Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill

I move, That the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill be now read a first time. When I first came to Parliament 12 years ago, the first speech I ever gave in this House was on the sale of the Government computing organisation, or department. In those days we had to give 10-minute speeches, and I found that first speech particularly difficult for a number of reasons. Firstly, I did not know that the Government had a computing organisation. Secondly, I was utterly indifferent as to whether it sold it or raffled it, given my lack of knowledge about it. Thirdly, in those days we were not allowed to have any notes before us in Parliament when we spoke to legislation. So my first 10-minute speech was a very difficult and nerve-racking time.

It is almost singularly appropriate that my final speech in this House as I leave Parliament should be on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill, because, once again, my speech is on a bill that is not a simple one on which to speak for 10 minutes. However, it is also appropriate that the bill is a local bill from the one part of my electorate that has been in my electorate for the entire 12 years I have been in Parliament. So it is with great pleasure that I recommend this extremely non-controversial legislation to the entire Parliament.

The bill is designed to validate the uses of a park in Gisborne called the Alfred Cox Park. The uses of the park currently are contrary not only to the Reserves Act but also to the terms of the deed of trust under which the park was gifted to the Borough of Gisborne in 1944. This particular reserve cannot be used for buildings that are used for commercial or private use. Unfortunately, the Gisborne District Council has its information centre on the land. As we know, the information centre is now run by Tourism Eastland, which is a private organisation and is outside the local authority—and I know that that concerns Mr Williamson hugely! But we now need to ensure that we do not have to move the building or remove the function of the organisation from the building as a result of the private nature of the business carried on there.

In 1992 the visitor information centre was erected on the land. Prior to 1990 part of the land was also used as the site of a flea market. That flea market is now a biweekly event. It is well attended. People in Gisborne look forward to it and farmers bring their produce to the market, but it is run privately. Although most members in this House, including myself, have a natural aversion to the endorsement of retrospective legislation, the Gisborne community, in this instance, is faced with no other option. The information centre is too substantial and too solid a building to be considered for relocation, besides which Alfred Cox Park is a central location and the stop-off point for many of the tourism operators who come in and out of Gisborne and for the tour company buses. There is no alternative site on which Gisborne can carry out these activities. Therefore, it is my recommendation to the House that parties support this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

First of all, I thank my whips for having allocated me this wonderful slot and also this incredibly important local bill. The reason I like the slot so much is that as we head towards 5 o’clock I get the chance to communicate with my adoring drive-time audience in Auckland, and when I come back to the House later in the evening to speak on a couple of other bills at around 9.30 p.m. to 10 p.m., that same drive-time audience will still be in their cars and able to pick up on the second half of my speech.

However, I do not think that members should let a bill that is as trivial as Janet Mackey tries to portray this one to be to go through the House without some scrutiny. I think questions need to be asked. The first one, of course, is the retrospectivity of it. I do not feel comfortable about that. Janet Mackey made it quite clear that we will be validating some illegal practices that have been going on for some time. How comfortable are members of this House with that? How comfortable would they feel about coming in here one day with a bill about people who have been doing P, and saying: “This will make what they have been doing all right.”? We would feel absolute abhorrence at that. Yet, in Gisborne—and I feel well qualified to talk on this subject, because I have been to Gisborne recently, just for a day—this Alfred Cox Park is being used for doing illegal things, and there are two of them. That is the other thing that got me about this bill. It is trying to fix up not one illegality but two.

I thought that this was something where the Internet can play its part. That was the first thing that came to my mind; most people would not have thought of that. I went on to the Internet, got the search engines cranked up, and found some stuff that I think the House will find important as background material for this legislation.

The site states: “Alfred Cox Park was included in a parcel of land donated to the Gisborne Borough Council in 1944 by its namesake”—I presume that means by Alfred Cox rather than by the Gisborne Borough Council—“and member of the 30,000 Club Alfred Cox.” Janet Mackey is the local member. She must be able to tell us what that is. What is the 30,000 Club Alfred Cox? We are being railroaded with legislation where the member who is taking the bill through does not know some of the substance.

“It is worth a ramble of its own.”, the Internet site states, “If it’s autumn when you go, look out for the bountiful olive trees. The fleamarket held at the park every each Saturday morning should not be missed.” What does that mean? Janet Mackey said it was held biweekly. Does that mean twice a week, or does it mean every 2 weeks? It says here that it is held every each Saturday morning. Maybe that is just the way people in Gisborne speak. It says it should not be missed. I hope that the select committee, when considering this bill, will trundle off to Gisborne on one of the every each Saturdays when it is on to look at it.

