Tisch Lindsay: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13087] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in support of this legislation. It has been interesting to hear the comments from Wellingtonians who have a vested interest in what the outcome of this legislation will be and how it will affect those people who live in Wellington and of course the responsibility that the Wellington City Council will have once this legislation is passed. One of the points that has come out of it—and I think it is important—is that the bill will allow flexibility. It will allow the council to decide what is best for the land. But it is also interesting to note—and I guess this is a word of caution to those who may be seeking to be candidates in the local body elections—Sue Kedgley’s comment that this will become an election issue. So I guess there is some forewarning there for those who may be seeking to stand certainly as to what their position is with this land and whether it can be sold or leased or whatever the outcome is likely to be. It is also important that the council take notice of the pending foreshore and seabed legislation and that has been mentioned by previous speakers. The foreshore and seabed legislation will impact on this legislation and the council needs to be very mindful of what the likely outcomes of that would be in the future. National is very happy to support this piece of legislation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seem to recall that towards the end of last year I had the opportunity to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I listened to some of the submissions on this bill and got some idea of how the Local Government Act and suchlike would affect the land involved. I note with interest the confused view that has been given about the effect of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill on this legislation. Today in 2004 this legislation amends the Te Aro Reclamation Act of 1879. The area concerned may have been the foreshore then but I understand that today it is no longer the foreshore. The definition of the foreshore is very simple: is it a wet bit or is it a dry bit and does the tide come up to Jack Ilott Green any more? If the tide came up and covered Jack Ilott Green up to the high-water mark then it would be the foreshore. But if it is a dry bit now and the tide gets nowhere near to it today then it is not the foreshore. It is as simple as that—dry bits; wet bits. Most people can understand the difference between a dry bit and a wet bit. The National Party it would appear cannot and the Greens and United Future have some difficulty with that as well. In relation to the definition of foreshore and seabed those of us who can tell where the tide goes up to at the high-tide mark know that that is a wet bit. Those of us who cannot understand that somehow think it is still a dry bit. 
The area referred to in this bill is from my understanding quite some distance away now from the high-water mark area. Therefore it cannot be affected by the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It really is as simple as that. All that the National Party is doing is trying to be suspicious. United Future was going to support the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It was the removal of three little words from the purpose clause that made it change its mind and not take a very unctuous position. The removal of three words from the purpose clause made United Future change its mind. That was not common sense; that was spitting the dummy. As far as anyone else is concerned that was just a fit of pique on the part of United Future. 
So I conclude by saying this land is a dry bit and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill cannot apply to it. Most people who have any degree of common sense understand that fact. It is regrettable that neither the National Party nor United Future has any common sense with regard to the area referred to in this bill.