow the council to deal freely with the land in question.

I want to go over that again, because it is really quite important. The commentary on the bill states: “That Act permits the Council to sell or lease the land provided that any sale or letting is by public auction,”. A public auction gives the local council no real control, as members can imagine, over what might happen. The one thing councils like to do is control land in the central business district. The commentary adds that the council must give not less than 2 months’ notice, and notes that the Act “also requires that the proceeds of sale are paid into a sinking fund to be used to repay money borrowed to undertake the reclamation.” I remind members that it is an 1879 Act. All the money borrowed for the purpose of reclamation under the Act has now been paid. The 1879 Act was a tad slow, and therefore actually needs—

💬 Darren Hughes: It was visionary!

It was visionary at the time, but it does need amending. The second point I want to make is about the role of the local member. It seems to me that Wellington uses its local member quite a lot to sponsor local bills. But I sponsored the bill because I do not believe that central government legislation, which was passed at a time when central government did not really have a partnership with local government, and legislated for everything—particularly, legislation passed as long ago as 1879—should unnecessarily hamper how local authorities deal with land under their control.

Some submitters were concerned that the bill could remove the council’s obligation to follow the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. The House agreed that clause 4 of the bill as introduced was unnecessarily broad in the discretion it gave to the council, and we agreed that the council should deal with the land in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. That amendment maintained the intent of the bill by removing the specific constraint on the council—that is, the constraint of compulsory auction—while ensuring that any sale be publicly notified and that the community be consulted. That was a constructive change. I welcomed it, and the Wellington City Council advised that it accepted that change.

So now we are in a situation of what might happen. The issue of what we actually do with Jack Ilott Green—whether it be disposed of or kept—has become slightly contentious as the bill has progressed. At the moment, the council is using a special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002—as it was asked to do by the select committee—to ask Wellingtonians whether the council should allow Massey University and Victoria University to locate a music school on the site. The agreement would see the council offer the universities a 99-year lease of the site at a peppercorn rental.

The consultation material considers three options for the site: leave it as green space, as some in the city argue; private development—putting it up for sale in the proper way, as the bill removes the requirement to put the land up for auction—or development with the council as a key stakeholder. Developing the site with the council as a key stakeholder, as in the New Zealand School of Music proposal, is the council’s preferred option. But the consultation material is out there. It includes the publicly available statement of proposal, a summary of information booklet, a month-long submission period, and hearings. Submissions close on 27 August. Hearings will be held on 1 and 2 September, and the council will make a decision on 23 September.

The Wellington City Council’s Chief Operating Officer, Karen Wallace, said that in using the special consultative procedure the council was acknowledging the importance of the site to Wellingtonians. It is the public’s chance to have its say in the development of the city, and, in particular, Civic Square. If the time frame for the proposal is in place quickly enough, it will enable a decision to be made prior to the Partnerships for Excellence application deadline of 1 October, and that is why the council is adopting a special consultative procedure. This bill is not about the special consultative procedure; it is about the basics of how the council may dispose of the land, but the issue around that has really grown.

I want to make some personal comments about what I think about the site. The idea of combining the wonderful jazz that is being promoted at Massey University, and the electronic and orchestral music and the wonderful singing that are taught up at Victoria University, in a New Zealand School of Music next to a sheltered square in which open-air concerts can be held, and near the City Gallery, the town hall, and the Michael Fowler Centre, is really clever.

💬 Darren Hughes: Te Papa is quite close.

Te Papa is quite close, but one has to cross the road—and crossing that particular road is highly exciting. I personally think that what the council wants to do with land—although that is not part of the bill—is clever. The Dominion Post reported there had been really heated discussion—but with some humour—on the matter at the council. A good friend of mine, Councillor Sue Piper, said that a survey had shown that the 58 people using the park-like space on one day included 55 passing through, two having a furtive fag—Councillor Sue Piper would say that, as she has been known to do that herself—and a lost child. I do not think it is the pétanque-playing centre of Wellington, as some would claim.

My feeling is that school could be a really great use of the space, but this bill is not about giving an imprimatur to go ahead with the combined School of Music. It is not about that. That will be a decision of the Wellington community. This bill removes unnecessary constraints on the council, and allows it to deal freely with the land in question—rather than it being forced to auction it, whereby it cannot control what may happen—while ensuring community involvement. I commend the third reading of the Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill to the House.

