National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill

I move, That the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill be now read a first time. I intend that it be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. At the appropriate time I am going to move that the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill be reported to the House by 18 September, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 188 and 191(1)(b) and (c).

On 7 August the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to create a National War Memorial Park in front of the National War Memorial. New legislation is required to give effect to Cabinet’s decisions and to enable this work to be completed in time for the centenary commemorations of the Gallipoli landings on Anzac Day 2015.

Before I outline the provisions of the bill, it is very important to remember why the memorial was erected, and to acknowledge how the current precinct falls short of the original vision. In the First World War over 100,000 New Zealanders served overseas. This would be an astonishing commitment today from a population of 4.5 million, let alone from the 1914 population of just over 1 million people. A total of 18,500 servicemen and servicewomen lost their lives, and we can only imagine now the depth of grief across every community in this country, let alone the challenges facing the families of the nearly 50,000 wounded who returned.

So in 1919 the Government of William Ferguson Massey decided that a National War Memorial should be erected so that future generations would remember this enormous sacrifice. It was decided that the memorial should be erected on a site with a commanding position, so that it could be seen from many points in the city and from the harbour. The Pukeahu site on Buckle Street met those criteria. The term “Puke-ahu” is the ancient Māori name for that particular ridge. In fact, over a decade passed before the memorial was finally opened in 1932. Fifty thousand people were there to hear the national Carillon bells ring for the first time.

A grand boulevard from the memorial to the sea had been included in the plans, but this never eventuated. In my opinion that was a good thing, too, because I always thought it looked as though it had been designed by Albert Speer. The planned Hall of Memories was thwarted by the onset of the Depression and the Second World War, and it was not completed until 1964. The Tomb of the Unknown Warrior was added in 2004. These developments all complement the 1919 vision, but the setting clearly does not. In particular, State Highway 1 is incompatible with the memorial’s status as a place of quiet contemplation and reflection where families, dignitaries, and visitors can honour the service of our forebears. Quite apart from the constant noise of traffic, there simply is not enough space immediately in front of the memorial for the ever-increasing number of New Zealanders who come together to remember the fallen on Anzac Day and other important occasions in the life of our country. With the centenary of the First World War approaching, it is time to address these issues.

The project made possible by this legislation will divert the traffic underground and unite the different sections of the memorial precinct for the first time. The Anzac Day commemorations in 2015 will take place in a new, open space flanked on either side by landscaped areas with trees, seating, cycleways, and walking paths. The new park is also going to provide an appropriate setting for an Australian memorial, which is planned to complement the existing New Zealand memorial in Canberra. Other memorials will be added over time, and there will be an interpretation centre, which will provide information to those who come here to reflect on the sacrifices of those who served their country. Under the existing statutory processes, it would not be possible to guarantee the completion of the project within the required time frame.

What I want to do is just briefly outline the very extensive consultation that has taken place with the community and with affected parties about the memorial park over a number of years, because it shows why we are able to fast track this matter. Since 2008 I have consulted over the years with the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, Mount Cook residents, the local Mt Cook Primary School, the National War Memorial Advisory Council, Massey University, the Wellington City Council, the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association, and the regional council. I have to say that the response was positive—indeed, universally positive. What consultation with the community made clear, when I became the Minister, was that the original plan for the park, which involved the option of moving State Highway 1—that section of Buckle Street—back away from the memorial and closer to the children’s playground, was not acceptable. I have always been very concerned about the welfare of the children at Mt Cook School. With the passage of this bill, stage one of the development can commence. This will see State Highway 1 temporarily diverted northwards. The undergrounding work will begin in early 2013, and landscaping in late 2014.

I want to acknowledge the assistance of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport in achieving this outcome. Once again, they have gone in to bat for Wellington. Two years ago they intervened to save the Hobbit movies in this country, and they have once again brought their considerable vision to this project to ensure there are no corners cut and no halfway measures as we develop a memorial park that the soldiers deserve. This would not have happened without Gerry Brownlee’s support, and I salute him. He is a wonderful colleague. Secondly, I acknowledge Sandy McCallum, the Principal of Mt Cook School, who has been a tireless advocate for the children under her care and has helped us to this best result. Finally, I acknowledge the Deputy Mayor of Wellington, Ian McKinnon. He and I have worked closely on this project for years to get the best outcome for the city.

The bill will empower the creation of a National War Memorial Park, providing the certainty necessary for its completion by Anzac Day 2015 while ensuring the integration of the park and roading networks within the wider city of Wellington. The bill will grant the statutory authorisations and property rights necessary to complete the roading and landscaping in time for that important centennial event. These authorisations are necessary to complete the park on time and to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any actual or potential adverse effects on the environment. It requires the Transport Agency and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to comply with existing social and environmental responsibilities and expectations.

Subpart 6 of Part 2 gives the Governor-General authority by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the relevant Minister, to grant additional authorisations and rights, or to amend authorisations and rights granted by the bill, if reasonably necessary or desirable for the purposes of the Act. The enactments that may be the subject of an Order in Council are listed under clause 24(2) of the bill, and clauses 26 and 27 provide for a National War Memorial Park Review Panel to provide advice in relation to Orders in Council that may be required. Subpart 7 requires the Minister to arrange for a community forum of at least 20 people to provide advice in relation to the development of the park, and the bill stipulates relevant stakeholders to be represented at that forum. The provisions relating to Orders in Council and the removal of appeal and objection rights will expire at the close of play on 31 July 2015.

In conclusion, this legislation has been drafted for a very specific purpose, and will deliver a result that I believe that all New Zealanders will be proud of. I believe that we are all agreed that the National War Memorial should be one of the most solemn and sacred places in this country. In 1919 the National War Memorial was approved without a single voice of dissent in this House. It was a matter that was above politics. I hope there will be similar broad support for this bill in 2012.

I am pleased to speak on the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill, and I begin by saying that my colleague Grant Robertson, the Wellington Central member of Parliament, is sorry that he could not be here to speak in the first reading, but, unfortunately, family issues take priority today. But as another Wellington member of Parliament and a person involved in the original idea in the last Labour Government, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this bill. We will support this bill, and we will work with the Government to ensure its passage. We do have some amendments that we would like considered at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I will talk more about them in a moment.

The National War Memorial Park will be situated adjacent to the site of the existing National War Memorial, the Carillon, and the Hall of Memories, as has been defined in the National War Memorial Act 1992. The establishment of a National War Memorial Park is the policy of the previous Labour Government. I have to say that it was a very strong vision of the former Prime Minister Helen Clark. In 2004 Helen Clark, after several years of negotiating and planning, led the return of the Unknown Warrior to New Zealand and the formal burial of the remains at the memorial. It was her passion that New Zealand would have a resting place to represent the thousands of New Zealand soldiers, seamen, and aviators killed in action who have never returned to New Zealand and whose bodies are left, many of them, in unmarked graves on foreign shores.

Like many of us, she was driven by a deep understanding of the strength of feeling New Zealand has towards the sacrifice that young men and women made to ensure our freedom, democracy, and human rights, and also by personal family experiences—from uncles, great-uncles, fathers, and so on who had fought in the First World War and Second World War.

