Wellington Town Belt Bill

I move, That the Wellington Town Belt Bill be now read a second time. It is a pleasure to be returning to the House with this piece of legislation, which will protect and enhance the green space that surrounds the wonderful city of Wellington, known as the town belt. To remind colleagues—who I am sure continue to recall this information, but it is, perhaps, helpful—the three main purposes of this legislation are to provide a transparent statutory basis for Wellington City Council’s trusteeship and management of the town belt on behalf of the residents of Wellington.

There is a trust deed that has governed the town belt for the best part of 170 years; that trust deed continues in this legislation, but we now have the statutory back-up to that to ensure that the town belt continues to fulfil the role that it has had for Wellingtonians for many, many generations as a public recreation ground and green space. In addition to the trust deed, there are already a number of pieces of legislation that govern the town belt, including the Reserves Act, the Wellington City Exhibition Grounds Act, and the Wellington (City) Town Belt Reserves Act. This legislation brings the powers of all of those instruments together into one piece of legislation, which I think all of us would agree is a good thing.

The second purpose of the bill is to impose on the council responsibilities and powers to protect, manage, and enhance the town belt. The trust deed continues to be the founding and lasting form of guidance for how the town belt should be managed. However, over the last 140-odd years there has been a lack of clarity of core aspects of the role given to the council under the deed and how that should be interpreted. This legislation puts to rest those doubts with a series of very clear definitions, including, in clause 8 of the bill, providing a clear description of the legal status of the town belt. The other great virtue that this purpose of the town belt bill has is that it allows us to add land to the town belt because, up until now, time has been frozen back at the original creation of the town belt in 1873. Although land has been taken away from the town belt for various purposes during that time, the idea of adding land has not been possible. So what this bill does is create the opportunity for us to add land to the bill, and on commencement of the legislation, somewhere around an extra 120 hectares of land will be added to the town belt on top of the nearly 400 hectares that we currently have, and that will be a great advance for Wellington to have that land given the same protections as the town belt itself.

I also want to note the third purpose of the bill, around recognising the history of the town belt and its significance to mana whenua and to the inhabitants of Wellington in general. I have already noted earlier in debates on this that the history of the town belt is an interesting one and is covered in the preamble of the legislation. I think that is a very important point—it is certainly an important point for Wellingtonians, that that history will now be part of the bill itself. I think that will give assurance to a lot of people that where we have come from, in terms of the protection of this land, is now part of the law itself. So they are the main purposes of the legislation. We had a very interesting select committee process. I want to thank all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their work. I particularly want to thank the chair, Scott Simpson, who ran the committee well. We did have some—

💬 Hon Member: Hear, hear!

Perhaps I should say that again, because I am not sure how often I will say that statement: I would like to thank Scott Simpson, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, for his work.

We did have a number of submissions; we had around 30 written submissions on the bill and a number of those people asked to speak to the committee. In general, they were very positive and very supportive of the legislation. There was a high level of agreement that it was a good idea to provide a clearer legal framework and greater certainty and clarity about the meanings of important concepts that surround the management of the town belt, including the concept of public recreation. There was a desire to protect the current town belt and to be able to add land to it. There were—and it does need to be recognised—some submitters who did not support the bill; only two who outright did not support the bill, and they believe that the intent of the protection of the town belt would not be enhanced by this legislation. Clearly, the Wellington City Council, as the organisation behind this bill, does not agree or accept that.

Then there were a number of submissions that proposed a variety of minor amendments to the bill, some of which have been accepted and picked up. I just want to mention the two areas of concern that were raised by submitters. One of them has led to an amendment, which I want to focus on a little bit in my contribution. The first area of concern was that by removing the town belt from the Reserves Act and putting those powers into this bill, we would undermine the protection of the town belt as a reserve. We got very clear guidance from officials that that was not a concern; that, in fact, in some ways, we were strengthening the powers under the Reserves Act in this legislation because we were taking on the new powers of the Reserves Act amendment that had been slowly winding its way through Parliament. I want to reassure those submitters who were concerned that there would be an undermining of the reserve status of the Wellington town belt that we have been assured that is not the case.

The other area that was of some concern for submitters was the application of the Public Works Act to the town belt. This is dealt with largely under clause 23 of the bill. In the course of the select committee considering the bill, the Wellington City Council and Land Information New Zealand had some discussions, and an alternative clause 23 now appears in the bill. I find myself in an interesting position, as the member in whose name this bill is, in that it would be my preference that the original wording of clause 23 around the application of the Public Works Act to the town belt were still in the bill. But this is a local bill and it is a bill that the Wellington City Council has put forward to us; it is the language that has been agreed between the council and the Government agencies that now appears as clause 23. Clause 23, as it now is, is the status quo—it reflects how things are today in terms of the ability of a Government to use the Public Works Act to take aspects of the Wellington Town Belt, as it could for virtually all other land in New Zealand, with some exceptions.

What is now missing from clause 23 are two important points: one of those is a reference to the inhabitants of Wellington being interested parties, essentially, and having the right of objection. The original clause 23 reflects the trust deed for the Wellington town belt, which mentions the inhabitants of Wellington as being an interested party. That clause has been removed. The other was an important process clause about the need to agree on compensation for land taken before further parts of the acquisition of land would take place. That is different from a normal Public Works Act process, but it was included in the original bill by the Wellington City Council to recognise the unique status of the town belt. It would be my preference, and the Labour Party’s preference, if the original clause 23 was in the bill, but that is not the process that has happened, and I just think it is important that I outline that today.

I want to mention clauses 16 and 17, where I believe there has been an inadvertent change made in the select committee that we will need to look at again in the Committee of the whole House. This is around the question of leases and licences, and the granting of those. In the original drafting of the bill, no more than 8 hectares in total of the town belt was to be taken under leases. That clause has now been replicated under the licences section, and it is certainly not the intention of the Wellington City Council, having checked with them, for there to be 16 hectares, i.e. 8 hectares of leases and 8 hectares of licences. So having spoken to the council, we will be able to rectify that relatively easily in the Committee of the whole House stage, because nobody involved in this process wants any more than 8 hectares. In fact, the submitter who suggested making sure that the licences section did not contain more than 8 hectares was, in fact, arguing for no more than 8 hectares across both leases and licences. It is a minor point, but I wanted to make sure I put it on the record in the second reading so that we can clarify that when we get to the Committee of the whole House stage.

I remain very supportive of this piece of legislation. I think the Wellington City Council has undertaken good work to ensure that concerns raised by submitters have been dealt with throughout a very long period of time, over a number of years. The select committee process was simply the latest in a series of consultations. We have refined the bill. There has been a very small adjustment made in terms of what the town belt is, because we have removed a very small parcel of land that is still subject to a Treaty claim. We had an extensive discussion about that at the select committee. It is a small parcel of land and because it is still subject to a Treaty claim it has been taken out of the town belt. But the good news is that, subject to that Treaty claim being dealt with, it can be added back into the town belt because we now have a process to do that. I strongly commend this bill to the House.

As chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in the second reading debate on the Wellington Town Belt Bill and report back to the House on the very good and constructive work that I think was done at the select committee. At the outset, I would like to place on record my grateful thanks for the cooperation and the collegial approach taken by all members across the committee and for their work on this very special piece of legislation, which will, effectively, modernise the trust deed that was set in place such a long time ago. In fact, it was back in 1908 that the first piece of legislation around the Wellington town belt came into force. It needed modernising for a number of reasons. Those trustees who, in fact, established the Wellington town belt all those years ago had remarkable foresight and wisdom to have created for the good people of Wellington then, now, and in the future a remarkable piece of green space that is a true treasure for all Wellingtonians and, indeed, all New Zealanders who have the good fortune to visit Wellington and share in this space.

The bill is a local bill, and it is being promoted by the Wellington City Council. As the committee worked through our deliberations on the bill we were very cognisant of the fact that the Wellington City Council has put an enormous amount of effort, time, and energy in getting to where the bill was when presented to the House for its first reading and to the select committee as we worked through that process. I want to also acknowledge the work of the sponsor, the local member of Parliament, Grant Robertson, for his work, because he has, in fact, over a long number of years, been very committed to progressing this through the House into its current form. It is somewhat ironic that, as someone who has clearly been committed to updating this piece of legislation, he found himself in the somewhat unusual situation of having to prepare a minority view report that was attached to the committee’s report. Albeit that that minority view was small and on a pretty small piece of the bill, I found that slightly ironic, but it was one of the vague quirks of the parliamentary system, I guess—that something like that could occur and be allowed to happen.

I want to acknowledge, also, at this stage, the very significant and helpful submissions by those people and organisations that took an opportunity to provide both written and oral submissions to the committee. We received, in total, 31 submissions from interested groups and individuals, and we heard from a total of 21. I was struck by the passion, by the vigour, and by the enthusiasm of those groups, which were not all in agreement with each other, but which all had a common passion for the Wellington town belt. It became very obvious to me, as a non-Wellingtonian, very early on in the submission process, that, in fact, the green belt is held in enormously high regard by such a wide cross-section of the Wellington community and people you could not help, as a non-Wellingtonian, but be impressed by their passion and their enthusiasm for this remarkable space that is a green belt, literally, within—now—a thriving urban metropolis that is our capital city. Again, thinking back to the foresight of those people who created it all that time ago, you cannot help but be humbled by that.

There were a variety of really interesting submissions. We went through them and gave them all consideration. There were submissions about licences and about land that was subject to Treaty settlement claims. There was concern about the bill’s potential conflict with the Public Works Act, and there were a range of other issues that were raised. I would like to think that, as a select committee, we have gone through and we have been able to address pretty much all those concerns, and I think that we have done so in a full and complete way.

But Grant Robertson, in his address just a few moments ago, did make a point that it appears that we have been a little bit remiss in terms of the designation of this 8 hectares in terms of what is available, or is going to be available, for leases and licence. The intention, absolutely, is that only 8 hectares be available in total and that it is not a double-up or a double-down on that piece of land—that, in fact, it is not going to be 8 hectares of lease plus 8 hectares of licence, which would be, in total, 16 hectares. So I think that the member need not worry. I am sure that the Committee of the whole House will find it not beyond its wit or imagination to satisfactorily conclude that matter when it comes to address this piece of legislation.

So, on that note, I am looking forward to hearing further contributions in this second reading debate. I am looking forward to seeing this bill be discussed by the Committee of the whole House and, ultimately, come to third reading as promptly as is possible so that the good people of Wellington can be assured that the Wellington green belt is in good governance for the next 100 or more years, and that, as a Parliament, we will have updated this long overdue piece of legislation, but we will have done it in a way that is meaningful and positive for generations yet to come. I commend the bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill, and I mean that genuinely this time. I think that most members actually enjoy—one of the enjoyable moments of taking a call in this House is on local bills. Usually, they are bills that local people have worked tirelessly for and are about what a community wants, and you know that there is a great deal of individual and community effort behind a local bill actually making its way to the floor of the House. So I would like to commend the people who have worked tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor of this House, the Wellington City Council for being the sponsor of this bill, and I could not not commend my colleague Grant Robertson, the MP for Wellington Central, who has proved Rachel Hunter right—that it will not happen overnight, but it will happen. As a candidate in 2008, he tirelessly campaigned on this issue and, indeed, mentioned it in his maiden speech that he gave to this House when he first became an MP. So I would like to commend Grant’s work and the fact that he has seen this through, and that after 8 years of battling away, we are actually seeing those protections given to what is an important piece of legislation.

I think that what we are seeing here is the importance that people in cities place on areas such as the Wellington town belt within their city, and what important spaces they are. We are also seeing the complexities, because many of these spaces are, in fact, governed by their own trustees and, indeed, in some cases, Acts of Parliament, which do require this House to get involved—I can see you are enthralled, Mr Deputy Speaker—in any changes. And there are some very technical changes that have needed to be made, but, fundamentally, what the deeds and the legislation are all about is making sure that we ensure that these spaces endure for future generations, that they do not get eroded as our cities spread and grow and intensify, and that we do ensure that we keep these spaces dear.

This is very much keeping to the spirit of how and why it was that, throughout New Zealand, we have a number of spaces like the Wellington town belt in those cities that were part of the New Zealand Company’s plan for settlement—and, given Edward Wakefield’s dream of the utopia that he was going to create in New Zealand, these spaces were very important. In the 1840s, when Edward Gibbon Wakefield was drawing up his plans for the New Zealand settlement, he was dreaming about a place where public space would be just that: public space, where the park lands would not just be the preserve of the rich and the elite, as they were in mid - 19th century Britain. In the colonies—in the new world—we would have these open to a number of people. This was driven by a lot of the health concerns that were rampant in 19th century Britain, of course; that overcrowding was what was happening to populations in cities in Britain, and that the new world would offer something different. They were called the “lungs of the city” by Edward Gibbon Wakefield, who imagined that is what these reserves that would be established in the colonies would be.

But you have to say, he did have his eye on the main chance. It was not just health and the desire to open the lands for the people; he did also recognise that reserve lands were a good way of maintaining property values within a settlement and keeping prices up. I guess he saw externalities in providing good protections and good recreational space to people who were moving into the cities of the new lands. But I think, in many ways, the vision remains that lay behind why we have these reserves throughout New Zealand—in my own city, Hagley Park is one of these reserves—and the protections that this bill gives to ensure and to modernise this reserve will maintain very much what is needed.

