Foster-Bell Paul: Wellington Town Belt Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoster-Bell Paul: Wellington Town Belt Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 06 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:10289. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Kaiwhakahaere tēnā koe. I want to congratulate the member on bringing this bill to the House and actually for his very sensible proposed amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 169. But I also want to apologise to the member for having delayed the Committee stage and thank the party opposite for its forbearance in allowing my own member’s bill to actually supersede the local bill that we are dealing with now and the private bill that preceded it on the Order Paper on the day.Hon Member: Great day for the RSA.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Absolutely it is a landmark day for the RSA. It used to be that the bell at 6 o’clock symbolised 6 o’clock closing. Now of course this bill symbolises the 6 o’clock opening for the RSA. But anyway back to the Wellington Town Belt Bill.I want to welcome the amendments that Grant Robertson has proposed in his Supplementary Order Paper. I think it is very sensible that the 8-hectare allowance for the town belt—no more than 8 hectares—to be given up for either lease or licensing to strictly non-recreational purpose be just 8 hectares not 8 plus 8. This is actually a very sensible measure. So this covers as the member has pointed out not only Wellington Zoo but also the Chest Hospital—amenities that are important to Wellington but perhaps not strictly within the terms of recreation that people might consider in this day and age.Also the term for a lease not being granted for any longer than 20 years seems quite reasonable to me although unlike the member I am not so hostile to the idea of a gondola. I actually like a scenic cable car or gondola or sky cabin—whatever you want to call it. I like this idea. There may be other areas of Wellington though that it could be implemented in rather than intruding upon our precious town belt which all of us value so much for its recreational amenity. But also just the visual effect of having our beautiful city surrounded by a belt of green largely native foliage is hugely pleasant. So I think it is apposite that clause 16(3)(b) be amended in accordance with the member’s Supplementary Order Paper.I would also like to welcome the addition of clause 16(5)(a) which states that the monies generated from any lease or licensing of town belt land must be put back into the town belt and that investment is very sensible in my view. We have a current outdated piece of legislation that actually prevents the addition of extra new lands into the town belt so I think it is important that we going forward enable the council to ensure that new lands are vested into the town belt via those funds that are garnered from lease or licensing out of that land.There was one issue that came up at the Local Government and Environment Committee that I am very glad the member has acquiesced to. That is—and I think he will know where I am going with this—the issue of the application of the Public Works Act. A point that one submitter—our local power lines company—made which I think was quite convincing was about not having the ability to put emergency power cables through the town belt. Our hospital in Wellington which is based in Newtown on Adelaide Road is our main hospital. It serves as a central hub hospital for this entire region. In the event of an earthquake and should other generation capabilities be disrupted without full applicability of the Public Works Act there would be a concern that we may not be able to string the emergency power pylons on a temporary basis—these are simply temporary emergency pylons—through the town belt to ensure that the hospital for instance is powered during that crisis.I think all members would accept that that is an important capacity to retain in the second most earthquake-prone capital city in the world which Wellington is. So I am very glad that the member accepted that that should be the case and that Public Works Act applicability would remain. Other than that I just want to congratulate the member on the way in which he has brought this to the select committee.