Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this

I move, That the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At an appropriate time this bill will be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I hope the consideration there will allow for people to come in and air their views, which is something I will come back to in a moment.

I note at the beginning of my comments that it is the parliamentary convention that the local MP sponsors bills of this nature through the House. It provides a mechanism whereby people can make sure that legislation is passed from a local point of view. In this case, it is the Palmerston North City Council that wants this legislation to be passed, and it is my duty to ensure that it is advanced so it can be discussed.

The bill provides the mechanism for the Palmerton North City Council to sell some specific land if—and I stress the word “if”—it becomes surplus to the council’s requirements. The land—for anybody who is familiar with the city, and I know that my colleague Mr Simon Power over there is familiar with it—is on Fitzherbert Avenue, which is currently around the bowling club near the girls high school. There is a tennis court there, as well. One of the concerns of the tennis club has been that this bill may lead to the sale of the club. I reassure anybody who is listening to this speech that my understanding is that the Palmerton North City Council has met with staff at the tennis club, and both they and the city council are comfortable that they have arrived at an understanding that land will not be sold. That part of the discussion is put to one side, and we are really talking about any possibility of the bowling club land being sold.

For physical reference purposes, I simply say the land is on the corner of Park Road and Fitzherbert Avenue, and it is currently utilised as the Manawatu Bowling Club. Due to the road being widened on the corner of Park Road and Fitzherbert Avenue, the club has been relocated from those premises, so it is currently not on this land. The land was identified in 2005 as being surplus, and the sale was signalled in the council’s long-term community plan. Following majority approval by the city council this year, the future use of the land is included in the council’s draft annual plan for 2007-08, which at present is with the community for consultation.

I make the following point particularly for anybody who may want to contact local members—Mr Power and myself being the obvious members whom people may come to. I am well aware that in the last 24 hours there has been some debate in the city about the bill. It would not normally be my practice to advance a bill if there were any controversy at all, to be truthful, but my understanding is that this is clearly the resolution of the council by majority. Therefore, it is my duty to advance the bill. But I think I should say to people who are listening that the bill will go to the select committee, and that is a good time for them to get along and make their views known. I know there are views on both sides of this issue, and the select committee is a good place to make them known, as well as through the community’s long-term plan process.

I am sure most people have been to Palmerston North. The previous Mayor of Wellington, Mark Blumsky, was a frequent visitor to our city, and he was always up for new ideas that he could bring back to Wellington and put into place here. People will know that Palmerston North prides itself on being an attractive place to live, particularly because of the nature of the city. The city is spread out, with a lot of trees, gardens, and green space.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

National will support the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill at its first reading. This is, in fact, the second occasion on which the Hon Steve Maharey and I have been involved in a local bill in quite a short period of time. The first was also not without its controversy. The Manfeild Park Bill caused a few hiccups along the way, but we got there in the end.

When I was written to by the council solicitors I had some concerns about this bill, because I was aware of some controversy around its progression, particularly in relation to the concerns of those people at the neighbouring tennis club. This land—the corner of Park Road and Fitzherbert Avenue—is what could be described only as a prime spot of land in the Palmerston North area. It is a piece of land that I drive past every Sunday morning when I am taking my little boy to swimming lessons.

It has to be said that I was sufficiently concerned about these issues to seek a meeting with council solicitors on Friday, to have explained to me exactly whether this legislation was as potentially problematic as I had been led to believe. The solicitors advised me that they had received about five phone calls expressing concern, since the advertisements relating to the bill had been published. Then I spent some time talking to a council staff member on Friday afternoon, and I asked her to email through to me the background information so that I was clear what process had to be followed for this bill.

The Hon Steve Maharey reflected those conversations in his statements earlier today, and it is indeed my understanding that if the land becomes surplus, it is the council’s intentions, as signalled by certain clauses in the long-term council community plan, that any funds realised would be used—as they have to be, because it is part reserve—for reserves funding at the local esplanade. The funds would be primarily for a conservatory, as I understand it. I have to say, as a reasonably regular visitor—certainly every second week when I take my young son down to the esplanade—that any money spent there would be welcomed in the long run.

