Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill

I move, That the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill be now read a second time. This bill validates the uses of Alfred Cox Park, which is a centrally located park in the city of Gisborne that was gifted to the borough of Gisborne in 1944 under a deed of trust. The uses currently are contrary to the Reserves Act 1977. Every Saturday morning a flea market is held in the grounds, and an excellent i-site has been built, at considerable expense, as part of the Gisborne Visitor Information Centre, which is an important part of Gisborne’s tourism.

Alfred Cox Park was classified as a recreation reserve in 1985, but in 1966 the council had allowed the public relations office to be replaced by the visitor information centre that I have just mentioned. Prior to 1990, part of the land was also being used for the flea market. Both of these uses, according to legal opinions obtained by the council and scrutinised by parliamentary counsel, are contrary to the Reserves Act 1977. So the Gisborne District Council is promoting this local bill, which was accepted by the Clerk of the House in June 2005 after several false starts. My predecessor, Janet Mackey MP, promoted the bill originally, and as the newly elected electorate MP I am delighted to continue its progress through this House on behalf of the Gisborne District Council.

I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for the time and effort it put into the scrutiny of this bill, and I thank the officials, who came up with good solutions to some of the legal problems that were raised during the select committee process. The committee received several submissions on the bill. The submission from the council outlined the history of the park and the activities that have taken place. It referred to the establishment of the public relations office and its subsequent replacement with the visitor information centre. The council had consulted with the two current users of the reserve and also with members of the family of Alfred Cox.

Two differing legal opinions were obtained. The solicitors for Tourism Eastland, which operates the visitor information centre, felt that the centre actually met the description in the deed of trust, which refers to “buildings for the entertainment, convenience, or amusement of the public, or other buildings of a civic nature”. I have some sympathy with their view that a visitor information centre that disseminates information widely to the public and displays objects from a museum fits the description in the deed. The council outlined in its submission the considerable efforts it had made—quite unsuccessfully—to relocate the flea market, and referred to the petition to the council from 72 signatories who supported the continued existence of the flea market. That was followed by another petition from local people in the neighbourhood who were concerned about the undesirable effects of the flea market. However, anyone who attends the flea market knows that it is extremely well attended and that many, many Gisborne citizens go there on a regular basis to get fruit and vegetables.

A submission from a Dr Helen Papanui supported the intent of the bill, supported the use of the land by the flea market as a tourism attraction that may fit the terms of the deed of trust and as a meeting place for locals, and agreed that the information centre was important for tourism in the district. Note that it is not information from the museum that is displayed in the centre but Department of Conservation information, perhaps fulfilling the public entertainment criterion. Overall there was support for the two uses of the park, and there was definite support for the desire to ensure that the activities continue in the interests of the residents of Gisborne. The council sought, then, to come within the terms of the law in order to protect the continuation of those two activities in the park.

The select committee made a couple of changes to the bill on advice from officials. Their reasoning was that in order to validate the use of the park by the visitor information centre as well as the flea market, the bill needed to apply to the Reserves Act in general and in whole, not just—as the council had suggested—to the specific part that related just to the flea market. In fact, the Department of Internal Affairs suggested that it was unclear whether the bill as drafted originally would actually validate the presence of the visitor information centre. In addition, the officials suggested a change to clause 5 to allow validated uses to flow through to the provisions dealing with leases and licences in the future, so that the council could continue to lease the land out in accordance with the current activities.

The Gisborne District Council representatives did not agree with those suggestions from the parliamentary officials. They told me that in their opinion the fundamental objective of the amending legislation was to validate use, not to provide a designation, and they felt that our officials were focusing on the designation of the reserve. They also said the officials had failed to appreciate that the action in 1998 of redesignating a part of the recreation reserve as a local purpose reserve was unlawful. Therefore, as an action that is unlawful cannot be deemed to be lawful, the designation did not actually take place. It is all very complicated, and if one is not a lawyer it is very difficult to find one’s way through all this. However, the important thing is that the select committee has followed the advice of its officials, and the Gisborne District Council, whilst telling me it did not necessarily agree with that, felt overall that it wanted the bill to proceed in order to put the validation process in place and to put an end to what has been a rather lengthy process through this House.

