PUBLIC WORKS, PUBLIC LAND, PUBLIC INTEREST: Exploring community engagement with land disposal under the Public Works Act 1981

The Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) is New Zealand’s primary legislation governing the disposal of ‘surplus’ public land. Disposals can be contentious due to persistent public conceptions of public land as a community benefit, rather than a state asset. Uncommon disposals of large sites may attract particular attention due to the consequences of significant land use change for surrounding communities and environments. Yet, recognition of geographic communities’ interests in a disposal ranges from piecemeal to highly compromised.

Governmental emphases on debt reduction, market-oriented efficiency and, recently, housing shortages have reduced New Zealand’s public landholdings by 31% since 1982. The number of interests recognised in the disposal process and the significance of land have also increased. Yet, depoliticising mechanisms introduced in parallel, such as the fragmentation of responsibility and a procedural focus, suppress the political character of public land decisions at multiple points, delimiting public scrutiny, narrowing concepts of land value, and relocating governmental accountability for outcomes.

This thesis explores one community’s collaborative engagement with the Act’s distinctive ‘offer-back’ provisions, hierarchy of ‘recognised’ interests and indigenous history. Wainuiwhenua Working Group (WWG) is a community-led affiliation of local residents, mana whenua, previous landowners and government agencies seeking to retain public ownership of 450 hectares surplus to motorway construction. Bordering Paekākāriki, the land’s future has considerable implications for the locality’s character, vulnerability to climate hazards and environmental health.

While WWG’s experience highlights multiple depoliticising logics and structures, the contestability of PWA provisions is also revealed. However, the group’s capacity to navigate and challenge the system is underpinned by significant social capital. It is concluded then that, without formal provision for community input and collaboration, consideration of community interests and rare opportunities for planning large-scale public good uses will continue to be both neglected and highly inconsistent.