But some people are going to be a bit concerned about this bill. The select committee process is the appropriate place to deal with those concerns, so that both the promoter of the bill and those of us, like Dr Ashraf Choudhary and myself who are familiar with the area, will have the opportunity to get feedback from the party members we have on that select committee as to that level of controversy. Indeed, Steve Maharey is correct when he says that as the local member it is actually his duty—to some extent—to put forward the bill, because he has been requested to do so by the local authority. I see the Hon George Hawkins sitting in the back of the Chamber there. He has had to do similarly with legislation from his local body authority recently, which was also not without controversy—although one has to reflect on the fact that that particular legislation was probably a lot more controversial than the one currently being promoted by the Hon Steve Maharey.

Having said that, I tell members that I did ask Diana Everton, who is the property officer at the Palmerston North City Council, to give me a bit of a written summation of the position. She said, on behalf of the council, that the reason for the amendment bill is that the Palmerston North City Council currently holds this land, but that currently the Palmerston North Reserves Act 1922 prevents the council from selling the land. Who would have thought that? The council wishes to be able to sell the land if it becomes surplus to the council’s requirements, thereby requiring an Act of Parliament to overturn the original legislation in respect of just this one piece of land.

The title, which is attached by way of schedule 5, gives a historic record of the background to the particular piece of land. The questions which no doubt were on the minds of the members of the tennis club were about what would happen to that piece of land, whose hands it would go into, whether it would go into the hands of a developer, whether it would be available for further amenities required for council usage, and what the downstream effects of its sale would be. We do know that the Palmerston North City Council draft annual plan—as if the council did not have enough to do, it is doing more plans—says this about the possible sale of assets: “The Council has a dynamic portfolio, with the acquisition of property necessary to serve the community, and the sale of surplus property from time to time. Land on the corner of Park Road/Fitzherbert Ave was identified as surplus in 2005 and the sale signalled in the 10 Year Plan. Since then the Council has asked that any sale process for this land allow the opportunity for community use to be considered,”.

So if the land were sold, the first port of call would be community use first and foremost. I am sure that Ashraf Choudhary and the Hon Steve Maharey would join me in saying that that would be described as appropriate. A community meeting is also to be held to look at future options as part of that consultation process, if this legislation makes it through all three stages.

The annual draft plan goes on to say of the land’s background: “As this land is reserve land it is proposed”—as Steve Maharey indicated—“that the proceeds received from the sale will be applied to developments at the Esplanade,”. It gives by way of example, although not by way of limitation, the construction of a new conservatory. So the land is not specifically tagged or earmarked for that specific purpose, but the plan makes clear that that is the type of thing the council would consider doing with the proceeds of any sale.

Other properties identified for sale include land on Pembroke Street in Ashhurst, and Nash Street, which, funnily enough, concerns the roadway itself. That will be an interesting one when the Hon Steve Maharey is asked to promote that bill in the House. These properties will then create additional rates revenue, and the conclusion to this paragraph states: “Overall, the estimated effect on rates is a 0.2 percent reduction in rates.” This is quite an important point, given that the current Government is involved in a wide-ranging and reasonably important rates inquiry. So when the rates are next struck by the Palmerston North City Council, we will see whether that vision is realised and whether those who live in the Palmerston North City catchment have their rates reduced by 0.2 percent, as a result.

It appears, as is often the case with local bills, that this is a short and non-controversial matter. But as I indicated earlier, some issues do need looking at. I am not sure whether Dr Ashraf Choudhary sits on the Local Government and Environment Committee, but maybe the Labour Party would see fit to have him transferred to that committee for the hearing of evidence on this bill, so that when the report back comes he will be in a position to enlighten those of us who will not be able to sit on that committee as to the progress of the submission process during the committee’s deliberations.

This is the first step. Members on this side of the House will listen carefully to submissions and feedback received from the select committee and the local community before supporting the bill further. But the Hon Steve Maharey is dead right—it is his duty to present the bill to the House. At this point in the process we are happy to support him in those endeavours, and we will be voting for the passage of this bill at its first reading.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) Link to this

New Zealand First will be supporting the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we look forward to the select committee answering a few concerns that we have. I am sure it will not be a problem for the committee to do that.