“Not only are all types of produce available but the colourful atmosphere truly reflects the district’s cosmopolitan population.” This is getting really rich. This is where one sees a public relations officer in a small town like Gisborne trying to persuade the district’s cosmopolitan population. I would say that people from south Auckland, Otāhuhu, or Papatoetoe, where you come from, Mr Assistant Speaker, could quite fairly claim that their part of New Zealand is very cosmopolitan. But I do not think it is a fair label to be putting on the Alfred Cox Park.

The site states that Alfred Cox Park is off Grey Street, so it is not sounding a very colourful place to start with. Behind the visitor information centre office there is a mini-golf course, a BMX track, and a Canadian totem pole—maybe I was wrong about some of the cosmopolitan stuff—and early every Saturday morning there is the local flea market. So here is contradictory evidence already about how often the flea market occurs, and I do not think the House can afford to be misled by that.

There was something written by a lady called Lisa Mills. I thought it was a great article. I know Janet Mackey will know Lisa Mills from the Gisborne Herald. Janet Mackey said this bill was non-controversial. Here is the opening sentence in the Gisborne Herald: “Controversy over whether the operation of the fleamarket at Alfred Cox Park is legal may soon be at an end.” So, clearly, controversy was involved.

When Janet Mackey hears the end of this article—when House hears the end of this article—we will know that there is more than one view about how this problem should have been solved. It is quite the opposite of what was portrayed as being a lay down misère easy solution.

“The issue was raised by Kathy Sheldrake”—again, I see the member for East Coast nodding her head; she knows who Kathy is—“at yesterday’s Gisborne District Council’s community development committee when she asked for an update on the situation. In May, the committee was told a legal challenge had stymied a bid”—we were not told about this—“to legalise the fleamarket’s operation at the park.” So it sounded like it was all sweetness and light and everyone was behind it but, clearly, people in Gisborne whom we have not heard about were taking a legal challenge to stymie what one would only call bulldozer-type legislation that was driving over the top of people’s rights. The legislation was taking things that had been going on illegally in that park for years—and I am sure that a lot of illegal things go on in the park—and suddenly making them legal.

Why do we not add to the list? Can we just not amend it and put a few other illegalities in there? I am sure that a couple of members from the Greens will want to put a few things that go on in the park on to the list of activities that will now be validated by this legislation.

💬 Phil Heatley: Cycle tracks.

That was not what I was thinking of. The member has such a clean mind that it is disgusting.

The article continued: “The council had promoted a ‘local bill’ to be presented to Parliament in April 2003”—what has Ms Mackey been doing? We are now in July 2005, which is over 2 years later, before we have seen the bill get here—“after it was discovered that the Gisborne Visitor Information Centre and the fleamarket were operating in contravention of the Reserves Act. Their operation was also seen to be contrary to the deed of trust, set up when the land was gifted.” Well, that is the first question that we should all be asking. What do we think Alfred Cox would think of that?

💬 Shane Ardern: Not much.

He may not. He may have said that he did not want people riding roughshod over his wishes and that he would gift the land, but if people were to run private enterprise and making-money types of things, they could do them elsewhere.

Mr Cox may have been a sort of hard-line lefty from the Alliance end of the political spectrum who did not like private sector enterprise, capitalists, or anything, or he may have been a good free-market right-winger who would have said he did not care and that there could be 12 flea markets in his park—I do not know. We have not been told that by the member for East Coast. There has not been a mutter, not a murmur, and not a word about what Alfred Cox said in the gift deed back in 1944. [Interruption] The war was still going.

Again, the Gisborne Herald—and I am sorry to be losing a number of my devout audience because of the importance of this speech—has stated quite clearly: “The local bill was seen as a way of rectifying the situation, ‘righting the wrong’ by way of legislation. However, Tourism Eastland did not agree.” Janet Mackey was talking about how Tourism Eastland was happy with this. Tourism Eastland did not agree with that.

“At yesterday’s meeting, Ron Atkinson said Grey Power”—I do not know how Grey Power comes into it; I love local newspaper stories that run along about some piece of land and about whether the legislation works, when suddenly there is a mention of Grey Power—“had been looking at the matter for some time and had been given a copy of the private member’s bill. But nothing had ever happened in Wellington, he said.” Now, that is typical of Janet Mackey. If one wants to know about the Labour Party members in this House, they had been given a copy of the bill back in April 2003, and “nothing had ever happened to it in Wellington”, Ron Atkinson said.

The article continues: “Chief executive Bob Elliott said there was some dispute over whether or not it was needed.” Again, Ms Mackey should give an answer to the House. She should stop chatting to Ken Shirley about his stuff and answer that one. Mr Atkinson—whoever he is—asked the council whether it was even necessary to pass this bill.