If we go through these, they are to “provide a transparent statutory basis for the Council’s trusteeship and management of the Wellington Town Belt” on behalf of the inhabitants of Wellington. I think we are seeing this emerge with the number of trust deeds—that there does need to be some clarification and some updating of exactly what that trusteeship and management looks like in the 21st century, and to maintain those original 19th century ideals that lay behind why it was that these spaces were created. But it is also to “impose on the Council responsibilities and powers to protect, manage, and enhance the Wellington Town Belt.”

I think one of the anomalies that other members have mentioned, and I am sure that many others in their speeches after me will also mention, is that in the desire to protect the town belt and to make sure that there was not an erosion of this space, it was, as Grant Robertson said, “frozen in time”; the ability to add to this major asset for the city did not exist, nor to increase the space. I think that is something that we all, in this House, can look on and sensibly see that if there is a desire to add to the town belt in Wellington, that this is a positive thing and that we should not have a trust deed that stands in the way of doing it. That is something that needs to be tidied up.

One of the other things, if we look at clause 8 of the bill, that provides a clear description of its legal status—the key element of this is: “The Council holds the Wellington Town Belt on behalf of the inhabitants of the city of Wellington as trustee of the trust created by the Town Belt Deed.” All this sounds incredibly dry, and in many ways it is. But in many ways it is about the preservation for future generations. This is not dry; this is important. This is about our responsibility to ensure that it is not only people who have gone before us and ourselves who can enjoy these spaces but also that we do indeed ensure that they remain.

For a local bill, there were a number of submissions to the select committee. To have 30 submissions on a local bill, I think, probably shows the political engagement of this particular area of New Zealand and the fact that the chance to submit will never be lost on a Wellingtonian. I think that is probably one of the things that it shows—to receive 30 submissions on this, and only two of them against the bill in its entirety. But, it being a bill about central Wellington, the submissions did offer some very useful suggestions along the way, and some tidy-ups were made. Mr Simpson mentioned it in his speech—one of the things that struck me, as a non-Wellington member of the select committee, was the passion of the people who did come and speak to the committee; the people for whom this is a very special part of their city showed that this was something that they were more than willing to give up their time to make a submission on and come to the committee and have their voices heard in their desire to ensure that this space is preserved for future generations. So I would like to commend those people, and to thank them for their work.

Grant Robertson has talked about some of the changes that were made at select committee; he spoke specifically about clause 23 and about how some of the changes that were made to clause 23 now reflect the status quo, rather than an improvement that could have been made. That was, in many ways, an opportunity lost. None the less, because our member for Wellington Central says so, Labour is very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa, e ngā mema o Te Whare. In rising to take a brief call on the Wellington Town Belt Bill in the second reading debate, I think I need to be gracious and congratulate the local member Grant Robertson on getting this bill into the House and for progressing this piece of local legislation. I used to think Grant and I agreed on one thing only, and that is that we both wanted David Cunliffe to lose the last election. But now we have found a second thing, which is that the Wellington town belt is an important asset and amenity for the people of this city and it does need to be protected within a modernised regime.

I wonder whether the ordinary person in the street will go through the details of the bill. In fact, I am almost certain that the vast majority of Wellington’s citizens will not. But, as other members have pointed out, it is exceptional that over 30 submitters—20 of whom asked to submit in person—took the time to make their views known on what is a fairly technical piece of legislation. I do think we need to ask the question in this House about what the ordinary person, the average person, would make of the provisions and how sensible they are. I am not going to use Lord Denning’s “the ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus”; I think we can find a more modern version of this test. Let us call this the ordinary person—let us use the name “Alistair”, for instance. So Alistair is an enlightened person. He enjoys walking through the greenery of the town belt. He is a fit person—a lot of Wellingtonians are getting themselves a bit fitter. I try to walk up the hills a little bit to work off some of that weight. Alistair is a fit person, but he is an enlightened man. He values the environment, but he is also pragmatic and sensible.

He will want to ensure that, for instance, the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 do continue to apply so that if the transport situation becomes untenable—as it has become in the Basin Reserve, where we have now over 100 percent, close to 110 percent, capacity on that particular crucial arterial route out of our capital city to the airport. If that becomes such a major issue that the Government is obligated to act under the Public Works Act to put through a transport corridor, I think Alistair—the enlightened man, the ordinary man in the street—would look at that and say that is something that is sensible. The amendment that was put through in the Local Government and Environment Committee, and agreed to by the majority, is that the Public Works Act 1981 continues to apply in full force to this precious area that we do want to protect. I think that is a sensible and pragmatic move. We heard evidence in the committee, including from the local lines company, that this was important. It is important, in a city that is prone to earthquakes, that we maintain, for instance, the ability to rig temporary emergency power lines through the town belt to plug in the hospital in Newtown and to keep a critical emergency service operating in the event of a catastrophe of the sort that we have seen recently in Christchurch. That was a pragmatic, sensible measure that I am sure Alistair would approve of.

One part of the bill that I think is of particular interest is actually the preamble, which contains whakatauki—a Māori saying: tumutumu parea, rākau parea, whānui te ara ki a Tāne [ward off post and weapon, so that the expansive path of mankind is opened up]. This is unusual, I think, in the vast majority of non - Treaty settlement-related legislation, that we have that kind of whakatauki contained in the bill. We also acknowledge the mana whenua of this area—those who inhabited it before the colonial settlers arrived.

I noted that the member who resumed her seat before I stood up, Megan Woods, referred to the 19th century principles and policies that prevailed in the formation of the town belt. Some might argue that those 19th century policies are still evident in the Labour Party’s trade position, for instance, and other economic development policies that it has been promulgating. But this is a bill where it is not appropriate to take political pot shots. I mean, I come back to welcoming it, to congratulating the local member, and to adding my voice to those of others who have welcomed a piece of legislation that will continue to safeguard such a precious amenity going forward for the next 150 years and more. I commend this bill to the House.

It is a delight to stand in support of the Wellington Town Belt Bill. I would just like to start by commenting on some of the things that I have previously heard so far in this second reading debate. One can usually rely on Paul Foster-Bell to politicise what is usually a completely non-political and non-controversial bill. But then, it is generally Paul’s self-bestowed role to defend indefensible causes and, in so doing, on this occasion preserve the ability of Government to knock a seven-lane highway through the town belt, which, of course, it has managed to do. In referring to “Alastair” I am presuming he was referring to his colleague Alastair Scott, a Wellington Central resident and the MP for Wairarapa, and a keen follower of National Party orthodoxy, along with Mr Foster-Bell himself.