We will want to know where the land came from, prior to 1922, and whether the Treaty settlement process and those sorts of things have been followed correctly. Those are the sorts of questions we will be asking in the select committee, and I am sure the answers will be forthcoming, without any worries whatsoever. I am delighted to hear that the council can measure a 0.2 percent reduction in rates. Computers must be a wonderful thing, because I am sure prior to that nobody would have sat down all day and measured that percentage. But I am pleased to hear that if the Hon Steve Maharey can bring back a rates reduction to the people of Palmerston North, his seat will be secure for many years to come.

I will not take any more time than that. I just want to signal that New Zealand First will support the bill to the select committee, and we look forward to the answers on a couple of small issues. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this

Tēnā 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.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe anō hoki. Kia ora tātou, itēneipō. The Māori Party tests every piece of legislation against our key criteria, including the historical context behind any particular item on the Order Paper as well as the question of whether there has been discussion with tangata whenua. Our research tells us that the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill has a long-established record in the parliamentary statutes, including references in the New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), Volumes 196, 197, 198, 347, and 349. We need to turn to these records to understand why the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act needs to be amended. The debates of 5 October 1922 were particularly interesting. The member for Palmerston North, a Mr J A Nash, introduced the bill, saying that he did not think it would be necessary for him to say much in the way of explanation. The remark was then responded to by Mr McLeod, the member for Wairarapa: “the difficulty was that precedents were sometimes created by local Bills, which afterwards it was found very difficult to get away from in other local Bills.”

Why would I find these remarks made 85 years ago so interesting? Well, when the Māori Party contacted a number of key Rangitāne representatives and spokespeople in relation to this bill, not one of them had heard of anything to do with it—not one. Indeed, no consultation seems to have taken place. It would be fair to say that the sale of land—any land—is an issue that inspires a considerable amount of interest. One would think that this House would be aware of this simple fact. Remember Rangiputa? That is right; that is the land that Ngāti Kahu has been in negotiation about for over 23 years—land that they have recently announced will take them back to the Waitangi Tribunal in the pursuit of justice.

What about Whenuakite? Who would not be aware of the longstanding concerns about Landcorp’s management of its lands and the recent decision of Hauraki Māori to advance their Waitangi Tribunal application to have the lands returned as a part of the Treaty settlement? But there is more: Ngātea farm, Taurewa, and the threatened sale of Te Kiri Primary School against the wishes of Taranaki hapūNgāti Tama a Hūroa and Tītahi. So it goes on. The selling of council land does not just concern Rangitāne. It is also a public issue for the people of Palmerston North. So the Māori Party comes to this bill also wondering exactly what process of public consultation there has been on the sale.

The description of the bill seems simple enough—the city council holds certain land under the Palmerston North Reserves Act 1922, which prevents the council from selling the land. The apparent problem that this bill seeks to address is that the council wants to be able to sell the land if it becomes surplus to council requirements. What would have been so wrong with taking a little bit of time out to talk first? The thing is that it is not as though Rangitāne is not consulted on other matters. We were told that Rangitāne is consulted by the council on a large number of issues to do with things such as car parks and culverts, but when it comes to the substantive issue of land, there has been absolutely none.

I remind the House of the historic precedent established in the 1987 Court of Appeal case New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General: “the duty of the Crown is not merely passive but extends to active protection of Māori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable.” It is about having a say; it is about being involved. Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2002 places a very clear requirement for consultation with mana whenua: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making processes, Parts 2 and 6 provide principles and requirements for local authorities that are intended to facilitate participation by Māori in local authority decision-making processes.” It is about understanding the matters of importance to iwi within the context of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Although our discussions with Rangitāne representatives have been relatively rushed, we have still managed to uncover some information that seems pretty critical to this bill in terms of the council divesting itself of the inner-city property. During our process of consultation about this bill, we were told by iwi members that they remembered their grandparents saying that the land between the Manawatū River and Ferguson Street, of which the land in question is a part, had never been legitimately acquired from Rangitāne. The plot thickened when we learnt that any records to prove this have long been destroyed by fire. The warning bells rang out when we thought back to another private bill, the Manfeild Park Bill, which was referred to by Mr Power, involving whenua Māori that had also suffered the curious fate of its archival records being destroyed by a parliamentary fire.