I have to say that my regard for our old servicemen came from a very early age with the emphasis that my parents put on honouring those who had served in those wars. In June 2007 I represented the New Zealand Government at the 90th commemoration of the Battle of Messines in Belgium, where 128 officers and soldiers are buried at the Messines Ridge cemetery, thousands of kilometres from home. They died defending people they did not know. It was the battle where Lance Corporal Samuel Frickleton, a South Island coal miner, won his Victoria Cross. I was moved by the gratitude still felt by the people in that tiny village of Messines—a village twinned with Featherston in New Zealand. In the museum that you will find in that village, I found the names of two young men killed in action from my home town of Murchison. When you consider what a tiny town that is and that two men had lost their lives in that battle, that certainly moved me.

On 24 April 2007 Helen Clark and I announced plans for a New Zealand memorial park at the National War Memorial precinct, and $10.9 million of funding was allocated at that point. Wellington City Council also committed funding. We worked closely with the former mayor Kerry Prendergast on this matter. It was the accumulation of several years of work. From the time of the return of the Unknown Warrior, work was started on the idea of a National War Memorial Park. It started by ensuring that we were able to acquire the land. Because the land actually was zoned semi-industrial, we needed to be able to acquire that land for the park to proceed. We worked with the Wellington City Council on that proposal.

I was disappointed when I heard on the radio at the time this bill was announced criticism from the Green Party about the delay by Labour for this park. In fact, it was quite wrong. A lot of work had been done from the time that the Unknown Warrior was brought home to the time we went out of Government. You had to finish the inner-city bypass to ensure that you were able to preserve that land for a park. We also worked with the Wellington City Council, because at that time it wanted the continuation of a tree-lined avenue up Taranaki Street that could then link in with the park. This is the sort of work that was going on when we were in Government.

The key political point, if there is one to be made, is that it could have been done without legislation if the National Government had not mucked around with the proposal for the last 4 years. Chris Finlayson, who has just introduced the bill, made it very clear to the Wellington City Council just after the 2008 election that he was not going to continue with Helen Clark’s vision. I am pleased that he now talks of caring for the children and so on, but he did not wish to continue with her vision. It always seemed to me to be rather petty, because this was a vision, as he said, that we should embrace for all New Zealanders.

So putting aside the petty politics that have been played with the memorial park, we do want to see a National War Memorial Park that the nation will be proud of at the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli in 1915. It is a park opening that I would be very honoured to attend and, hopefully, will be attending as the sixth Labour Government.

The passing of this empowering legislation should not be done lightly. This is empowering legislation, and we always need to be careful when we give such power to this Parliament, but there is strong support from the local community, from the Wellington City Council, and from our veteran organisations. So with the strong support and with the desire to have it finished by 2015, and the need to make sure that it will be finished, we will support this empowering legislation.

But there are some changes that we would like to see made at the select committee, and I believe that the Minister of Transport, at least, is entertaining these amendments that we are putting up. We would like to see the role of the review panel that is established in the legislation widened to include oversight of the consents that are granted. Given the range of the consents and the overriding of the appeal rights, we think that that would give the public confidence in the process if the review panel had this role. This is especially important in terms of environmental and heritage considerations. Secondly, we would like to see the review panel report on its work on a regular basis—6 monthly—to a select committee such as, say, the Regulations Review Committee. Thirdly, we would like to see prior consultation procedures with interested stakeholders before Orders in Council are proposed. The community forum that has been established in legislation could, we believe, fulfil this role. Fourthly, we would also like to put into law a role for the community forum in being consulted on the final design of the park. Incidentally, the local MP, Grant Robertson, does have some concerns with elements of the design of the park, particularly around vehicle access, but he has been working this through with members of the Government.

We support the undergrounding of Buckle Street, but we have to say that it is going to be rather a funny road. We have now just had announced by the New Zealand Transport Agency the flyover that is going to go round the Basin Reserve. This road is now going to look like a roller-coaster road, where you go under, you go up, you go down, you go up, and you head to the tunnel at Mount Victoria. I do say to the Government that maybe Maurice Williamson can take this up, as he is probably the only Minister here who has some knowledge of these things. When we underground the road at Buckle Street, we might look at whether a flyover is actually appropriate, unless we do really want a roller coaster. I have to say that it has been a roller-coaster ride for those of us in Wellington looking to see what the Government was finally going to do around the congestion in the city. We know now that it is going to be this roller-coaster ride up to the Mount Victoria tunnel. You will be able to get very fast to the Mount Victoria tunnel, but then, of course, you will go through just a one-lane tunnel. Although you will get there quickly, you will get through the tunnel more slowly.

We do say to the Government that this, in the wider sense, is a great idea—the park. We will support it, but look at what you are doing with the other roads round the Basin Reserve leading to Mount Victoria. We do not want it to look foolish when we finally open it in 2015. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill, and we will be giving all assistance and advice we can to the Government to make sure it goes through in the timetable that has been set.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the first reading of the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. Of course, as previous speakers have said, the bill seeks to give the Government the necessary statutory authority to complete the memorial park by April 2015. This is a timely bill in our history. It will be the 100-year anniversary of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps landing at Anzac Cove on the Gallipoli peninsula in the Dardanelles on that fateful morning of 25 April 1915—lest we forget. The disastrous Gallipoli campaign gave birth to the Anzac spirit of comradeship and bravery beyond all odds. It contributed much to our sense of national identity. This empowering bill is as much about national identity as it is about an empowering bill that will enable us to put in place a long-living memorial to those brave souls who lost their lives in such great numbers on that first day, and days thereafter 25 April 1915.

Today Anzac Day commemorates all our brave fallen from the Western Front and other theatres of war—World War II to the conflicts in Korea, Malaysia, and Viet Nam to modern places of conflict in East Timor and currently, much in our minds, to the conflict in northern Afghanistan, where the brave men and women of New Zealand stand in harm’s way. In Anzac Day we still celebrate the close bonds of friendship and family with our Australian cousins and our shared sacrifice at Gallipoli since then with our Australian cousins. Some have said that Anzac Day is as close as New Zealand has to a national day. I would agree with that. In part this results from our annual controversy around Waitangi Day.

However, I believe the better explanation is that Anzac Day does not celebrate war as the great adventure; rather, it reminds us of the tragedy and utter waste of war, the longing for family and the familiar. We remember the young New Zealanders buried in some corner of a foreign field. We look to our own families where most have experienced loss and disability from war, and those who have had family members in the service of New Zealand. In short, Anzac Day speaks directly to the shared experiences of most extended New Zealand families more than any other day in our national life. This is what this empowering bill is all about.

I am glad that this is a shared belief and commitment from all corners of the Parliament. As the number of active service personnel who experience conflict falls in real terms, it is even more important that we remind ourselves annually of the horror and loss of war, and reaffirm and confirm our commitment to the young men and women who stand ready to go into armed conflict on our behalf on any day. So this bill will enable the building of a memorial park. As a Wellingtonian born and bred, that is a very fitting place of national commemoration and national mourning—the capital city of the country.