I am delighted, as the electorate MP, to stand in the House today and speak on the return of this bill to the House for its second reading. I have to express disappointment. I had hoped to progress this bill right through all stages today and had sought and obtained consent for that from almost all parties in this House. However, because we have to seek leave, we need only one member to disagree. Therefore, knowing that someone was going to disagree, I have not sought that leave from the House. Instead we will see this bill go through the normal processes and take a little bit longer. I say to the Gisborne District Council that the bill is in safe hands in this House and that we will progress the bill through the normal processes of the Committee stage and third reading as quickly as we are able to do so. I commend this bill to the House.

I am very pleased to take a call on behalf of the Government on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill, which of course was introduced by my mother. I thank the member Anne Tolley, who has just taken her seat, for her stewardship of the bill through the House currently. I agree that it is disappointing we cannot get the bill through all stages in the House tonight, and I assure the Gisborne District Council that it was not the Labour Party that had any opposition to that.

The bill has been a very long time coming around, and the reasons for that are many and varied. The council worked very hard on getting its bill prepared. When it had finally managed to get it completed it brought it to the House and submitted it to the Clerk, but it was told that the rules had changed so it then needed to go back and rewrite the bill. But, here we are!

I thank the select committee for its work on this bill. I know that there was a little bit of consternation within the council that some of the changes made might not be necessary, and that the council felt that validating legislation was not needed to correct the area of reclassification, but from my reading of the situation I believe the select committee has taken good advice, and I am sure the Gisborne District Council and the users of Alfred Cox Park will be well served by this bill.

Alfred Cox Park is a reserve under the Reserves Act of 1977, and it was classified as a recreation reserve in 1985. When the area where the park is now was gifted to the council by Mr Cox, it was stated that only buildings for the entertainment, convenience, and amusement of the public, or other buildings of a civic nature, should be erected on the land. I know that when lawyers become involved, matters become very complicated, but I can assure members that the buildings and the activities carried out on that land are very much of a community nature.

It is true that we have a visitor information centre and that commercial activities are carried out on that site, but those commercial activities are fundamental to the people of Gisborne and to our community. In that respect, I urge members to see that even though there may be some financial transactions involved in shopping at flea markets, playing mini putt, and catching a bus on holidays, those are very much part of the lifestyle of “Gisbornites”, and I ask members to respect that accordingly.

It is very amusing—I used to get the bus to university and back, and I would be picked up and dropped off at Alfred Cox Park, eight to 10 times a year. I never realised that I was aiding and abetting a criminal activity—and doing so repeatedly. I did not know that when my parents took me to play mini golf as a child—with my father hoping I would be the next Tiger Woods, and being inevitably disappointed—that again I was aiding and abetting a criminal activity. I am pleased that Ron Mark’s bill in relation to the age of criminal responsibility was not enacted at that time, because at the age of 10 I could have been facing some long time in a minimum security penitentiary for recidivist offending by carrying out financial transactions against the law. I am just pleased that Mr Mark was not around at that time.

In all seriousness, though, it seems as if this is a trivial bill, but it is not. It goes to the heart of many of the things we do in Gisborne that are important to us. As members know, flea markets in most areas, but especially in provincial areas, are an incredibly important part of our community. We all go down to the flea market and buy our veggies, and we meet people there whom we only ever see at the market. That is important, and no one ever intended that that market would be contrary to the law.

The visitor information centre is also an important part of our community, not just because it brings in tourists and provides economic development in an area that relies very heavily on tourism but also because of many of the other activities that go on there to build up our regional identity in Gisborne and the East Coast. It is impossible to move that information centre, and I doubt very much we would be able to find any land now within the Gisborne district that would be appropriate for an information centre, even if we did decide to make the monumental decision to shift a huge centre like that.

This park has been part of our community for a long time, and part of my life for a long time. I played mini golf there many, many times as a child. I have been to flea markets—the Labour Party has had flea market stalls there for as long as I can remember. I ask members to vote accordingly and to support the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill 2005. Let us hope that we can get the bill through the House in a speedy fashion.

In noting Moana Mackey’s comments about Gisborne, I recall my time living at Te Araroa. At the time Gisborne, which was 100 kilometres away, was the closest place to get a haircut—I had to go down to Gisborne to get my hair cut. I also note that the bill was initially introduced by Janet Mackey and I take the opportunity, if she is listening, to ask whether she has managed to hold on to her sunglasses in the absence of the careful attention of her former New Zealand First colleagues. Janet will know the story behind that one!

