Turei Metiria: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8427] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. The Green Party will not be supporting this bill. We do not believe it should be called the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. It should be called the “Hock off Green Space in Palmerston North Bill”. I was born and raised in Palmerston North. I have lived more than half of my life in that city and it is where all my family are. I feel very strongly about the issues around selling off green space in this city. The whole attitude comes from a hangover from the previous mayor and from the previous CEO who has only just left the council. The previous mayor used to call open green space “lazy assets”. That is what he considered it to be—lazy assets. That attitude resulted in two things. Firstly he lost his job and secondly before he managed to lose his job a major area of railway land—a huge green space in the middle of the city—was sold off to the Warehouse which subsequently opened a huge megastore in the middle of this green-space area and turned half of it into a car-park. The current council which consists of largely the same membership as the previous council has continued this anti - green space attitude. The council has already decided to sell off another piece of land out in Kelvin Grove that was set aside as a future recreational area in a part of the city that is undergoing massive and rapid urban development where green space is absolutely crucial to the standard of living expected by people who live in that area and to their well-being. 
The council is now proposing to enable itself to sell off a section of land that is currently a reserve which was formerly used as a bowling club. We have heard about the tennis club which also gets used for petanque and a whole range of other activities. It also has the capacity to be used for all sorts of other kinds of recreational activities in the future. But the council has not bothered to seek proposals publicly for ways that that land can be used as green space and as recreational space for the people of Palmerston North. 
A local developer apparently has already expressed interest in building—would you believe it—another motel on that exact piece of land. Anyone who knows Fitzherbert Avenue knows that we do not need another motel there. The council has already gone through and turned the whole area into nothing but a site for motels and petrol stations. The council chopped down hundreds of decades-old trees which made that area so beautiful so that it would be easier for traffic and the developers to get in and out of the area. Now it wants to take another little piece of what is left of the recreational area for the people who live in that part of the city. 
The council says that it will use this money to fund development of the esplanade—we have heard a bit about that too—which is a major recreational area for Palmerston North. But last year when the council was consulting on the long-term council community plan the largest number of submissions it received were opposed to the changes that the council proposed for the esplanade. The people do not want those changes and now the council is saying it wants to sell off this green space to pay for those changes that people do not want. 
It is true that the council has backed off from some of its worst “hack through native bush and put up a car-park” ideas but it has failed to go back to the community and consult further on a revised plan. The people of Palmerston North do not know what this money will be used for. They do not know whether they will be swapping a piece of recreational area for a good development that will enhance the city or for some other kind of development that they do not support. So we cannot say that the community has had any real involvement in this discussion except to say that the community opposes it. 
Why is the council seeking to sell off this recreational land? The council says it needs to sell off this land because it wants the proceeds of sale to go towards the development of other reserves whether it is the esplanade or elsewhere. Sometimes the council talks about other reserves as well. But frankly that is a failed argument from the start. We do not sell off roads to pay for the maintenance and building of other roads. We do not sell off water pipes to pay for the maintenance and construction of other water pipes. So why would we sell off reserve land which is green space and publicly accessible now only to go and get some more reserve space? We should be encouraging and increasing our reserve land. It is critical to the well-being of communities that live in highly urbanised areas that they have access to green space for recreation and a good state of mind. 
I understand that last night a public meeting was held in Palmerston North and there was almost unanimous opposition to the council’s plan to be able to sell this land. Finally the council was told recently as part of the discussion around this bill that if the bill was brought to the House it could not be withdrawn. Partly on that basis the council considered it to be a fait accompli that this bill would go through so it voted narrowly in support of selling off the land. That is false information. This bill can be withdrawn by the Minister. He did not have to bring it to the House. He has a general duty to do so—I understand that—but he can withdraw the bill. I urge this House to oppose this legislation. The council should not have this power. If this House does not do so I urge the Minister to withdraw this bill and not allow it to proceed to the select committee. 
I am on the select committee that could eventually hear this bill and if it does come to us I will be very interested to hear from the council about its proposed ideas and what kind of consultation it has and has not had with the local community. From my understanding this community does not support the sell-off of this land. It is the community’s recreational public space and it is entitled to it. Community members have for decades been paying for it through their rates and they should be entitled to keep it. The council should not be able to sell it.