All New Zealanders should be proud of this day and what this empowering bill follows and what this piece of legislation will deliver. It does so by granting the right to the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to design, construct, maintain, and operate the park during the construction and alteration of this significant piece of our roading network. It requires mitigation of an actual or potential adverse environmental effect. It provides a series of statutory powers that are incidental to this objective. The extensive schedules to the bill, which run to a mind-numbing 92 pages, essentially provide what would be in a resource consent issued by the Wellington Regional Council and the Wellington City Council. In essence, the project is to cut and cover Buckle Street to develop a contiguous park directly linked to the Hall of Memories and the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. I salute all of those who have been responsible for the design of this everlasting memorial, and the complexities of what they have been given and what they have had to work with. This, of course, will provide appropriate space for ceremonies involving our service personnel and a place for memorials for those nations that are closest to us.

I acknowledge the work of Ministers Finlayson and Brownlee, for their persistence and tenacity, and delivering this today at this time for this memorial. I also place on record the contribution of the Wellington City Council and, in particular, the outstanding individual Ian McKinnon, the Deputy Mayor of the Wellington City Council. We hope that the memorial park will be a place where New Zealanders will visit to reflect and remember our fallen. This is a bipartisan memorial, and I salute all of those former Prime Ministers, arts and culture Ministers, and members of Parliament from the Wellington district who have committed to this memorial, and who will vote for this today through their affiliations in this Parliament.

So it is with some caution that I want to make this observation to the House in passing. I accept fully the Government’s contention that this worthy project cannot be completed in 18 months. In most other developed countries it could easily be completed within 18 months within a standard consenting process. This speaks not to the complexity of this worthy project but rather to the unwieldy effect of the Resource Management Act 1991. I sat in this Parliament, opposite on the front bench of this Parliament, and then on the Government side of the Parliament in 1991, where at 11 o’clock at night in a third reading 7-minute dissertation by the Minister of the time the Resource Management Act was posted unanimously on to the statute book by this Parliament, with little understanding of the consequences that would follow the implementation and interpretation of the Resource Management Act over 20 years. It has been, in general terms, a complete disaster for growth, investment, and jobs for this nation, and that is why the ACT Party is at the forefront of two tranches of reform to the Resource Management Act, which is well overdue. If there is one flagpole that should be attended to today and a flag raised, it is the flag for democracy, it is the flag for private property ownership, and it is the flag for development, growth, and jobs that is well overdue here.

We should not replicate the Resource Management Act high jinks that cost the constituent ratepayers of the Auckland City Council $10 million in cost overruns in building the refurbished, redeveloped art gallery in Auckland City—that is $10 million of political high jinks around the Resource Management Act and the Environment Court by a litigious handful of people, which cost us so much money. It is entirely appropriate that we continue to expand and perfect our freedoms so that those who were sent and did not return from places that are listed on the battlefield plaques around this Parliament are not disappointed in this new century around an Act of Parliament that stops sensible stuff like this happening. New Zealand, after 100 years have passed, remains committed to the memory of those brave souls who fought the battles recorded on the walls around this Chamber, and soon to be recorded with a new memorial for the 100-year commemoration of that fateful day of 25 April 1915.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could give the member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon John Banks, the opportunity to correct his Hansard, in that it was not Labour that passed the Resource Management Act—

Order! That is a debatable issue, and the member is a very, very experienced one.

After the speech from that member, which strayed so far from the substance of this bill, can I say that it is rather amusing to hear Mr Banks from the ACT Party speaking so passionately about a memorial. It will be a memorial to that member and his party that will be constructed in the not too distant future.

I do want to come back to a very important piece of legislation. The Labour Party will be supporting the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill, despite the truncated select committee process, which requires the bill to be reported back by 18 September, and despite the fact that this bill overrides aspects of the Resource Management Act. We are a constructive Opposition party and we do want to work with the Government, where it is appropriate, on a project that truly is of national significance. It is a pleasure to finally see a roading project that is of genuine national significance.

It completes, as other members have said, a memorial project that was first envisioned, really, immediately after the First World War, or the Great War, as it was known at the time—a time when New Zealand was reeling from the deaths of over 18,000 of our people who went to Europe and served on behalf of our nation and on behalf of the British Empire. Countless others were injured and countless families were impacted by that really astonishing conflict, at a time when the Industrial Revolution had delivered the firepower to create untold damage to people, to buildings, and to the landscape, but had not yet delivered the manoeuvrability for soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women to be able to manoeuvre around that firepower.

The effects were devastating, and it was out of that devastation that Prime Minister William Massey first explored the idea of a war memorial, which, of course, was first constructed in 1932, with the Carillon, followed a few decades later with the Hall of Memories, then early this century with the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, and now this project to complete the memorial, which is, obviously, not just to those people who served in the Great War, the First World War, but also, ultimately, to those who served in South Africa, in the Second World War, in Korea, in Malaysia, and in Viet Nam. Of course, we will soon need to add to that list the veterans of our peacekeeping activities in East Timor and those in the Solomon Islands, where we have been lucky enough not to lose anybody in combat, and, of course, what is really front of mind for all New Zealanders at the moment, those who have fallen in the conflict in Afghanistan. Of course, we particularly remember the five who have fallen this month.

They will be remembered in this National War Memorial Park. It will be a place where New Zealanders can pause, reflect on that sacrifice made over the generations by New Zealanders, reflect on what it means to build a peaceful world, what it means to live in a peaceful nation, and what it means to create tolerance and understanding, and reflect on our work to find a future without conflict and without that level of sacrifice. It is for all those reasons that we do support this piece of legislation.

It is disappointing, though—and I am sure there will be a lot of people out there who will be disappointed—that it requires this empowering legislation that does override the Resource Management Act, and that real traction on this project has taken such a tremendously long time. The idea of the memorial park was first articulated by the then Prime Minister, Helen Clark, at the time that the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior was first unveiled. Progress was made through to 2008. As recently—well, as long ago, in fact—as 2009, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Chris Finlayson, was saying in response to questions from his own backbenchers that the Government had the project in hand, that it did not necessarily want to carry on with the vision that Helen Clark had articulated, but that it was making good progress. Well, it is lamentable that the progress was not as solid as was made out by the Minister at that time and we find ourselves now, more than 3 years after that event, debating a bill that gives the Government the ability to rush a project that did not need to be rushed.

But, as I have said, we in the Labour Party wish to be constructive, and we know that this is a project that New Zealanders want to see fulfilled, and that we now need to put aside the unfortunate delay and get on with the project. However, we also need to acknowledge that this legislation gives the Government significant power, and we need to have the right checks and balances in place to ensure that that power is used appropriately and wisely.

We are committed to the memorial park and we support this legislation, but we do want to see some changes, and we hope that these changes are given proper consideration, despite the truncated select committee process. The role of the review panel that is established in the legislation needs to be widened, in our opinion, to include oversight of the consents that are granted. Given the range of consents and the overriding of appeal rights, we think that it would be right and would give public confidence to the review process if the review panel had this role. It is especially important in terms of the environment and heritage considerations that will go along with this project.