💬 Hon Member: They come around to get a better view.

They have come to get a better view—that is great; my crowd is still here.

I would hope, for the sake of Janet Mackey and others, that we are not wasting valuable time in this House reading out things that are not of that much value, when it turns out that a chief executive does not think there is a need for this legislation.

I am happy to say that, with regard to the National Party, I do not know quite why we came to the conclusion that we came to. But I understand from Mr Ardern that we are going to support the bill. However, I still think that Janet Mackey needs to come up with some of those answers in her right of reply. What would Alfred Cox actually think about this park and the fact that we now are validating the illegal activities that go on there?

The article then states: “Surely legal advice would have said if we needed it. Corporate affairs manager Douglas Brit”—

💬 Janet Mackey: Douglas Burt.

Yes, the member is dead right. I have the wrong person. I apologise.

All I can say is that I think Tourism Eastland had some concerns. The member has not told us why those concerns are not valid. I am happy to vote for this bill, but I am telling members that I will lose sleep for some time over it.

I am very pleased to take a call on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. The contribution from the previous member lacks all regard for the Gisborne District Council, and, obviously, its mayor and councillors, who have brought this matter to their local member, Janet Mackey, to bring to the House in the form of this bill. I might add that as the local member, Janet Mackey has taken the responsibility, as the local member should, of bringing this before the House.

The bill outlines the fact that there is great support from the public for leaving in place the information centre that is in question, rather than relocating it because of matters that have confined under the Reserves Act the use of this piece of land, which was donated by Alfred Cox to the good people of the Gisborne area. This is the kind of thing whereby politicians should listen to what local people desire, aspire, and wish to have in their communities, and it seems to be desirous that this particular information centre, in this particular matter, is left where it is. It seems sensible and it seems something that is wanted by the people of this area, and who are we in this House to deny that?

It is likely that the Local Government and Environment Committee, upon the success of this first reading, may be sent the bill for its consideration. I would like to highlight one of the stark contrasts between a Labour-led Government and a National-led Government. In fact, the member who resumed his seat before I was kindly given the call was a former Minister of Local Government. I have to say that his tenure was brief. There were about four or five Ministers of Local Government in his time in that particular term, and that showed just how much—or how little—regard that that particular National Government ever had for local government. In fact, great contempt comes to mind at the thought of how that party regards local government. As a former mayor and civic leader of a district—a little further away from Gisborne, I must admit, but, nevertheless, on the East Coast—I valued the input and the desires of our local communities, and me and my council listened and, for the most part, delivered, just like this Labour-led Government delivers. I would have to say that the local member, Janet Mackey, a Labour MP, is delivering on behalf of the Gisborne District Council in this particular matter.

So in supporting this bill I would say, “Good on Gisborne.” Good on the people of Gisborne for deciding to make a decision for themselves, but they do need the assistance of Parliament in this particular matter because of the Reserves Act and the discrepancies between the contradictions that have been raised in here about what can and cannot or should or should not be cited on this particular piece of land, which was probably part of the deed that Mr Cox probably arranged at the time of the gifting of that land to the area.

In conclusion, the whole House should be supportive of this local bill, and should congratulate its local member and, of course, the Gisborne District Council on making its best efforts to provide this House with the relevant information and with something that is very simple and clear. I think it was a cheap shot from the previous member to make light of and to diminish the concern that that community has over this bill.

As my fellow MP Maurice Williamson said, we do not want to waste too much time on this matter. But having listened to his rhetoric, I think he said a lot more words than he should have, and actually supported the bill. Also, I take up a point that Maurice said—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use another member’s full name or his or her title.

Sorry, the Hon Maurice Williamson. His party gave him the job of conducting the debate on this bill. Jim Peters has bestowed that difficult task on me.

I am quite happy to say that New Zealand First will be supporting the bill. It is a common-sense bill, no different from the Montfort Trimble bill that was put through by my colleague Georgina Beyer for the Masterton District Council and that New Zealand First supported, for the right reasons. This bill points in the same direction: the council needs a change in the law to make available the land for alternative uses. I ask Janet Mackey—that is, if she is listening—whether the National Party holds a stall at the mini-market day.

💬 Janet Mackey: No members.

That is OK. I just wanted to clarify that point, because the Hon Maurice Williamson raised the point that these people should not be there. The world has changed. It is no different in Masterton. There are areas where land has been put aside for reserves but are now being used for different things.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Does that make it right?

The Hon Maurice Williamson is calling out. He has agreed about this and National is supporting the bill, so I really do not want to refer back to that point. Some members have some difficulty with it, and that is no different from the Montfort Trimble bill. Some people opposed that bill, but for their own reasons and not from the point of view of the community as a whole.

