Hobbs Marian: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14626] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 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 1500-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! 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: 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. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: 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.