The review panel needs to be able to report on its work regularly. We think that a 6-monthly basis would be appropriate. We think that report should be made to a select committee, and the most appropriate appears to be the Regulations Review Committee. We would also like to see prior consultation procedures with interested stakeholders before Orders in Council are proposed. The community forum that is established in this legislation could easily fulfil this role. Finally, we would also like to see put into the legislation a role for the community forum in being consulted on the final design of the park. We think this is just simply about ensuring that what is created is something that the community can appreciate, and that they will be able to buy into.

As I said, this is the completion of a vision that truly goes all the way back over nearly the full century that the completion of this memorial park will acknowledge on 25 April 2015. It is the completion of a vision that many Prime Ministers have articulated, most recently, of course, Helen Clark, who was so instrumental in ensuring that that Unknown Warrior was brought back to New Zealand, and that we had that focal point of our memorials. This memorial park will be a proper completion of this project, and something for all New Zealanders to celebrate—truly a project of national significance.

Just before I call the next member, can I just advise members about the use of electronic devices. When not being used for notes to refresh memories when members are speaking in the debate, they should be placed on the drop-down work surface so that they in no way obstruct or interfere with the Speaker’s view of the House or any of its members.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. The Green Party supports the National War Memorial Park, but we will not be supporting the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill at its first reading. We support the memorial. We support a park. As a Wellingtonian, I am excited by the idea that we will get a bit of green space, a bit of quiet space, in an otherwise pretty busy and hectic part of the town in Mount Cook. We think it is important that we do commemorate the people who have fallen and are immortalised around this Chamber. I was recently in London, where I got to see the new New Zealand war memorial in downtown London. It is a great example, I feel, of how we can have modern war commemorations that do not use the traditional mould. I note that Australia has still got the traditional one in the park, next to ours. They can be powerful emotional reflections of our national character, and I think that it is a good example of that.

The Green Party will not be supporting the bill, because it is drafted in such a manner that overrides the Resource Management Act, the Historic Places Act, and the Public Works Act, and takes from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act the provisions whereby further rules can be amended by Orders in Council. I think it is important to reflect on why the Green Party is opposed to this bill. We are opposed to this because it is a damaging precedent in our democracy. I have gone through the history. I am aware of a number of bills and Acts that have been enacted by this Parliament over the years to enact transport projects like the Tauranga expressway, and there are a few more, like the Auckland Harbour Bridge, but none of them used the powers—the immense and considerable powers—outlined in this bill to override legislation. In fact, the only examples that the Parliamentary Library could find this afternoon were the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act, which were passed in this current Government’s time on the Government benches. This is the only Government that is drafting laws that allow itself to override any laws—or, in this case, a constrained number of laws—that it wants to override. This is the only Government that is drafting laws that allow it to amend future laws through Orders in Council. We think it is a damaging, dangerous precedent. Although we do not think it is likely to be abused under this law, we do not think it is the path this Parliament or this country should be going down. We support the democratic rights of law, the due process, that our soldiers went overseas to serve and to protect.

I have not heard from the Government or from the Labour Party benches the reason why we have to have legislation to override these three laws and to give themselves other powers through Order in Council. What is the reason? I think we all know, but it is embarrassing because we do not want to mention it, and that is that the Government has not given itself enough time to enact it, to get the time to go through the normal processes, because the Government scrapped it. The history is that in 2004 Helen Clark first announced the formation of this park, which the Green Party supported. In 2007 Labour put $10 million towards it. In 2009 it was the Government, in its line by line review, that removed the funding. The only reason why we have to do this, I think, amazing and dangerous precedent step of passing laws to build a road and a park is that the Government has not given itself enough time to do it, because the Government scrapped the money. The Government has raided the transport pantry and there is not enough money left for projects like this because the Government would rather spend it on seven uneconomical roads of national significance. This is the real issue we should be addressing. Although I would like to stress that the Green Party supports the war memorial and we support the park, we do not support the process that is going through. We are seeing the same pattern emerge when it comes to the select committee consideration—a constrained time for New Zealanders, for Wellingtonians, to have a say.

What we are concerned about, of course, is we are going to get a less than ideal process. The point of having an open and appropriate length of time for public consultation and processes through the Resource Management Act or the Historic Places Act is so we make the right decisions. What we are concerned about is we are not going to see the right decisions being made. We are not going to see maybe common-sense decisions to mitigate an unfortunate side effect or impact of this project, because the Government wants to race it through because it has run out of time, because the Government is a poor manager. That is the real reason why we have to go through this unprecedented step.

The Green Party wants to see it done right. We want to see proper processes, and that is why we will not be supporting this bill. We will go into the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee with a constructive manner. We would like to improve this bill, but it has to be pointed out that, look, this road is only 5 years old and this Government, at a time of austerity, at a time of debt crisis, has all this money to dig up a road that is only 5 years old and it has to do it through legislation because of its bad decision-making. It is a shocking state of affairs, and that is why I am proud to be a member of the party that is voting against it today.

It gives me great pleasure to speak in regard to the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage for his introduction to this bill. I would like to make special mention of the Labour Party and thank its members for the way they have spoken on this bill and for the work that they have done in the past, and also for the agreement from them to help in the select committee stage as we go through this somewhat truncated process. I would like to draw special attention to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members from the Labour Party, who are very helpful and can work well with all parties to achieve the right things for this country. I think it is important for us to note that this is a bipartisan approach.

It is very disappointing, however, to hear from the Green Party, which has now left the Chamber, that it does not support this bill.

Holly Walker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe it is inappropriate for the member to refer to the absence of another member from the Chamber.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Actually, the member is right. If he did do that, then he should not. But I never heard him say that. The member is saying he did not do it?

DAVID BENNETT: I said the Green Party, not the member.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the member did breach the convention, but, just for Holly Walker, it is a convention, rather than a Standing Order, I think. The problem is that when one draws attention to it, all a member does is actually emphasise the fact of what has happened, and that is generally not a good thing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that members should look at Speaker’s ruling 24/4. It is inappropriate to refer to the absence of members from the Chamber, because each and every one of us at one stage or another needs to leave the Chamber.

DAVID BENNETT: But I think it is sad that the Green Party will not support this bill. When it talks about the Resource Management Act and a road being 5 years old, and that in times of austerity you do not want to take the road up and do anything, that is just rubbish, to be honest. This is something that many Parliaments have worked on over many years. It is something that is in the best interests of us as a country to think of the culture and heritage of our country. It is about paying tribute to those people who have made sacrifices for the freedoms we enjoy here in this room today. It is about having some pride in our history and doing the right thing. Maybe this will be a lesson for the Green Party, should it ever be close to getting into Government, that it may need to do the right thing when it is in Government and not what it thinks necessarily is in its best interests.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: If, David.

DAVID BENNETT: That is a big if, as the Minister says. It is very sad that in this House those members have not agreed to this bill today. But they did ask one question, and that is why you want to do it. There is a reason, and that is to get it finished by 2015, and that is what this bill is enabling the Government to do. It is to make sure that the effort that has gone in in past years is completed, so that we have it ready in time for April 2015. That is a very important date on our political calendar and also on our country’s calendar.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Annette could be mayor when it’s opened.