We in the Māori Party will be voting against this bill. We simply cannot vote in favour of a bill about which there seems to have been no consultation with the people who will be affected. We bring the concerns of Rangitāne to this House, along with their interest in how the council acquired the land in the first place, and suggest that this is an opportune time for the local member and the city council to meet with Rangitāne. Our member for Te Tai Hauauru, Tariana Turia, is happy to be part of those discussions. Rangitāne are adamantly opposed to the selling of any Rangitāne land, or possible Rangitāne land, believing, as we do, that public land should not be able to be sold off without consultation with, and the consent of, the mana whenua.

I conclude by sharing a case study of a recent situation in Palmerston North that Rangitāne has cited amongst the poor examples of consultation with mana whenua. An Australian company, in partnership with the Palmerston North City Council, has established a project to erect wind turbines on local sites, but with no consultation with Rangitāne. The turbines are to be established on the Kaihinu range—ironically, named after the tupuna of Rangitāne. Just last week a commission of inquiry was convened between the Palmerston North City Council and the Australian company on one side and a number of community groups, private landowners, and whānau on the other—those who dwell at the bottom of the Tararua Ranges. It was not opposition to the development of energy alternatives that resulted in the inquiry; the key objection was in light of the fact that some of the wind turbines are starting to be sited on private properties, and that, therefore, there needs to be consultation. Rangitāne want to be consulted with and not shut out of the process. The Māori Party simply asks what is wrong with that. The Māori Party asks the local member to remember and consider the special obligation that local authorities have to consult with tangata whenua about such proposals.

Consultation is not to occur simply as an end in itself but more as a way of taking into account the relevant Treaty principles. In determining the basis for such consultation, one cannot go very far without recalling the principle of partnership in achieving sustainable management. Consultation also assists local authorities in understanding how to give effect to the Treaty principle of active protection of the Māori people and the use of their lands and waters. I know that for some members of this House the obligations on decision makers to recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with the ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga are well-established principles of practice. But, unfortunately, what we have seen of the Government over the last 18 months has proven that it has lost any capacity to understand and to demonstrate the ethic of stewardship, the exercise of guardianship, or the recognition of mana whenua status.

Labour MPs, including the Māori members, have willingly chosen to vote to delete references to the principles of the Treaty from legislation. They did not raise a murmur about the intention to delete Treaty references from the school curriculum, and they have diluted Treaty references in health specifications. So what gives us any confidence that the situation will be any different in the case of the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Bill? We in the Māori Party will continue to call for wider consideration of the application of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the provisions within the Local Government Act to achieve active protection, partnership, and consultation with tangata whenua.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this

Wa’alaikum salaam. I rise to support the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I have had the privilege of living in Palmerston North for 30-odd years. In fact, among all the members here in Parliament, I have lived closest to the land, which is on the corner of Fitzherbert Avenue and Park Road. That bowling club area is very well known to me because I travelled by that place almost every day when taking my children to school and travelling to the city from my house.

I support this bill, which is supported by the local member and also by Simon Power, who lives in Palmerston North City. I concur with both of them. They have explained the history behind this bill and the need for the city council to be able to sell this land to the right group of people if it has to. I heard what the Māori Party member mentioned. I am quite clear that there will be an opportunity for Rangitāne, for whom I have a lot of respect—I worked with them for a number of years—along with other groups, to make a submission to the select committee and have the opportunity to be heard. In the meantime I am delighted to support this bill because it gives flexibility to the Palmerston North City Council to determine the future of this land, and I am sure it will make good use of it.

NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that Mr Steve Maharey will take his right of reply, so I seek leave for our speaker to take a short call, please.