I will take just a quick call to say that the National Party supports this bill. The member who has just resumed her seat has set it out very clearly, and the important thing is that all that Parliament is doing is making it possible for the local council and the local community to have an input. That is a very positive thing. This is a local issue that needs to be decided by local people, and we support that.

New Zealand First supports this bill. Our bewilderment is really about why this bill has taken so long to reach this point. The Wellington City Council ought to have been able to deal with its lands many, many months before now. It raises the issue as to how some people regard local councils and local democracy. I listened to the member for Wellington Central with great interest, but my feelings were that what she said, regardless of her personal feelings, had nothing to do with this bill.

The point I want to make on behalf of New Zealand First is that we believe strongly in local democracy. We believe that local government has its own way of dealing with matters, and that has been defined largely by the Local Government Act 2002. The issues that the member mentioned with regard to how the land is to be used are simply and absolutely the province of the Wellington City Council. One of the reasons I say that is that this bill was unnecessarily held up by some people who fought an action, using this House, to try to achieve their objectives. I am pleased to see they did not, because the avenue of redress where they could take their concerns was the Wellington City Council, which is their council. In the past, under the annual plan, which is now the community plan, they had every ability to advance annually their beliefs as to what should be done with that land. The answer is that they may have but they did not impress the council of the day.

Secondly, this year they have had every opportunity, if they felt that there are issues that were not canvassed in the way that that small minority thought so, to do something about it in the electoral cycle about to take place right now. But this party, New Zealand First, deplores people using this House to try to bring about changes that are properly and absolutely the role of local government. So to that degree we support the bill, we support the constraints that have been removed, and, again, we wonder why they took so long.

We know that the special consultative process under the 2002 Act has now been provided for in that last section, which states that the council has the power to deal with any reclaimed land and that it must be exercised under, and in accordance with, section 12 of the Local Government Act. That being satisfied, the Treaty of Waitangi issues, which also took some time to have an answer back with regard to consultation with Te Puni Kōkiri, the Department of Conservation, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, and with the Wellington Tenths Trust all being satisfied, we are more than happy to pass this bill on its way quickly, allowing the Wellington City Council to go about its business in the way that the council and staff think is most desirable.

The Green Party welcomes the passage of this bill, and I wish to present some of the thoughts on this matter from Wellington Green MP Sue Kedgley, who unfortunately cannot be here. She says that this bill has been of concern to us as it would have allowed the Wellington City Council to sell off the precious Jack Ilott Green near Wellington’s wonderful waterfront, without reference to any other legislation in this country. The Local Government and Environment Committee, under the chairpersonship of the Greens co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons, made some important changes to this bill, which have meant that the Wellington City Council will now have to consult with the people of Wellington before selling off that important bit of green space.

As the bill was originally drafted, the council would not have needed to consult with the public over the sale of the land, and we found that to be unacceptable. The community has expressed significant concerns about the sale of this land, and has long campaigned for its retention as a park. So it is right that the council should consult on what is done with this park. The council will now have to comply with section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002. We do not believe it is the place of Parliament to say what land councils should retain, but we do have a responsibility to ensure that the council complies with other laws of this country. The bill, as it was originally drafted, gave the council powers that were too broad. We are also pleased to see that the council is already committed to consultation on the use of the land by the special consultative procedure under section 138 of the Local Government Act. That section stipulates that a council must consult before disestablishing a park.

We do, however, remain, concerned about the future of this land. The council seems to have made up its mind to build a music school on the site, irrespective of the outcome of consultation with the public or what the public may want. That mindset of building the school, irrespective of what the public thinks, does not seem to be in accordance with the spirit of the Local Government Act. Section 82(e) of the Act stipulates “that the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration:”. We hope to see the council take that section of the Act into consideration when it makes a decision on this land. There is a dearth of green space in our capital city. It is time that we created more green space for inner city dwellers and for those who come in from the suburbs to enjoy the city. Sue Kedgley believes the future of Jack Ilott Green is a significant issue for Wellingtonians, and she envisages that the possible siting of a music school on that site will be a major issue in this year’s local elections.

I would also like to add some comments of my own, as someone who lives nearby at Oriental Bay and walks through the park reasonably frequently. The Minister, in her initial speech, indicated that not many people use it. When I walk through it, I do often see other people there. I would say that the reason why Jack Ilott Green is not used very much as a park at the present time is that it has not been developed fully as a park. It has a very run-down look about it, as if it were in a sort of holding pattern, and in its present state people would not be encouraged to use it as a park.

