Twyford Phil: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Twyford Phil: Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12567. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support Labour’s position in this debate that this Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill should not proceed any further. We supported the bill at its first reading. We believed it had considerable merit and it deserved the chance for proper scrutiny analysis and debate at a select committee. That is what it got. I want to join those before me in this debate who have acknowledged the good intentions of Te Ururoa Flavell in bringing this bill to the House. There is no doubt that the select committee engaged with this bill with a great deal of seriousness. There were 71 submissions to the committee. Almost everybody recognised that there are significant issues of rights and justice associated with this bill. As a consequence there was a seriousness about the debate. However at the conclusion of the debate a strong view had formed on the select committee that this bill carries with it too many unintended consequences and that its effective result would be to open a can of worms that is too big and too challenging for our current legal framework in this area to deal with. The consequences would make it unworkable. 
I shall reflect a little on the Public Works Act and what an important role it plays within our legal system and the modern history of this country. Others have noted that a view was formed in the course of the select committee process that this bill correctly identified a problem but offered an unworkable solution. I suggest that part of the reason for that is the underlying problem that the Public Works Act itself represents a trade-off between two different sets of values. On the one hand we have private property rights which play a central role in our society and our culture. On the other hand the Public Works Act is a product of 19th and 20th century thinking about the development of the State—infrastructure ports roads bridges railways and public buildings. It is the full gamut of physical infrastructure that is needed for the development of the State and the pursuit of the public good. 
There is no doubt that in New Zealand as elsewhere around the world the original Public Works Act which we inherited from the British jurisdiction played a critical role in the early nation-building of Julius Vogel with the expansion of roads rail and so on. Over the years the legislation had evolved to recognise the rights of property owners. Nevertheless the Public Works Act itself gives powers to the State to override private property rights in the interests of the community. Those two values are in contradiction. A careful web of concessions rights responsibilities and obligations has built up over the years around the Public Works Act. To start unpicking that now or to seriously renegotiate the balance between those two legal principles is an ambitious proposition that almost all of the submitters and the select committee were not willing to entertain. 
Two key concerns emerged from the discussions at the select committee. The first is the retrospective nature of the application of the buy-back provisions and the solatium provisions. It was felt by many of the submitters and I think by most of the committee that it would have destabilising and impractical consequences for the administration of the Public Works Act in New Zealand. The effect of the passage of this bill in its current form would be to deem all land that had been acquired under the Public Works Act surplus land overnight and it would necessitate a massive project of historical research and legal determination to work out whether the provisions of this bill would apply to thousands and thousands of pieces of land from one end of this country to the other whether former owners or their successors could be identified and whether land would have to be offered back. Thousands of properties all around the country have been used by the Crown and local authorities for numerous different purposes since the Public Works Act was enacted in the 1870s. We believe that that would have been completely unworkable. 
The second big objection is the impact on the future use of land and that the provisions of this bill would have created such an enormous compliance cost on local government the State and the various other Crown entities that are empowered under the Public Works Act. They currently have huge portfolios of land that have been acquired under the Act and are being held for some future public work are in the process of being transferred or set apart for some reason or are in the process of being disposed of when no longer required. The view we heard from many of the submitters particularly from local government airports and ports was that the rationale built into the Public Works Act allows the use of a piece of land that has been acquired under the Act to be changed over time if it is seen to be in the public interest. On balance that is a more efficient and cost-effective way to use these resources than it would be to offer that land back to former owners before the use could be changed. 
The effect of this would be to completely freeze up the process of the acquisition of land under the Public Works Act for infrastructure. Personally I am extremely conscious that we have an infrastructure deficit in this country. When I look at Auckland I see that the needs for investment in infrastructure over the next couple of decades are huge. We are talking about the rail system Auckland needs which Steven Joyce is back-pedalling on as fast as he can the investment in broadband and the investment in water infrastructure and electricity. Those needs are huge in our country’s biggest city. The appropriation of land under the Public Works Act for this infrastructure—not only for roads rail electricity and water but also for the urban renewal projects that are so needed in Auckland—will require the agglomeration of land under the Act to undertake the kind of ambitious urban renewal that Auckland needs. I would hate to see the ability to acquire land for these purposes compromised or jeopardised. 
Those are the two main objections that emerged from the discussions in the select committee. I cite an example that Waitakere City brought to the select committee about land on the Te Atatu peninsula that was acquired by the Auckland Harbour Board in the 1950s. The board thought the land might be needed for a future port for Auckland. There is no evidence that that land was compulsorily acquired. It was negotiated and paid for and the land was held. Obviously no port was ever built there and periodically Waitakere City reviewed it. The land has been used for many other public purposes including being set aside for a marae and recreational purposes.