The Green Party does support this bill. I will refer to some of the clauses that have been referred to by previous speakers as well, particularly clause 23. But I would like to start by just acknowledging the effort that has gone into shepherding this bill through, particularly on behalf of the member of Parliament for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, who, as has been mentioned, has done a sterling job of this over a number of years. This bill has been in development in its current form since 2010. As was mentioned previously, Mr Robertson did start work on this in 2008, but he has told me a story in which he actually first met some of the key stakeholders and, shall I say, objectors to this legislation as far back as 2001—well before he became a member of Parliament and when the seat for Wellington Central was merely a glint in his eye. I think this has been a bill that has had a very long gestation period, and I do want to acknowledge Mr Robertson for his leadership on this. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the Wellington City Council and the many people around the Wellington City Council who have been part of the process up to this point.

I would like to acknowledge that this bill actually came to the House complete and having already received 250 submissions. Before the bill even got to its first reading, 250 people had submitted on it, it had been through a full process, it was beautifully drafted, it had already passed parliamentary counsel, and I would have thought, actually, that at that point it was pretty much ready to pass through virtually all stages of the House. But, of course, we know that the Government did object to the idea that the bill might provide a barrier to its ability to complete its roads of national significance programme, particularly its intention of putting up to seven lanes of motorway on the Hātaitai side of the Mount Victoria Tunnel, and it was not going to allow that to happen. That is where the changes to the bill that have been made subsequent to its initial drafting have come from. There I am referring, of course, to clause 23, “Application of Public Works Act 1981”.

As the bill is not in my name, I may have a little more latitude to speak around clause 23. One of the things that Mr Robertson mentioned is that the bill as amended removes the clause that said that Wellingtonians were interested persons in this bill. As a number of speakers have already mentioned, Wellingtonians are actually very interested persons in their town belt, and so it is a great shame that that clause has been changed the way that it has and that Wellingtonians do not have the rights to act as interested persons under the law, which they did have in the initial draft of the bill.

As I mentioned, the main objection from the Government side here, which had to be accounted for in order to get the bill passed at all, was really the ability to apply the Public Works Act so that the Government could complete the roads of national significance programme through to the airport. I do think that we did manage to shift that, at least a wee bit, so that it was not just in reference to specific roads, because making a law that is supposed to last for perhaps another 100 years or longer to apply with a single project in mind is actually quite bad law. Even though there was that objection, that change in that clause, I feel that it actually made it through the select committee process and was improved with that in mind.

I do also want to acknowledge that there were a number of submitters—and, actually, there have been people all the way through this process—who have been concerned about whether this bill undermines the town belt in terms of its reserve status. I want to say that I and the Green Party are also satisfied, based on the best advice that we received—and there was a lot of very high quality advice received—that not only does it not weaken the status of the town belt, it actually does enhance it. So the Green Party does support the bill, despite our reservations around the changes to clause 23. It is a great thing that what has been a multiplicity of law gets cleaned up, that the future governance arrangements have been dealt with, and that the town belt’s legal status is much clearer now—or that once the bill passes and becomes law, it will be a lot clearer.

Also, I am very pleased to note that this legislation actually does increase the size of the town belt, and so it does restore to some extent the original vision. One of the most fascinating parts of the process for me, as we have been examining the bill, was looking at the original maps of the original town belt reservation. If only we had managed to preserve that original intention, it would be an even more glorious space for Wellington, even more of an actual belt—you can actually see it as a belt when you see those original maps, and get some idea of the vision of the people who originally put this together.

The third thing that I would like to say about it—and a number of other Green Party members who have spoken on this bill previously have also mentioned it—is that this bill does recognise mana whenua and does provide a pathway to recognition of the original rights and ownership of Māori here in the Wellington region. We think that goes some way towards the post-colonial nature because, of course, the original town belt was a deeply colonial construct. This does move us forward into the future, and we are really satisfied with that.

As a Wellingtonian, as someone who has lived inside the town belt in the times that I have lived in Wellington, as I was growing up—

💬 Grant Robertson: In houses as opposed to—

—in houses in the town belt; not on leased land and so on, but, shall I say, within the confines of the town belt. I grew up here and explored it many times as I grew up. It is a real source of pride to me that we are now moving this bill through the House. Thank you.

I stand to take a short call on the Wellington Town Belt Bill sponsored by the member Grant Robertson.

“Tumutumu parea, rākau parea, whānui te ara ki a Tāne”, a whakataukī by Te Wharepōuri Te Kakapi-o-Te-Rangi, a man who had foresight. The whakataukī says: “Ward off post and weapons”. He had foresight when he saw those colonial ships come into Wellington Harbour and he thought: “Down with the weapons, here comes some opportunity for us, the iwi of Pōneke.” He also saw that on those ships would be a number of colonial settlers, and he thought this was an opportunity for Māori in the Wellington Harbour.

The New Zealand Company was formed in 1839 in London. Its job was to help people from England, I suppose, to come and settle here. Around about that time the iwi groups had a take raupatu of all the lands within the Wellington Harbour. They were Te Atiawa at Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara and parts of the south-west coast, Taranaki and Ngāti Ruanui at Te Aro, Ngāti Tama at Kaiwharawhara and its environs and parts of the south-west coast, and Ngāti Toa Rangatira at parts of the south-west coast, as well. We have heard from the member Grant Robertson that these matters to do with Treaty of Waitangi claims are well in hand, and it is very pleasing to hear that.

As members in the House have already said in their contributions, this bill has been amended to replace clause 23, to clarify that the Public Works Act 1981 applies to the town belt. This is important for Wellington. I have lived here off and on, excluding my time as a parliamentarian. I have worked here for the seafood industry and lived here. I think it is time Wellington’s development really boomed along, and I think this is what this bill is going to enable Wellington to do. It is a good bill. From what I have heard from the many contributions in the House today, it is one of those bills that has been a long time coming, so to that end I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Well, looking at the clock, I do not think we have much more time in this session. I know that most of the aspects of this bill have been well traversed by people. I do actually want to make a couple of comments. I do know that there was, I think, one objection—

💬 Grant Robertson: A couple of them.

—a couple of objections—to the passage of this bill. I guess, without naming people, I will try to speak a little bit to some of those concerns. I have to compliment the Parliamentary Library too for the work it has done in the background on these wonderful debate packs and the Bills Digests and everything. It gives anyone who really wants to understand what has happened with this bill—the passage of this bill, and how it made it here—the background behind the Wellington City Council’s decision to have MP Grant Robertson bring this bill to the House. I just recommend to the people who wish to know a little bit more that they enter that space and have a quiet read.

