Logie Jan: Wellington Town Belt Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Wellington Town Belt Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 16 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): 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.