DAVID BENNETT: Yes, we may have Annette as mayor when it opens, we are hearing. This bill grants the necessary authorisations and property rights and works with the different departments to achieve this purpose. We look forward to Annette being there as the mayor. That should be an interesting process, if that comes to fruition as well.

This bill represents an important part of our culture and our history. The symbolism of memorial parks is very valid and important. Wellington is the capital of New Zealand. It is a place where you have large art and cultural meaning for this country. It is a place where Parliament is based. It is also fitting that we have a memorial of this stature and calibre to represent the immense sacrifices and the pride that we take in our country’s past and also in our ability to go forward together. I would like to recommend this bill to the House. I would like to thank the Minister and also the Labour Party for their support. We look forward to other parties in this House supporting it as it goes through. Thank you.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. New Zealand First will be, of course, supporting this bill and supporting this initiative of the Government and the other agencies, including Wellington City Council, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. We believe this is a very worthy project as we approach the centenary of World War I, and it is very fitting that such a project is undertaken as a significant milestone in the commemorations of some of our most notable parts of New Zealand history.

For those of us who have been to the National War Memorial on a number of occasions, we are always most impressed with the memorial itself, the wonderful building that is there, and what it offers in terms of that building structure. But it has always been my impression that it is a great shame that the road immediately in front of it is a busy road. In a sense, you know, it is a big drawback from the war memorial that is there and the National War Memorial building. It is not fitting that it is such a busy arterial route. When you compare it with the great capitals of the world and their national memorials, and you think of the likes of Canberra, and you think of the likes of Washington DC—my youngest daughter, Bryony, was in Washington DC this week and she commented on being able to walk around and see the marvellous monuments and the wonderful memorials in Washington DC—it is very notable that in many countries a huge amount of national pride is often in their national war memorials. We have also seen that in more recent years with the wonderful memorials that have been developed in London, including the New Zealand memorial that is there now in Hyde Park. So I think it is very fitting that finally New Zealand should make its National War Memorial an even more fitting place, something with a little bit more peace and tranquillity, and something with a little bit more of the natural New Zealand quiet ambience, rather than a busy road roaring straight past the memorial.

I have looked at the concept drawings and the concept designs for this, and it is a beautiful park that is envisaged there, with the former road disappearing underneath and well out of sight and sound. As a result, it will allow larger numbers of people to go and visit the war memorial and take in the whole ambience and feeling of the place. Also, when there are parades—and I have been to a number of parades there—it will be a much nicer place for our veterans, for our military, for those involved with the parades, and for the public who are attending to have a more fitting, peaceful, and more observant commemoration.

I was talking with my colleague Richard Pryor here before. Both of us have attended—not Richard Pryor; Richard Prosser.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Prosser. Prosser.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: Sorry. It is not a day for surnames, is it, Mr Assistant Speaker? I apologise to my colleague, and I am sure he will call me names afterwards, as well.

But Richard Prosser and I were just noting that we have both attended Anzac Day ceremonies at the Anzac War Memorial in the centre of Sydney, and how lovely that is with the ponds and the park that surrounds it, and how it is such a wonderful, fitting situation for their Anzac Day ceremonies. I can see this being the same situation for the capital city of our country. This park in the future will be a wonderful place for more and more people to go to. Being an Aucklander, I say that we are very proud of our cenotaph up there in the middle of the Auckland Domain, next to the Auckland War Memorial Museum, and how wonderful it is to have that surrounded by such a large expanse of green space. Similarly, it would be very appropriate for the capital city to have a similar park of a reasonable size around the National War Memorial, so that, again, it can be commemorated in that way.

We owe a great debt to our veterans, and as the veterans’ affairs spokesman for New Zealand First, I say that we are very conscious of honouring them and remembering them. Here in this Chamber, when we look at the names around the walls here, there are great names such as Passchendaele behind me, Gallipoli over there, Messines, and Egypt. There are so many wonderful names, and of course more recent ones such as Viet Nam, Korea, Malaya, and others. While we honour our veterans and our great commitment to keeping world peace around the world, it is very fitting that we also do this at our National War Memorial in this way.

Much of the cost does involve the actual road, and many people who perhaps are not so enthusiastic about this might look at the cost, but much of that is taken up in the actual tunnelling of this road, which is going to be of long-term benefit to Wellington and long-term benefit to traffic movements in that area. Effectively, the park costs and the memorial costs are an insignificant amount in the greater scheme of things.

We believe that this legislation is important. Time is of the essence. It will take a reasonable amount of time to get this project completed. We cannot wait until after the World War I commemorations to have it completed, so it is important that it is done in a timely fashion. In matters of national importance such as this, where we would hope there would be agreement across the House to get this done, we would certainly look to have this bill expedited through this House as quickly as possible so that this project can really get some traction and really make some progress very, very quickly.

Just in closing, New Zealand First supports this. We think it is very, very timely. It is another way that we can honour those who have fallen in the name of our country, and who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. They have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our nation, in order for us to be the good democracy that we are. In that respect this is a very, very small price to pay to ensure that we continue to honour what is a great legacy that has been left by those who have fallen in the past and by those who have gone off to war on behalf of New Zealand. So New Zealand First is very happy to commend this bill to the House, and we will be supporting it.

It is a genuine pleasure to speak in favour of this piece of legislation, the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill, and it has been very good to see, you know, the working together of the parties, with the exception of one, on this bill, and the genuine and the passionate and the well-intentioned speeches of all members so far on this piece of legislation.

I was listening very carefully to the speech of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. It was good to hear that when the war memorial was first established in this country, it was a unanimous vote in this Parliament that saw it established. As we come close to the centenary of the Gallipoli landings and as we talk about a project that is designed to commemorate not only that landing and that war but also other conflicts that New Zealanders have served this country well in in overseas theatres, remembering those people and commemorating the sacrifice that they have made for this country, it is fitting that we should also have cross-party support in this Chamber.

I would ask those who have indicated some opposition to this bill to really reconsider whether or not that is the right thing to be doing. Yes, there are some questions about the process. Yes, there are some people who may have some unease at the fact that legislation of this type is being proposed or is going through this Parliament in the fashion that it is, but we have to remember the importance and the significance of this project. We have to remember that we want to see this project in place and completed by Anzac Day in 2015, and to fail to meet that deadline would be absolutely unacceptable.

I listened carefully also to the speech from the Hon Annette King, and I was pleased to hear of all the work that Labour did for the National War Memorial. The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Chris Finlayson, also spoke at great length about the consultation and the efforts that he has put in as Minister, on behalf of this Government, to try to get the National War Memorial to the point where we can have the park to remember New Zealanders in 2015.

Looking through the regulatory impact statement there are some interesting points that are worth noting, and I would like to cover just a couple of those. I was quite interested to see that there was some recent consultation done with the community in 2011. It was around the Wellington Northern Corridor road of national significance. There were many hundreds of submissions to that process, and 550 of those submissions indicated that they would like to see a realignment or a redesign of Buckle Street. So this legislation and the proposal we have in front of us would fulfil the wishes of those 550 submitters.