I do find, and I think I have said it earlier, that there is a similarity between this bill and the way in which Wellingtonians feel about their green belt and that which I experienced when I first went down to Christchurch, back in the 1970s, and when I was there, in the 1990s, at a time when, actually, I stood for Labour as a member of Parliament against Ruth Richardson. I stood against Ruth Richardson in 1993. One of the issues—

💬 Todd Muller: The madness of youth.

Oh, we had a ball down there, Mr Muller. We ran Ruth Richardson hot to the wire. She almost lost her seat, did she not? She did lose her appointment, but I digress. And then she resigned, spat the dummy, and we had a by-election.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill.

Back to the bill. At that time there was a very strong voice in Canterbury, within Christchurch in particular, for the preservation of the green belt that existed around Christchurch. It is interesting, when I read some of the commentary—and particularly the words of Helene Ritchie, as quoted in this document. She described the green belt of Wellington as being “the lungs of our city. It fosters growth, health, public recreation, and the natural heritage in the coolest little capital in the world.”

Those words are very, very similar to the thoughts and the views expressed by Cantabrians when they fought, unsuccessfully as it turned out, to retain the green belt in Christchurch. We saw a lot of things happening down in Christchurch, as a result of that breakdown of their green belt, that the people who submitted on this bill said they did not want to see here in Wellington. Whether or not they were in tune with what had happened down in Christchurch I have no knowledge of, but what is clear is that their thinking, their thoughts, their aspirations, and their hopes were very much the same.

There are people who have objected to this bill and have made their objections very clear. I guess from the New Zealand First perspective, one amendment, to clause 23, that we are very pleased about, and it has been mentioned here this evening on numerous occasions by various speakers, is that the Local Government and Environment Committee recommended changes to the bill to clarify that the Public Works Act 1981 applies to this town belt. The recommended new clause would mean that the council could not sell the town belt land for public works, but would not change powers under the Public Works Act. This was agreed by the Wellington City Council.

I actually deliberately read that out for the benefit of Government members, who might think that we are stupid. They might think that we on the Opposition benches are dumb. I am not saying that because the Government members on the Local Government and Environment Committee did not agree. They did. But I am actually referring to recent changes that this Government has rammed through the House, and recent things that it has done. When you look at this bill and you look at the concerns raised by people, who still email me—I have got an email sitting right beside me from a person, saying: “This bill does not protect the town belt. This bill does not prevent the Crown coming in and taking the town belt, or pieces of it, under the Public Works Act.” What it does do is it stops the city council. What it does do is send a clear indication from Parliament that that should not be allowed to happen. I do not need to discuss some things that this Government has done recently, because we will talk about them more in another forum, at another time, when we expose that to the public of New Zealand. But the changes to the legislation have cemented in and have, we believe, taken care of some of those concerns held by those few people who did object to this bill going through.

We take satisfaction from the fact that the bill does give greater protection to the integrity of the Wellington town belt. It does give a clear and legal definition of the extent of the town belt—something that never existed before. It does modernise the legislation, which dates back to 1871—a lot of things have happened since then. Paul Foster-Bell was born.

💬 Brett Hudson: In 1871?

So was that gentleman over there. The deed had become contentious in the fact that it was difficult to interpret, and therefore able to be misinterpreted, and therefore able to be misapplied. This bill tidies up the legal definition. This bill brings modern legislation into play. It makes it possible to administer the town belt, protect it, enhance it, and grow it within the context of modern law. It gives a clear expression of the entitlement of the inhabitants to freedom of entry and access to the town belt—unequivocal.

There are significant restrictions and controls on new buildings, but the bill recognises that there are roads and infrastructural assets running through what was the green belt, and therefore these provisions should not apply to those—otherwise how would you ever maintain those roads? How would you ever be able to dig up those parts that actually have infrastructure buried within them? It takes care of those issues that might arise from modern technology and the need to be able to move power lines and such across. The bill gives greater powers to the inhabitants to have the standing to be able to object to any compulsory acquisition of land by the Crown, were that ever to be again proposed. We have already heard from speakers how that was proposed by the Government, which wanted to slap a motorway through it and expand its roads of national significance.

To conclude, New Zealand First is very happy to support this bill. We congratulate Grant Robertson on bringing this bill to the House. We thank the select committee for its diligence, and thank Scott Simpson and the members of his team for working with everybody. I think the Local Government and Environment Committee should, once again, take a pat on the back for being able to work in a very collegial manner towards achieving something very worthwhile and something that the inhabitants and the governors of Wellington City will be very pleased to see, when the bill is finally passed, at its third reading. Thank you very much.

It is a pleasure to rise in support of this, the Wellington Town Belt Bill. I think this is going to be a speech of two halves, as I watch the clock tick over another notch. I would like to start by acknowledging the diligence and efforts of the local MP Grant Robertson—a man who, as has been noted, mentioned this town belt in his maiden speech and has been working for some time to get to this point. I am sure we are all going to support him in seeing this bill successfully enacted.

I did state some criticism of the state of the bill as it was originally introduced to the House. I do note that Mr Robertson was not thrilled with that criticism at the time of the first reading, but I am very pleased to see the state of the bill as it has come back from the Local Government and Environment Committee, particularly around the area of clause 23 and the Public Works Act, and I will come to that I suspect probably when speaking on Part 2.

I first note that the Wellington town belt is important to all Wellingtonians. It stretches about 400 hectares, and stretches in a bit of a horseshoe.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Time for part two of the thrilling instalment in the Wellington Town Belt Bill. Before we went to satiate our hunger, I was talking about the nature of the Wellington town belt and its shape extending in a bit of a horseshoe from Mount Victoria around to its greatest point at the northern edge of Te Ahumairangi Hill—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Where, sorry?

—which is the border with the greatest electorate in all of New Zealand, Ōhariu. That is a fact that bears repeating time and time again—so almost 400 hectares of town belt. Actually, there are no Ginsu steak knives, but we are going to get an extra 130-odd hectares in this deal, because there is about that much that the town council treats as town belt, as if it is actually parks and reserves. In the end, we will end up with about 520 hectares of town belt under this bill once it is enacted.

Something that I was saying is that the town belt is something that all Wellingtonians can appreciate. I think we come together in a consensus in the House that this is a very good measure to protect that land into the future, particularly to make it easy for the council to manage under a single piece of legislation. But there was one area that I had concerns about when the bill was introduced into the House, and that was around clause 23 or the potential carve-outs to the Public Works Act, which I felt were both unnecessary and unwise. In a sense, if they had progressed forward, it would have created almost two tiers of acquisition under the notional auspices of public works—the actual Public Works Act itself, which will be used for everything else, and then this Wellington Town Belt Bill, which would give a special provision to the Wellington town belt and the Wellington town belt only.

