Parker David: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Parker David: Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11118] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Yes we should all be treated the same in this Chamber and those people who say silly things that are unsupportable by the facts ought to be criticised for making silly statements. 
On that topic I would like to refer to two contributions we have had from the National Party on this bill. One was from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the other was from Sandra Goudie. Both criticised the fact that this legislation is necessary and suggested that the Local Government Act passed last year would if in proper form have rendered this legislation redundant. I have to say that the simplicity and the naivety of that logic does not surprise me. When analysed the logic of National Party arguments is often found wanting. 
The suggestion that the Local Government Act 2003 could have prevented the need for legislation such as this is simply wrong. Endowment properties are properties that are held on trust by councils. Endowment properties come into the possession of councils because property or money for the purpose of purchasing property has been endowed upon the council. A property is endowed on terms that require the council to honour the terms of the trust that created the endowment. The prior Local Government Act and the amended Local Government Act both quite properly require councils to honour the terms of those endowments. 
What has happened in this unusual case is that back in 1929 the legislation concerning this particular endowment became confused. Back in the 1890s a piece of land was endowed upon the council. In 1920 the council purchased a separate piece of land in Willis Street. Subsequent to that purchase the endowment land was mixed up with the private purchase of the Willis Street land and the same legislation—the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act—was passed in 1929 and caught up both the Willis Street land and the endowment land. As a consequence of the mistake made in 1929 to include the privately purchased land in the Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act the land that had been purchased with council money from a private owner was caught up with the endowment land. 
The suggestion that that should be fixed by the Local Government Act that was passed last year is with respect in error. Specific legislation always overrides the general. General legislation never overrides the specific. It would have required a specific provision in the Local Government Act to deal with empowering legislation like the 1929 Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Are you sure about that? 
DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I am. 
Mita Ririnui 
: He’s a Government member. 
DAVID PARKER 
: That is right. I do claim to understand this area of law better than the National member. The suggestion that endowment lands should have had their endowment qualities removed by the Local Government Act last year would have meant asking the Government to strip away the natures of the trusts that underlie each and every one of these endowments all around New Zealand. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: That’s right theft. 
DAVID PARKER 
: That is right. It would have meant trying to rewrite those trust terms in respect of endowment properties up and down New Zealand. First it would have been inappropriate and second it would have been an impossible task—except if there was a generalisation that caused great injustice by overturning the carefully considered terms of the donations that have been made by benevolent New Zealanders through the centuries. 
To do that would have caused an injustice. It would also have enabled the terms of endowments to be ignored by future councils up and down the country. For example if a forebear of Sandra Goudie had made a generous donation to a council for recreational purposes then notwithstanding that that endowment was made for those purposes that member might try to empower the council through general legislation like the Local Government Act to ignore the trust that was created by that endowment and use the property for whatever purpose the council chose to use it for. 
The Local Government Act last year does amend the provisions in respect of the use of endowment properties. It does empower councils to sell endowment properties and utilise the proceeds of sale for purposes that are consistent with the endowment. So the Act does what I think councils should be able to do—that is sell an endowment property and acquire a replacement one that honours the terms of the original endowment and the terms-of-trust that were originally set down. What the Act does not do is permit councils to go past that original intention and apply endowment properties for a completely different intention. That is why this bill is necessary. 
In the case of this bill the Wellington City Council found that the endowment that applied to the Mangahao endowment property—through an accident I suspect back in 1929—also applied to the Willis Street land that had been purchased by the council from the council’s own funds in a private purchase. In order to separate the Willis Street land from the terms of the endowment that applied to the other property it was necessary for the council to seek the assistance of Parliament to separate the Willis Street land from the other land. So the council asked the local member Marian Hobbs to sponsor a local bill. 
Local bills come before Parliament only if a parliamentarian is willing to sponsor them. That is a statement by the local member that he or she thinks it is worthy of consideration by Parliament. It does not necessarily mean that it should be passed. In this case it will be passed because all parties are supporting it. None the less it requires the support of a local member to bring it before Parliament. 
Having brought it before Parliament of course causes some cost and expense. Sandra Goudie is quite correct. A cost and expense is incurred as a consequence of this process but there is no alternative to that other than the Wellington City Council being stuck in the position of not being able to deal with that land dispose of it and put the proceeds of sale to a worthy purpose. So the council came to Parliament and said: “Look this is the history of it. Can you help us out?” Parliament is doing that by passing this legislation. 
The select committee as is its duty looked at the issues thoroughly and considered whether there were any treaty implications. There were not. Sandra Goudie pointed out—and I agree with Ms Goudie on this point—that the land was privately acquired so there are no treaty ramifications. That point is interesting because at times suggestions are made by people who are trying to foment concern unnecessarily amongst non-Maori that their assets might be seized for treaty purposes. But interestingly this is a case in point where even though the land is local authority land it is treated exactly the same as other private land—as if it was land I had acquired privately using my own money—so no treaty claim can be made against it and there are no treaty ramifications. 
Other members have already spoken about the efforts that have been made to help the council find new premises for some of the community organisations based there. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the member answer a question? 
DAVID PARKER 
: The member has answered two questions that were raised by the Opposition both of which were incorrect. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would you answer another one? 
DAVID PARKER 
: The Speaker is now asking me to sit down which I will do.