It was also interesting to see in the regulatory impact statement that a lot of work has gone in with the Wellington City Council, the New Zealand RSA, and indeed Mt Cook School, all of which have indicated their support for this option. There is support from a very wide range of people for this particular project, and it is important that those people’s wishes, as well as the wishes of all New Zealanders to have a grand memorial for the centenary of the Gallipoli landings, is in place in time.

In terms of the process, yes, there is some legislation that is being proposed here that would override some normal processes that we would go through, but I think it is important to note in the House that there are also some important safeguards that are being put into this legislation. Firstly, there is the disallowance procedure that is in the legislation. When such wide-ranging powers would be granted to the Governor-General to make Orders in Council, it is appropriate that the disallowance procedure be put in place, and this bill does that.

This bill also establishes a community forum for ongoing consultation with locals in the area and interested stakeholders. There is also a review panel that is being established. Although it is not desirable in the normal course of business to be overriding other pieces of legislation in the fashion that this does, for such a significant project it is absolutely appropriate, and the timing issue is essential so that we meet the deadlines, the strict deadlines, we have for this project. The corresponding actions that have been taken in the legislation around review and around consultation are also appropriate and should be welcomed, and they should mitigate many of the concerns that some people may have.

This is a very, very important piece of legislation to commemorate a very important date when many thousands of New Zealanders served their country in war, and I commend the bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to contribute to this debate on the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. This legislation would not have been necessary if National had not taken away the project funding that Labour had allocated in the closing period of the fifth Labour Government. The park would have been ready for the 2015 centenary of Gallipoli, and we would not have had the need in this House to pass empowering legislation if that had been done. But I want to say that Labour supports this bill. We believe that New Zealanders will see the need for this legislation and that New Zealanders will appreciate the plan that is in place for this war memorial park.

I want to say to the Green Party members here today “Enough with the sanctimony. Enough.” I feel absolute exasperation that the Greens would come here and lecture the House on this bill because it overrides the Resource Management Act, because it overrides the Historic Places Act, and because it overrides the Public Works Act. These bits of legislation are not some kind of religion. They are not our constitution. They are legislation that we have there to govern the process of resource management and land use. They are practical bits of information that are there for practical purposes. With this project, we are not rebuilding the Clyde Dam, and we are not desecrating some national landscape. What we are doing is converting a piece of urban cityscape into what will undoubtedly be a fantastic national memorial for the people of Wellington and the people of this country, and I urge the Greens to reconsider their position on this.

This, as Iain Lees-Galloway said, will be a park of national significance. I want to just talk in the minutes remaining about how this is an exercise in constructing and building a special place in Wellington for people to come—a place of contemplation, a place of reflection. I think it will be a tremendous contribution to our national life as a country. Like other members will have done, I have looked at the concept drawings for the memorial park and I think they are appropriate. They are grand, and they will leave as a legacy for this country a really special place for people to come and reflect on our history and on the sacrifice that generations of New Zealanders—men and women who fought overseas, and particularly those who gave their lives—have made.

I just want to stress how valuable it is to create places like this. There are one or two others in New Zealand that I can think of. The Waitangi Treaty grounds are another place where the history is palpable when you are there. It is a place of reflection, where you can contemplate this nation’s modern history. I think, as Andrew Williams said, that the cenotaph at the Auckland War Memorial Museum is another similar place. In another city that I am familiar with, in Washington, DC, where I lived for several years, the Lincoln Memorial was perhaps my favourite of all the Washington memorials—an amazing place where people would go day and night to remember the abolition of slavery, the civil war, and, in fact, the civil rights movement. That particular place in Washington, DC is a remarkable place to go to visit, to soak up the ambience, and to reflect on the country’s history.

I also want to just note that it is interesting, I think, that in order to create this park of national significance, it is necessary to remove the traffic from this place. It would be unthinkable to build a war memorial park of the kind of scale and the ambition and the quality that we will want for this park without getting cars out of it by building a tunnel. Increasingly in our cities, people are recognising that it is time to reclaim the streets of our cities from the car, because when you—as we have done for so many years—build cities around the motorcar, it creates uncivilised environments that are not fit for pedestrians, are not fit for people to spend any time in, and are certainly not fit for places of reflection or contemplation. I think that we are seeing more and more in our cities a pedestrianisation and a reclaiming of our streets from the cars.

The last point that I wanted to make is about the number of provisions that Labour is requesting be inserted into the bill as a condition of our supporting the legislation. We ask the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider these matters. First, that the role of the review panel that is established under this legislation be widened to include oversight of the consents. Given the range of consents and the overriding of appeal rights under this bill, we think it would give the public some confidence in the process if the review panel is given this widened role. That is especially important in terms of the environmental and heritage considerations. We also believe that the review panel should report on its work on a regular—perhaps 6-monthly—basis to a select committee such as the Regulations Review Committee. We would also like to see prior consultation procedures with interested stakeholders before Orders in Council are proposed. The community forum that this bill would establish could fulfil that role. Finally, we would also like to put into the law a role for the community forum in being consulted on the design of the park. I know that Grant Robertson, who is the local member of Parliament, has some concerns about elements of the design of the park, particularly around vehicle access. We think it would be useful to involve the local community and interested parties in the design of the park.

This bill sets the stage for what we believe will be a fantastic memorial for those who have given their lives overseas for our country. It will create an outstanding public space in Wellington for all New Zealanders, and particularly for the people of the Mount Cook community. This is going to be an extraordinary addition to their community. I want to finally pay tribute to the former Prime Minister Helen Clark, whose vision it was, after the opening of the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, to develop the national memorial in this way. Helen Clark had that vision, she took the initial steps, funding was put in place, and the process was set in motion to build this memorial park. Labour is pleased that the Government has finally come to its senses and brought this bill to the House. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I rise to speak in favour of the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill—

Hon Nathan Guy: A very good bill.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE —sponsored by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Chris Finlayson. It is, indeed, as the Hon Nathan Guy says, a very good bill, and it has received accolades from pretty much all sides of the House. There was—

Charles Chauvel: That’s going a little far.

Hon Nathan Guy: Charles Chauvel supports it.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, no, no, I do not remember Mr Chauvel hearing all of the debate, but he will—

Chris Hipkins: Oh, it was better without the microphone.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: God gives some people a good voice. Mr Chauvel will remember the remarks made by the Hon Annette King, which were praiseworthy indeed of the concept, the design, the proposal, and the need, in fact, to have a place of reverence in our capital city, because, really, we do not have one at the moment.

This empowering bill grants the necessary statutory authorisations and property rights for the project to the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to complete the roading and landscaping in time for the 2015 Anzac Day commemorations—100 years. The bill is vital to the creation of a National War Memorial Park for Wellington, providing the certainty necessary for its completion by April 2015, while ensuring the integration of the park and roading networks within the wider Wellington City.

If I may, without any undue offence, suggest that Mr Hughes from the Green Party was just a little mean-spirited, I thought, in concentrating on the sacrosanct nature—

Hon Nathan Guy: They hate roads, the Greens.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —well, on the sacrosanct nature of process. I think this is an occasion when process can be fitted in to meet the requirement, and I am sure that that will be the case.