One would ask oneself: why on earth would you do that? I looked into it. I could not see any real reason why the Public Works Act would not apply as well to the Wellington town belt, particularly the road reserve that exists along part of it today. I could not see that it would apply any less well to that environment than it applies in any other. In my own personal circumstances in the past, I have had a property that was looking to be subject to compulsory acquisition under the Public Works Act. So, having a personal interest, I took some effort to look into what that actually meant. I discovered that it meant that there are several valuations taken, and that the valuation of the land is made on the basis that the works are not going ahead or, in other words, were assured under that Act, the provisions of the Public Works Act, to get a very fair and reasonable compensation for the land that is acquired. So I could not see any reason why you would say there would be a need to have a carve-out from a perfectly good Act and provisions in the Wellington Town Belt Bill.

So I am very pleased that the Wellington City Council agreed to amending clause 23 and that the carve-out has been removed. I think that with that change what we are left with is precisely the sort of bill we want to see—one that will provide protection for the town belt, that will make it a much easier thing to manage, and that does not create multiple tiers, as I said, in the area of compulsory acquisition of land. So, on that note, I would simply like to say that I commend this bill to the House.

Jan Logie—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party.

I rise to take a short call on the Wellington Town Belt Bill, which is a local bill that has been introduced by Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson. I commend him for what I understand has been a very long journey, possibly starting in 2010, working with the council and interested Wellingtonians to get this bill to this second reading this evening. I also offer my commiserations that it is not in the form that any of those parties would have ideally chosen.

In the words of one submitter, the extensive crescent shaped landscape of trees and tracks is an essential part of the character of our capital city. It provides for recreation. It acts as the lungs for an urban environment of otherwise high carbon emissions. Its presence across the whole inner city has allowed for the return of otherwise rare and endangered native birds within the urban landscape, a unique situation in New Zealand. Seeking to protect and grow this town belt, this beautiful place that provides so much to this city, is undeniably important.

I would also like to again specifically acknowledge the mana whenua of Wellington and the fact that this bill provides recognition of their historical loss and grievance and sets up a co-governance structure in recognition of that. I would like to specifically acknowledge Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Ruanui, Taranaki, Ngāti Tama, and Ngāti Toa Rangatira, who all had land taken from them for the town belt in the original settlement of Wellington.

I would also like to note that an amendment has been made in the select committee process, removing an area of land from this bill that may be subject to future Treaty claims and a settlement, or may be subject to the right of first refusal under previously enacted settlement legislation. It is appropriate that that has happened through the select committee process. So these things are all good. We are protecting a good for this city and for the country as a whole, indeed. But I do need to acknowledge my disappointment that the intent of Wellingtonians, and I can only assume mana whenua as well, to protect the town belt from acquisition under the Public Works Act has not been delivered by this bill as returned to the House. In fact, the provisions as initially tabled in this House, which we felt were a major compromise, have indeed, sadly, been further weakened through the select committee process.

A major driver for this bill was the desire to see the town belt exempt from pressures of the Public Works Act, as Hagley Park in Christchurch is protected from incursions, and as my colleague Catherine Delahunty is seeking to protect Māori land from acquisitions in the future—that not one more acre be taken. But things, when they were moving that way in the public consultations with the Wellington City Council—and there were over 200 submissions, I hear, that were heard at that stage of the process before it came to this House—the New Zealand Transport Agency intervened and managed to persuade the Government that the compromise that the council had reached was not supportable. The Government then said that it would vote this bill down at its first reading unless the council agreed to some changes that had been put forward by the New Zealand Transport Agency. So at the first reading we were given a bill that did not actually reflect the desires of the community and that had been undermined by central government.

It is sad to have to say that those provisions that we were concerned about at the first reading have been further eroded through the select committee process to the extent that I understand there is now, essentially, no difference between how the Public Works Act might apply to non - green belt land in Wellington and green-belt land. That is a real shame because that was the major driver for many people to have this bill come forward. It was to actually just put a line in the sand and say that this is a precious resource that cannot be taken and our roads are not worth the sacrificing of more of this land. Green spaces in our land are precious. We will support this bill. It is a shame it is as compromised as it is.

I call Rino Tirikatene—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Labour Party.

I am pleased to speak at the second reading of the Wellington Town Belt Bill, and I am also very proud to include the whole of the Wellington town belt within my electorate.

💬 Hon Member: That’s true. That’s the one member who can say that.

I can. I can say that, and all of it is wonderful. It is all wonderful. In fact, I do have memories at Wellington College running up Mount Alfred. We had this track, which we called the “gutbuster”. We had to run up that track, so I definitely know all the tracks and the routes and the trails through certain parts of the town belt very well.

I do support this bill. I acknowledge my colleague Grant Robertson, the outstanding local member who has been working with the Wellington City Council to promote this bill.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: The other outstanding local member.

The other one—absolutely. I will give him No. 1. I will give him No. 1. But I do acknowledge the work that has gone into this bill up to this point.

I do regret that clause 23 was amended. It is a shame that the Local Government and Environment Committee was not able to be unanimous in its consideration and deliberations on the bill, because that was what was originally drafted and put into the bill through a lot of work and consultation that the council had undertaken. So that is regrettable, but—be that as it may—we do support the bill.

I just want to add some remarks. Today in the House we have had Treaty settlements with Te Atiawa in Taranaki and also Taranaki Iwi, and it is good to see that there is recognition of the mana whenua in this Wellington town belt legislation, because from 1839 to the 1860s the town belt was Māori land. We have heard different stories about one Edward Gibbon Wakefield. There are different views of that gentleman and the New Zealand Company, depending on whom you talk to.

We have heard that he was a great visionary and that he had foresight in terms of the creation of the town belt, but we also know that he hatched a cunning plan, he set up a company, and basically he said: “Invest in me, guys, and I can go to the farthest end of the world and sell you somebody else’s land.” So there are two sides to the history of our country, and all I would say is that it is great that that is recognised in the preamble, albeit in just a very short paragraph.

To go into it a bit further, I would encourage people to read Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara report of the Waitangi Tribunal and also the Port Nicholson Block claims settlement and the Taranaki Whānui legislation of 2009, where you can get a more full picture of the history of the dealings of the New Zealand Company and of the Whānau Wakapiri, or the Wakefield whānau.

Be that as it may, as Wellingtonians, as citizens of this city, and as representative members for this city, we are very proud of the town belt. It is part and parcel of Wellington, you know, and it is great that we are able to strengthen and grow the town belt under the provisions of this bill. We are updating a trust deed that is, like, over 140 years old. So it is very sensible that we bring it up to date, we modernise it, and we give it some standing by putting it in legislation and giving it the weight of a statute in Parliament. I commend this bill at its second reading. Kia ora tātou.

