Kedgley Sue: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Wellington City Council (Te Aro Reclamation)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13084] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I agree with previous speakers that the amendments that have been made to this bill are a victory for parliamentary democracy and for the select committee process. Marian Hobbs the Minister who sponsored this bill said there was nothing sneaky about the bill but the interesting thing is that she did not come to the Local Government and Environment Committee and hear the submissions on it. The submissioners made it very clear that they thought it very odd that the Wellington City Council had not even discussed the bill in full council. It turned out that the bill had been proposed by a subcommittee of the council and that it had come to Parliament through Marian Hobbs without the full council having been made aware of it even though the land involved is as many have pointed out very significant—small but very significant—and without the people of Wellington having been alerted to the fact that this legislation was about to come before the House. 
I too became curious about this bill and when I saw it on the Order Paper I rang the Wellington City Council because as the Minister pointed out I was a councillor there for almost 8 years. I asked what the purpose of the bill was and why the council had provisions in it that allowed a prize piece of Wellington real estate to be sold without the constraint of any other legislation. However no one at the council was prepared to ring me back and brief me on the matter. As the weeks dragged on and I was unable to get any briefing my suspicions were aroused. The fact of the matter is that this bill as introduced which was slipped into Parliament without it having gone through the full council would have enabled the council to sell this prize piece of land without the constraint of any other legislation. Basically it would have allowed the council to sell the land secretly—without informing Wellingtonians—and literally to disregard all other law. When the city council was asked why it had included this particular provision—which fortunately we have now struck out—it could not offer any plausible explanation as to why it would seek to sell the land without any constraint in a way that overrode all other legislation including the Local Government Act. 
That is why I consider that the council had sought to sneak this bill through. Fortunately members of Parliament were not asleep on the watch. We were alert. We enabled submissions to be heard and we rectified the bill by requiring that the council when leasing or selling the land be subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act. That Act requires the council when leasing or selling off the land to consult with the community before doing so. 
We have to remember that there has been significant concern about this land—as I know full well having been on the council. Indeed I can remember when we named it the Jack Ilott Green. We all stood around and said: “Isn’t it wonderful that we’re going to name this wonderful little piece of land after one of the great benefactors of Wellington Jack Ilott?”. All the city councillors were there and we all praised ourselves saying: “Isn’t it wonderful? There is so little green land in Wellington and here’s this lovely little bit of land named after Jack Ilott.” 
It then emerged that the council having gone through that naming procedure—to the great delight of Jack Ilott—wanted to sell the land and build a large building on it. The problem is that such a building would not only block views to the waterfront but would also mean a loss of public space and would in fact cast a huge shadow over the whole of Civic Square. That prospect has created huge concern in the community. There has been a lot of debate about it. Basically the community is saying—in terms of all the submissions I have seen and all the comment I have heard—that it wants to preserve this special piece of land. It feels that there is so little land in Wellington and it does not want to see a large building overshadow Wellington’s very important and precious Civic Square. 
So it seems to me that the council did what it did to try to get round the inevitable controversy that it feared—that is my assumption anyway—would emerge if it were forced to consult on the selling of the land. It was really seeking legislation that would enable it to sell or lease the land without it being required to go through proper consultation or indeed being constrained by any other legislation. 
The Minister said that I have thundered about the fact that the sale or lease of this precious green space would be an issue in the upcoming Wellington City Council elections. I have not thundered; I have simply said in my press release that I predict that the potential sale or lease of this precious green space would be an issue in the upcoming Wellington City Council elections. It is a prediction I am making and I am not thundering it. I am not being divisive here; I am simply making a prediction. The reason is that there is strong support in Wellington for the retention of this land as a green space in the city. Certainly the Green Party and our local campaign team running for the Wellington City Council will be launching a campaign to ensure that the land remains as green space. 
We are very very pleased that as a result of the select committee process chaired by the Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons—and I personally made a point of being on the committee—the offending provisions have been removed. We have now required the Wellington City Council to follow due process and consult with its community and we have prevented it from being able to sell this priceless piece of land in a rather secretive and sneaky fashion.