Scott Simpson: Sanctimonious.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It was a little sanctimonious, I guess. New Zealanders attach a special importance to our military history as well as to our environmental processes and the reverence we continue to have for those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of this nation and what it stands for. Indeed, in October I hope to be in Passchendaele, paying due reverence to great-uncles who went into that particular dreadful battle where New Zealand lost so many. It will be a moment of reflection. I think it will be great that we have the same opportunity for New Zealanders, and for people from overseas, to engage in reverence in New Zealand. It will be a fitting place for Kiwis and others to congregate on major occasions or to reflect at any time on these great sacrifices.

The project will ensure that Anzac Day commemorations in 2015 will take place in a new open space, flanked on either side by landscaped areas with trees, seating, cycleways, and walking paths.

Scott Simpson: Very appropriate.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is, indeed, appropriate and befitting for such a historic moment in the history of both our nation and our allies across the Tasman Sea. Indeed, the Australian Government has contributed A$5 million of its own for the development of an Australian memorial, which will stand with pride opposite the National War Memorial as a symbol of the bond and the shared history between our two nations.

Hon Nathan Guy: That’s right—the Anzac spirit.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: That is the Anzac spirit. This memorial plan has been crafted with great care and respect. And it was again just a tad unfortunate when listening to the Hon Annette King, whom I have great respect for as a long-serving politician, to hear a little sting in the tail that perhaps we have been dilatory over the last 4 years in getting things done. May I suggest, with great respect to Annette King, who did leave Government with a plan, that that plan was not simply dispensed with and ignored. It was considered. There is a lot of difference between being a little casual in getting on with things and working extremely hard to ensure the best results, and that is what Mr Finlayson demanded from the team that has been working on this.

The memorial plan has been crafted with great care and respect, but a number of problems presently hinder the completion of this project by April 2015. These are practical, physical problems, such as the busy State Highway 1, which is currently in the way of the site and which is clearly incompatible with a memorial status as a place of quiet contemplation and reflection for families, dignitaries, and visitors. You cannot have it quiet except for the cars. It is quiet or it is not. Also, under existing statutory processes, it would be impossible to guarantee the necessary statutory authorisations, rights, and consents to see this project completed on time, hence my mild criticism of the Greens. The whole purpose of this bill is to make sure that the project is done on time. As my colleagues on this side have articulated, it is time to resolve these problems once and for all.

Under this bill, the Governor-General will be able to grant additional statutory authorisations by Order in Council, and enable the relevant agencies to obtain additional property rights in the event that any unforeseen authorisation and rights are legally required in order to complete the project on time, and to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any actual or potential adverse effects on the environment. We are not ignoring the environment. Indeed, I think Annette King—whose speech I quite enjoyed, and I am showing her that I listened—illustrated that you would have a tunnel underneath, a flyover round the cricket grounds, and then go straight into the tunnel, like Hobbiton.

The bill also sets the conditions that will apply to the statutory authorisations, and provides a process for the independent certification of plans and documents required by conditions of the authorisations. This is to ensure that both the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage comply with the usual construction requirements and environmental standards that they would have had to meet if the authorisations had been granted under normal process. The provisions relating to Orders in Council and the removal of appeal and objection rights will expire at the close of 31 July 2015.

To put it simply, without this bill the development of this site and its monuments would not be possible on a timetable basis in the foreseeable future. This is a roll-your-sleeves-up, grunty little bill that gets the job done. Underneath that, or overarching that, it will produce not only something that is practical and well done but something that is beautiful, that we can all celebrate in, and that we can all enjoy. Thank you.

Charles Chauvel, is this a split call?

Charles Chauvel: It is, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Charles Chauvel. [Interruption]

Well, here we go: a spiteful comment from the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, setting the tone for the debate, as he has done in respect of this matter ever since it began. The reality of this entire issue is that had that member not held such a spiteful hatred for Helen Clark, which he repeats ad nauseam at every opportunity, this legislation, the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill, would not be necessary. We would not be taking up Parliament’s time with it at the moment, because the reality is that when Labour left office this park was ready to go.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: No, it wasn’t.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Everything was ready—everything was ready—and that member, because of his petty, spiteful, nasty, bitchy little hatred of Helen Clark, could not stand the idea that this project would proceed as planned. So what did he do? Never mind our proud traditions of bipartisanship around commemorating our fallen, and never mind the need to expedite the commemoration of Gallipoli; that member stopped the project in its tracks.

That is why we are here tonight having to pass special legislation in its first reading—legislation that on its face is objectionable because it suspends the Resource Management Act and it suspends the planning process. It is now a matter where Grant Robertson and Annette King have had to go to Gerry Brownlee—not to that worthless Minister Chris Finlayson, because that Minister would not have any power or authority to grant these guarantees—and Gerry Brownlee, very properly, in the spirit of bipartisanship, has said: “Yes. This isn’t an ideal situation. We will grant you some concessions around process to make sure that our suspension of the ordinary rules”—our suspension of the ordinary rules, forced on us by the spiteful Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, who just cannot stand the idea of Helen Clark having credit for anything—“actually proceeds.”

That is the position we are in tonight. The position that we on this side of the House are in is that we are having to support this legislation, because we are patriots. We do want to see this park completed in good order and in time for the Gallipoli commemorations. We do not like the fact that it has to be forced through this House without Resource Management Act approvals, without the ordinary processes that would normally apply to it, and that would have applied had the Minister sponsoring this bill not allowed his spite to interfere with his judgment—his hatred of the idea of Helen Clark having a legacy—and introduced this legislation, as he has done years late, in order to expedite this project. That is the problem that we face tonight.

Contrary to what the earlier speaker said, we are hardly giving this legislation accolades. We are saying, well, we are where we are. The anniversary is important, it is a couple of years away. This job should have been completed by now, but, because of the incompetence of the Minister, we are where we are and we are having to contemplate special empowering legislation in the great Muldoonist traditions of the National Party in order to get this legislation through. That is the political reality.

Let me talk about the concessions that our deputy leader and our former deputy leader have negotiated, as I understand it, with the Minister of Transport. First of all, there is going to be a review panel. That will be established in the legislation and its role will be widened to include oversight of the consents that are granted. Given the range of the consents and the overriding of the appeal rights that would normally exist, we think it will give some measure of public confidence to the process if the review panel has this role. The review panel will report on a regular basis to a select committee—perhaps the Regulations Review Committee or another committee—so that there is proper parliamentary oversight. And there will be prior consultation procedures with interested stakeholders before Orders in Council are proposed. We also would like to see a role in law for the community forum, which is proposed, so that it is required to be consulted on the final design of the park.

This is not an ideal situation. We will be proud to see the memorial erected. It should have been in place by now, and it would be had the events that I have described not transpired. But, as I say, we are where we are. With the guarantees as to process that Labour has negotiated, we will be supporting this legislation to select committee, and we hope that those guarantees will survive.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Green Party on this National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. I want to start by reiterating the Green Party’s, and, indeed, I am sure, all members’, profound sorrow at the loss of five of our soldiers in Afghanistan in recent weeks. This tragic loss, I think, really throws the issue of how best to commemorate and how best to memorialise war and our soldiers lost in armed conflict into a sharp and very tragic relief at this particular time.