Mr Tirikatene just said that the Wellington town belt is part and parcel of Wellington. Well, I would actually go further than that. He is right, of course; it is part and parcel of Wellington. But, actually, it is hard to imagine Wellington—the great city of Wellington—without the town belt. It is hard to envisage this fantastic city with all of the things that make it so great. It is hard to imagine Wellington without that town belt, which has been so eloquently described by my colleagues across the House, not only on my side of the House but also across the House in the debate this evening. It is a taonga of Wellington. It is a treasure of Wellington. It is something to be admired and to be retained and to treasure in this great city. So it is part and parcel of Wellington, but, actually, as I say, it is hard to imagine Wellington without the town belt.

I take a great deal of interest in the town belt. I have walked there, I have tramped in it, and I have experienced the outdoors in it. Actually, most Wellingtonians, probably, when they think about it, over the years that they have been Wellingtonians, will have experienced the town belt and probably have not ever turned their mind to its legal status. They will not have turned their mind to how it exists in a legal form—who manages it, who operates it. They probably have not even thought about that. They just take it for granted because the forefathers of Wellington had the vision and the foresight to set aside green spaces for Wellington—

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Foremothers.

—and foremothers as well. Thank you, Miss Delahunty. I do just want to pick up on a comment that Jan Logie made. She said that green places are important. It was a classic Green Party speech. The Greens have this odd idea that they have a monopoly on ecological wisdom, that they have a monopoly on environmental protection, that the Green Party is the only party in Parliament that can stand up for the environment, that only they care about fresh water, that only they care about clean rivers and lakes, and that only they care about climate emissions and things like that. So we hear this sanctimonious drivel often. But, actually, all parties in Parliament care about green spaces. The National Party certainly cares about setting aside particular parts of our land mass and our country that cannot be developed.

Actually, it has been a great week for that concept because this was the week that the Government introduced the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill and put it through its first reading. So this is a great week for the environment, a great week for conservation, and a great week for the idea and the concept that there are some things so sacred that they should be set aside for future generations to enjoy later on—that concept of preserving things for future generations, that highly conservative concept. Indeed, we are a conservative party along with being a liberal party. So it has been a great week for that. I want to pay tribute to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the important work that it has done on this bill at the select committee, chaired by Scott Simpson. He has done a great job. I also want to say that Grant Robertson has done a good job of shepherding this bill through to its second reading stage in the House.

I want to make just two points about the importance of this bill. Firstly, it actually strengthens the protection for the Wellington town belt because, interestingly, its current status is that it is recognised, or is managed, by the Wellington City Council under a trust deed. It is an odd legal quirk, I guess you could say, but that is the way it has been and that is what happened back in 1873. So actually putting this into legislation as a local Act will strengthen it in some ways or at least give the Wellington town belt the imprimatur of greater legitimacy and greater legislative protection—I think that is important. The second thing is, as my good colleague Brett Hudson has pointed out, that we do not get any Ginsu steak knives out of this bill but we do get another 130 hectares of reserve and open-space land added to the Wellington town belt.

Just finally, in terms of the Public Works Act, we have heard some discussion and we have just heard some comments from Jan Logie about the Public Works Act. I agree with the amendments that have been made to the bill by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I think they are sensible amendments. I have got to say that I have read the Labour Party minority view in the select committee report; I think it makes a plausible case. I think I can sort of see where it is coming from, but I actually think that where the majority got to on the committee was the right approach, which was to bring what will become a local Act into line with the provisions of the Public Works Act. I think that seems sensible, and so I do not really see the Labour case. I can understand where Labour is coming from in its minority report, but I think, really, the majority of the select committee members came to the right judgment.

The Wellington town belt is something that is very important that we recognise in Wellington. It is something that, as I said earlier, many Wellingtonians would not even realise is called the town belt, because it is just inherent in what makes Wellington this fantastic city and region that it is. It is, I think, a good bill and I think one that will receive widespread support in the House. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, e ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Ko Kahunāraki Te Maunga, ko Tukituki Te Awa, ko Kahumoko Te Manga, ko Ngāti Papatuamaro, ko Ngāti Tamaterā, ko Ngāti Te Rehunga, ko Ngāti Ngaherengarengare ngā hapū, ko Pūhara Te Tangata, ko Houngarea Te Whare, ko Rākaihikuroa Te Tekoteko, ko Tāwirirangi Te Whare Kai, ko Houngarea Te Marae, ko te ihu, ko te rae, tīkina houhia te rongo.

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and acknowledgments to you all, members of the House. Kahunāraki is the mountain, Tukituki is the river, Kahumoko is the stream. The hapū are Ngāti Papatuamaro, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Te Rehunga, and Ngāti Ngaherengarengare. Pūhara is the man, Houngarea is the meeting house, Rākaihikuroa is the carved figure on its gable, Tāwirirangi is the dining room, Houngarea is the marae. From the nose to the forehead, fetch the peace and instil it.]

At 4 o’clock this morning, I rose with my family to join hundreds of my kinspeople to celebrate the 100-year celebration of the whare tīpuna at Houngarea, in Pakipaki, a small settlement just south of Hastings. On the return of the 28th Māori Battalion, this was the marae where the Ngāti Kahungunu contingent returned to its people. I know that the last commanding chief was the grandfather of my colleague Peeni Henare, Sir James Hēnare. I mention that because our 28th Māori Battalion soldiers left from the wharf in Wellington. So it gives me great pleasure to stand and rise in support of the Wellington Town Belt Bill.

The bill strengthens the protection of and modernises the governance arrangements for the Wellington town belt to ensure it is there to benefit all current generations and all future generations. For over 170 years the town belt has been a reserve for the public to enjoy, providing a scenic backdrop to the city and recreational opportunities. Over time there have been some, I guess, challenges around the legal status of the town belt, and some land has been taken from it for other purposes.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Wellington City Council, and we have got Helene Ritchie in the gallery. I want to mihi to you for the work that you have done in bringing this bill to the House. I also acknowledge my colleague Grant Robertson for his tenacity and perseverance to get us to this point, and, of course, the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee, of which I am a proud member.

The main purpose of the bill—everybody has described it, and I support it wholeheartedly—is about providing more protection, through the city council, around the Wellington town belt. It will also bring clarity in terms of bringing all the respective pieces of legislation—namely, the Wellington City Reserves Act, the Wellington City Exhibition Grounds Act, and the Wellington (City) Town Belt Reserves Act—under one Act, so that has to be a good thing. The bill also aims to impose on the council responsibilities and powers to protect, manage, and enhance the town belt. In clause 8 there is, obviously, an explanation of the town belt as a public recreation ground, and it goes into defining what a public recreation ground is. Clearly, it is an area provided for recreation and sporting activities and the enjoyment of the public.