But I think Jack Ilott Green does have significant potential. There is much more of a movement in the recreational activities of Wellingtonians towards that end of the city. We have seen the development of Courtenay Place, Te Papa, the developments around the waterfront, and, most recently, the extra sand and other developments at Oriental Bay itself. I imagine that if we have a good summer this year in Wellington, on many days there will be crowds and crowds of people around the area from Courtenay Place through to Oriental Bay. If this land was developed as a nice park with unique recreational characteristics, I imagine that considerable use would be made of it, and that it would provide a bit of a link between Te Papa and Courtenay Place. Fitting in to some degree with what the Minister says—and getting away from the question of whether Jack Ilott Green should become the site of a music school—I think the land would be a good link between Te Papa, Courtenay Place, the other developments on the waterfront, and what is happening at Oriental Bay.

I hope that the Wellington City Council will take account of all the submissions of its citizens, and will develop Jack Ilott Green in the interests of Wellingtonians and of people from around the country who are drawn to Wellington, to go to Te Papa and Oriental Bay. Hopefully, those people will use this park, as well as Wellingtonians.

It gives me pleasure to rise as a Wellingtonian and a member of ACT New Zealand to support this bill. I endorse the comments made by the New Zealand First member Mr Jim Peters about the length of time it has taken the bill to reach this point. I see that it had its first reading on Wednesday, 14 May 2003, and that the second reading was not held until a year later, on 19 May this year—2004. I think that this House has done the Wellington City Council a great disservice by the length of time it has taken to progress the bill through the House. I would like to say, too, that the Green Party, despite the fact that it seems reluctantly to be supporting this bill, is also responsible for the slow progress it has made. The Greens objected to the final stages of the bill being dealt with at once. One can only assume that that was a political stunt, to make the point that they do not like what the council intends to do with the land in Jack Ilott Green. We have heard from several speakers—and I think the Minister put it very well—of the great benefits that Wellington would have as a result of Victoria University and Massey University joining together to have a school of music. This is, I believe, a very good site for such a proposed school of music, and the school would benefit Wellingtonians greatly, as it would benefit those students from around New Zealand who would wish to come to such a school.

This bill, as the member for Wellington Central pointed out, is only about the role that central government has in relation to local bodies. It outlines very clearly the inappropriateness of holding up the sale or otherwise of the affected land due to the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. That Act is very outdated, and it gives the land a very different legal status from other parcels of land owned by the city council. In this day and age the very prescriptive nature of the legislation that governed Jack Ilott Green is totally inappropriate. It is not right that councils should be required to jump through hoops to do what they wish with land that they govern. I come back again to a comment that the member for Wellington Central made, when she said that central government should not hamper land that is under the control of local bodies. In fact, she was referring to the 1879 legislation when she said that the relationship between central government and local government was not as close then as it is now. However, ACT New Zealand would contend that it is not appropriate for that to happen in this day and age, either. Local bodies must be able to control their own land without being held to ransom by central government. We contend that that point is every bit as relevant now when legislating as it was in those days.

I shall also touch briefly on consultation. The Green Party has made much of consultation, as this bill has progressed through the House. The Wellington City Council has shown great willingness to consult, not only on this matter but on many matters. It is willing to consult, and it consults in a very fair way, giving everybody the opportunity to have their say on matters relating to Wellington. The council is very responsible, and I have been very impressed with it. That aside, the responsibleness the council has shown would be required of it under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, which other speakers have talked about, too.

ACT New Zealand is very pleased to support the passage of this bill through the House. The final point I would like to make is one of principle: central government should really stay out of local body matters. That is a lesson not only with regard to this bill but with other legislation. When we are making law we should ensure that property rights are upheld, both for individuals and also bodies like local councils. When they own land they must be free to deal with it as they see fit, within the delegation of their elected representatives. So ACT New Zealand supports this bill, and just regrets that it has taken as long as it has to get this legislation through so that the Wellington City Council is able to do with the land as it sees fit.

I thoroughly endorse the comments made to the House just a few minutes ago by Jim Peters. It is our sole job here in Parliament, really, to remove the historical impediments that relate to this piece of land. I hope that we will do that in just a couple of minutes. Beyond that, the good people of Wellington are quite capable of making decisions about what its future should be. I doubt very much whether the pontifications of the Greens and other people who have tried to give a bit of a steer as to what they should do are very relevant. As Keith Locke himself pointed out, a local body election is looming. I think we should simply get on and make this the law. This bill will have the support of the United Future party.

Bill read a third time.