In that context I, first, want to emphasise that the Green Party is fully in support of having a National War Memorial Park. I think that other members have commented on the renewed interest in recent years in the commemoration of our military history, and, in particular, the increased interest from young people in Anzac Day celebrations. We support the creation of this park to allow greater space for that reflection and that commemoration to take place, particularly to reflect on that tragic loss of life, both historically and more recently; to consider and question the role of war and armed conflict; and to think about how best to promote peace. National war memorials, like the park proposed in this bill, can help us to do that and to do that thinking as a nation, and that is very important.

It is important to do this in time to mark the centenary of Gallipoli in 2015, which is, clearly, a very significant anniversary. It also has the benefit of creating some vital public space in our capital city and for our national enjoyment. However, we cannot, and do not, support the extraordinary powers sought by the Government in this bill—the power to grant rights and consents by Order in Council without recourse to Parliament and the power to override the Resource Management Act, the Historic Places Act, and the Public Works Work—and the truncated select committee process that has been proposed for this bill. There is an absurdly short period of 3 weeks for the committee to report back to the House.

I heard an earlier speaker—David Bennett, I believe it was—refer to the sacrifice that has been made by our soldiers over history for the rights and freedoms that we enjoy here in this House today. I say to the House that one of those rights and freedoms is democracy and responsible Government. We do not honour those rights and freedoms that our soldiers fought for by brushing the law aside in order to build a war memorial, which could have been done in a timely fashion had it not been prevaricated on and cancelled by the current Government. It could have been built on time, with due process, and probably less cost if the Government had not cancelled funding for the project in 2009. The reason we are here today, looking at this extraordinary legislation in an extraordinarily short time frame, is that prevarication. There would have been no need for this legislation, as the previous speaker has pointed out, and the bill could have proceeded with the cross-party support that it deserves.

What this bill does is continue a pattern of behaviour from this Government in giving itself extraordinary powers to override the law when it is inconvenient. We have seen it with the dismissal of the Environment Canterbury councillors, we have seen it with the creation of Orders in Council in relation to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in Christchurch, and we have seen it with the Auckland super-city. This bill is just another example of this Government pushing the law to one side when it is deemed politically convenient to do so.

I want to address some of the comments made by Phil Twyford, an earlier speaker, because I was actually quite surprised to hear from him some pretty dismissive comments about due process. He said that the Resource Management Act is just a piece of paper. He said that it is not our constitution; it is just a piece of paper. He said that it is not like we are ramming through some outstanding landscape. That is what Phil Twyford said. I wonder whether Charles Chauvel heard that speech, because I agree with Charles Chauvel in his previous contribution, just now, that elements of this bill are very objectionable from a process perspective. If the Labour Party really does think that we can put them to one side in such an easy manner, then I find that quite concerning.

The Green Party will look to engage constructively and to improve this bill in the select committee. I am pleased to hear from Labour members some of the likely concessions that they have negotiated. Those are the kinds of things that may make it more palatable. Our support at this stage is open. We are voting against this bill at its first reading at the moment only, because we have such profound concerns with the process. Thank you.

“At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” I think that is the context in which we debate this National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. Although I will turn some attention to the comments from the Opposition, I think it is important to remind a previous speaker, Mr Chauvel, that—not that I am a military man myself—a frontal attack on to an entrenched position using words like “spiteful” and “hate” is actually fraught with danger, and you will get shot to pieces, if not by me necessarily.

This is an incredibly important bill. Every bill that comes before this House is important, and every bill by its nature is democratic, as it is debated and discussed. As I begin, I do want to take umbrage with the previous speaker, Holly Walker, and others from the Green Party, in particular, who have talked about this bill as being anti-democratic and not following process and so forth. I sort of think, ipso facto, the fact that we are standing here in this House, progressing a piece of legislation through its stages, debating and discussing, is, by its nature, democratic.

But, you see, the Greens betrayed themselves when they made an earlier comment that “We are willing to work with anyone.” Yes, they are—so long as everyone agrees with them. I might need to remind the Greens that that is not democracy. Democracy is about difference and debate and coming to a consensus. It is, if I may use the words of Phil Twyford, sanctimonious to stand and lecture people that consensus means accepting only a particular viewpoint. I think it is also most unfortunate that people like me and others have had to react tonight to this debate, in what has been a really important discussion on a war memorial to honour our war dead.

I think it is important, too, to acknowledge what generally has been a very positive debate. I do want to acknowledge previous speakers, including from the Greens, who have uttered some very positive words, but particularly speakers from Labour, from New Zealand First—even if they might get their colleague’s name wrong occasionally, and I myself will probably fall into that trap now. There were some really positive statements here.

It is important that we remember. Remembrance is an important element of our human nature, an important part, because to remember is an attempt to not repeat the mistakes. We stand in a House of memory here. Different speakers have talked about the plaques that are on the wall and have acknowledged, too, the tragedies of the five deaths in recent weeks. Memory of these events is important. So, as we turn now to the National War Memorial, the Carillon, and the development of the park, it is important that we can create a space that enables us as Kiwis, as we approach 100 years since 1915, to remember. But remembering is not just an action of the past but an action now, of the current. We have men and women serving overseas—fine men and women with families—who are there serving us and continuing to serve. So it is really important, as we debate this bill, and as we remember in 2015, when this national park is opened, that we acknowledge not only those who have served us in the past but those who continue to serve us now.

There has been some discussion that there is not enough due process. I think it is important quickly to turn to the first words of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, about the array of discussions that have been had—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Over 4 years.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Over 4 years, the Minister reminds me; over 4 years of discussions with parties across the country, here in Wellington. It is vitally important to put that in context, because this bill is not an affront to the Resource Management Act. This is not an affront to previous legislation. This is an opportunity to take those discussions, to move the bill speedily through, so that we can rightly—rightly—celebrate in 2015.

I think it is important, too, to note that the role of the Governor-General—and I say this as someone who is quite interested in things constitutional—is actually incredibly important and an essential part of New Zealand’s constitutional and democratic structure. Orders in Council are not unusual, and I think it is difficult to start scaremongering around that point. I just want to highlight that.

But I want to return to the importance of the national memorial. In 2015 we will remember that 100 years ago Kiwis and Australians landed on the shores of Gallipoli, and that they gave their lives. The very least we can do here tonight is to move this bill through, simply, gently, and kindly—

Scott Simpson: With dignity.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —with dignity, and in a way that was not accorded—[Interruption]; as we are now hearing from the Opposition—to our men who landed on those shores. In 2015 we will remember them, and tonight we begin that process. Again, it is lamentable that in doing so we have, I think, brought some dishonour amongst them. But I hope that, on finishing this speech tonight, we return some honour to those men, to those fallen, and that all of us here in this House will unite to celebrate in 2015 the building of this national park.

I move, That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report the bill to the House on or before 18 September 2012, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 188 and 191(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.