I consider myself pretty much a Wellingtonian, having spent 7 months short of 25 years both working in Wellington and living in the Wellington region. In my younger days I represented this province in netball and represented the Hutt in softball. A lot of these areas that we mention as being part of the town belt are grounds that I have played on and was able to achieve on in sport. So, from a very personal point of view, my early days here in Wellington in the mid-1980s allowed me that opportunity. Today, in 2016, although the body is not as fit as it used to be, I do enjoy the walks through the Botanic Gardens and the occasional mountain bike ride up Polhill to—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Come to Les Mills with Stuart and me.

—the viaduct at the top. Ha, ha! Maybe. But this is a great celebration. It is great to hear all the contributions from all sides of the House in support of this bill.

Of course, the issue around the public works legislation change has been mentioned. I am sure that the council is happy with that, and it will look at addressing any particular concerns through another mechanism.

But my contribution in support of this bill is really—and others have touched on it—about the preamble. I do not want to reread it out, but I want to acknowledge that our history as New Zealanders in the country does stem from land issues that go back historically, and my colleague Mr Tirikatene mentioned Wakefield’s New Zealand Company. We all have shared and different histories, and for me, the preamble should be used as an exemplar, as a starting point, for our telling our stories through legislation. That preamble, for me, talks about the acknowledgment of the tīpuna and the iwi who were here and the vision of the early settlers. I think that this is a good piece of legislation, like I said, to be used when we are modernising legislation that goes back into the last century.

There have been calls that if people want a more in-depth understanding of our history, they should read some of the settlement documentation, but I would like to go a step further and suggest that a lot of that history should actually be taught in our schools. I really believe that our future generations are going to be the conduits of our history, warts and all. That is why I say that we should go a step further and encourage our education system to take the time to read about the history of this great nation and the struggles that we have had between the two races. But we are in a time of reconciliation, and that is why I am saying, you know, that I put the challenge out there to all members of the House that we should be doing this more as a matter of course, as opposed to it being an exception.

Back to the bill—I am happy to join with all members in this House. It meets the requirement of having the protections. It makes it very clear in terms of the respective legislation. I think it is a good piece of legislation, well researched, and well submitted on, from those who came in front of the select committee. I do not have anything more to add other than to support the call to put this bill to the House and support it at its second reading. Kia ora tātou.

Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Like many visitors to Wellington, I have long admired the town belt. When seeing Wellington from above, what stands out is that this compact and crowded city has such a great green expanse running through it. Of course, as an MP from Christchurch, I am proud of the green spaces that our city has—as its name says, it is the Garden City. The beautiful Port Hills, where I am based, is a beautiful, beautiful place. But, like these areas in Christchurch, it is clear that the town belt is a treasure to the residents of Wellington, a taoka.

In preparing for this speech, I was fascinated to read the preamble of the bill, which lays out some of the history of our capital city and the town belt. It may be said that the New Zealand Company displayed great foresight in setting aside large tracts of land to form reserves that would never be built on.

But I would like to point out something that was highlighted today in the extended sitting this morning around the three Treaty settlement bills, and that is that subsequent acquisition by the Crown was done with no consultation or compensation of the iwi groups with interests in this area. This has been highlighted quite a lot in the speeches tonight. There is something, and I covered it then during the extended sitting—both the New Zealand Company and the Crown worked hard to establish a new city and an environment for the benefit of European settlers, but the well-being of Māori and the property rights of mana whenua actually went out the window. This injustice was addressed, though, when the historical claims of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika and Ngāti Toa Rangatira were settled, in 2008 and 2012 respectively. Some of the cultural redress provided to these iwi concerned the town belt, such as renaming the hill that rises behind Parliament to Te Ahumairangi Hill. Parts of the Wellington town belt are of particular significance to mana whenua, and, in addition, the town belt itself has come to carry great importance to the residents of Wellington.

This bill provides a statutory basis for the Wellington City Council to continue managing the town belt on behalf of all Wellingtonians. It also seeks to impose responsibilities on the council and to provide it with the appropriate powers to protect, manage, and enhance the town belt. The third purpose of the bill is less practical but of distinct significance; in particular, it is of importance to mana whenua with a historic connection to areas of the town belt. That purpose is to recognise the history of the town belt and the significance it carries for mana whenua and Wellington residents.

The relationship of mana whenua to the town belt has been recognised in the deeds of settlement, as has the fact that breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi occurred in these areas. The affected mana whenua have now had full and final settlements, but it is important and appropriate that the significance of mana whenua to the land be recognised on an ongoing basis. If we move into Part 1 of the bill itself we find that the role of mana whenua is further recognised. In clause 4, the principles of the bill require that in performing its role the council has regard to the principle that “the Wellington Town Belt should be managed in partnership”—in partnership—“with mana whenua”.

I would like to cover, as my colleagues have done, some of the changes that the Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended be made to this bill. One of the major changes is an amendment to bring the bill into line with the Public Works Act 1981. This came about due to concerns raised by the New Zealand Transport Agency and Land Information New Zealand about the application of the Public Works Act to the town belt. This could have negatively impacted upcoming highway developments, particularly the second tunnel that is proposed through Mount Victoria. By introducing uncertainty to the whole process, the bill as originally drafted could have delayed these projects, and thereby delayed the benefits of reduced congestion and an improved public transport system that they are expected to deliver to Wellingtonians.

The recommended amendment replaces clause 23 of the bill with a new clause clarifying the application of the Public Works Act 1981 to the town belt. Under this amendment the council cannot sell town belt land for public works, but otherwise the normal provisions of the Public Works Act apply. We believe that this is an appropriate balance between allowing important developments to proceed without undue delay, ensuring a proper process is followed if the town belt is to be affected by any such developments, and protecting the special nature of the town belt itself.

The Local Government and Environment Committee has also recommended removing a parcel of land—and this is really, to us and to mana whenua, one of the most important parts of this bill. This is because that parcel of land may be subject to future Treaty settlement claims or be subject to a right of first refusal provision under the settlement legislation. That is, I think, a major part of this bill. It is also important that it protects the town belt and contains provisions to allow additions to the town belt. We also need to recognise the rights of mana whenua under their Treaty settlement, and this amendment will do that.

I would like to end by acknowledging the sponsoring member, Grant Robertson, and the work he has done to bring this bill to the House on behalf of the city council in this electorate. Kia ora. I would also like to acknowledge Paul Foster-Bell. Paul is a particularly diligent member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and always works hard on the legislation before our committee. As an MP with a strong connection to the Wellington Central electorate, Paul has taken a strong interest in this process and he has supported it along the way, including through the select committee process.

In my final summary of this bill I want to acknowledge all of the Wellingtonians who are here this evening who have contributed, and also that the fact is that we have, it seems, a cross-party kotahitanga together on this bill. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority agreed to.

Bill read a second time.