This bill needs to be supported for the reasons I have already mentioned, because a large number of people are using these reserve areas for different things. I know the information centre at Tourism Eastland. I know it very well from when it was first set up. It plays a vital role in the East Coast. The East Coast is the part of the country that sees the sun first. [Interruption] There we go! National members are talking about themselves. There is an old saying around Anzac Day: “Lest we forget.” Those members have forgotten what they have done in the past.

All I want to say is that New Zealand First will support this bill, and we wish the council all the best in its endeavours to make sure the land is used for the community for the right reasons.

Likewise, the ACT party will be supporting this bill. I do not intend to speak for long. There are some very key bills to get to tonight, and I would hate to think the two main parties were filibustering in an attempt to avoid getting to them.

But I ask why this Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill should even come to the Parliament. That is the real question. Time is being wasted here. It is a very small matter, a very local matter. In fact, the deed of trust states that only buildings for the entertainment, convenience, or amusement of the public can be erected. Well, if an information centre is not for the convenience of the public, what is? I agree with the executive of the council who actually said that the bill does not need to come to Parliament, anyway. Other than that, he referred it here nevertheless.

Let us not waste any more time. Everyone who has spoken supports the bill. No more long-winded speeches are necessary. Let us get on to the real business that we have on the Order Paper later on this evening. Let us pass this bill and get it out of the way.

The Green Party will be supporting this bill, too. After all the excitement generated around this bill and Alfred Cox Park, I hope that members will try to visit the park when they visit Gisborne, because I am informed by the Green members in Gisborne—and I convey this information particularly to the National members—that the flea market, whether it is weekly, biweekly, twice weekly, or whenever it is held, sells the best organic produce in Gisborne. So it is a very good source of that product. Alfred Cox Park is the centre of a lot of the cultural life of Gisborne. It may even have one or two cosmopolitan events, but a lot of social events and a lot of organisations use its facilities. Alfred Cox Park is a central part of the culture of Gisborne. It is very good that everything will be square, in legal terms, after we pass this bill.

I do pay tribute to Janet Mackey, as she did indicate this will be her second-to-last speech in Parliament. We do wait for her valedictory, but it is good that she has been able to bring this bill from the Gisborne people to Parliament as one of her last acts. She has done sterling work, from the local level at Gisborne through to her work on the Inter-Parliamentary Union too. I pay tribute to her for taking the time and effort to perform on the international stage.

I would like to indicate that Gisborne will probably be increasing its representation in the next Parliament, because we have at No. 9 on the Green Party list Catherine Delahunty. She may get in on the list, as we have nine MPs already, so we need only to hold our present position in order for her to get in. Catherine Delahunty will either come in that way or as the new MP for Gisborne. But who knows how that will go? I see that Moana Mackey is looking at me a bit strangely on that question. As long as Catherine comes into Parliament—and I am sure she will do so on the list, with the support of people throughout New Zealand—that will be of great assistance to the people of Gisborne. I am sure that Maurice Williamson will be very pleased about that and very pleased when he visits Alfred Cox Park.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All the speaking slots have been used on this first reading of a local bill. However, members are free to seek the leave of the House, if they want to speak.

I seek leave first of all, as a candidate in that electorate and someone with an interest in Gisborne, to have a chance to represent United Future on this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to do that, and United Future has not had a call on this bill.

I seek leave for Moana Mackey, a list MP from the region, to be given the opportunity to make a 5-minute contribution.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member herself has to ask. Is the member seeking leaving?

💬 Moana Mackey: Yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is two members. I point out that we have not actually used the total time for this debate, because members have not taken their full time.

I also seek leave to make a speech, as one of the National members of Parliament who have been out door-knocking in the Gisborne area with Anne Tolley, who has told me all about this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Three members wish to speak. I will put the seeking of leave for all three at once. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. I call on the honourable member Janet Mackey in reply.

In replying to this debate, I will be moving that this Gisborne District Council bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I thank all members for their contributions, intelligent and otherwise, to this debate. This is, as Mr Shirley says, a small but irritating matter in Gisborne. It does need to be resolved by legislation, and to that end the council has put forward this bill. I would just respond to Mr Williamson’s concern about what I have been doing with this bill, since the matter was first raised. I can advise him that the process for dealing with local bills was changed. The bill was returned to the Gisborne District Council by the Clerk’s Office. The council had to reformat and rejig a number of aspects of the bill before it brought it back. The council has duly done that and the bill has probably gone through in record time, because I certainly did not expect to see it introduced to Parliament while I was still a member. I thank all parties for their support for this legislation. I do not think it will be a matter of huge consequence for the select committee to deal with, and I look forward to its passing.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.