New Zealand First’s position is that this bill simply represents a common-sense solution to one of those legal conundrums we get ourselves into from time to time, not because of any malice or ill attention—indeed, in the absence of such—but simply because of the way the statute is expressed, or because of conflicts between different statutes. We find ourselves having to put up statute amendment bills, for example, for the very same reason. This bill seems to me to be a common-sense solution to one of those conundrums.

It is to be noted that the committee, on which I have to note there was no New Zealand First representation, has made some changes to the legislation, as Anne Tolley pointed out. The committee believes that those changes are needed to prevent any confusion regarding the bill’s effects and purposes. The promoter of the bill, the Gisborne District Council, does not consider the changes necessary, but having not been there to listen to the arguments from the law drafters, New Zealand First has confidence in the very good members of this committee and its officials. I personally have confidence in the deputy chairman—his having been a county clerk for, I believe, 18 years in Hokianga, means that he has some understanding of local government.

So New Zealand First will be voting for this bill. We note there were only two submissions, and one oral presentation that lasted 10 minutes. Consideration took only 43 minutes so we do not believe we should be spending huge amounts of valuable House time on this bill, and we wish to express our disappointment that it could not go through all its stages here today. Certainly, the fact that it was not able to do so was not due to any opposition from New Zealand First. New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation.

I will take just a very brief call on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. I acknowledge Anne Tolley for her caretaking of the bill as the local member and, of course, I acknowledge the previous member, Janet Mackey, for her efforts in bringing the bill before the House.

This is one of those bills whereby local communities want to make a local decision, and this local community has done so. Wide support was presented to us from the Gisborne community, as has been outlined by Anne Tolley and my colleague Moana Mackey. On those grounds, the committee took the view of being permissive rather than restrictive in what it wanted to achieve for the Gisborne District Council, and I believe that the bill as it stands at its second reading certainly achieves that.

I have to endorse the disappointment being expressed about the delay in putting this bill through all its stages on this particular members’ day. That is most unfortunate, because it is the kind of thing that makes delays costly in some respects to local people, in more ways than one, and more time-wasting than necessary for something where a local decision has been made. There was a requirement for Parliament also to have a say, which can be irksome in itself but which can also expedite things very quickly. I believe this bill has indicated to the local people that we would really like them to proceed in the way they wish to, regarding Alfred Cox Park and its uses, and some of the amenities the community has become quite attached to.

In conclusion, I wish that this legislation may be speeded further, on the next members’ day, so that it can be expedited very quickly. I support the bill.

Briefly, on behalf of the Green Party, I offer our support also for the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. As always, where local people want something to happen, we are right behind it. We take a particular interest in this bill in relation to the fact that the park is where Gisborne people have their flea market every weekend. We know that the place is a great source of cheap produce and other goods for anybody, but particularly for low-income people. Knowing the socio-economic demographic of much of the Gisborne district, I think it is really important that we are supporting those people’s rights to be able to buy goods locally and more cheaply than they might be able to access elsewhere. It would be somewhat ridiculous if we denied local people the ability to do that.

We are pleased to support this bill. Like others in this House, such as the bill’s sponsor, Anne Tolley, I also wish that we were seeing this bill through its third reading today. It is ridiculous that we are not, because it is a very simple matter. But I am sure it will go through very quickly on the next members’ day.

I rise on behalf of United Future to add our support to the second reading of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill and to commend both the local MPs who have worked to see it pass.

The legislation is not controversial. It reflects what local people want and also, I suspect, what Alfred Cox himself would have wanted. I know very little about Alfred Cox, but he obviously had a great community spirit and wanted to see land set aside for people to enjoy. I think that even though flea markets include commercial transactions, there is a lot more to them than the chance to buy some veggies. Going to a flea market is a social occasion, and I think it still very much reflects the intention of the donor, Mr Cox. I also think the use of the park for the visitor information centre again provides an opportunity to promote recreation in the area. Again, I believe that is very much in keeping with Mr Cox’s intentions.

I do share the disappointment that the bill cannot proceed through all its remaining stages. There seems to be no reason for it not to, so the United Future members share that disappointment. We look forward to another members’ day, and we continue to support this bill.

Quite clearly, the Māori Party seems to be the problem in terms of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill.

Anyone in the know will tell members what is happening at Alfred Cox Park. At the top of the list is the international half-pipe vertical ramp, which will leave any young skateboarder breathless. If one goes down there any day, one is likely to run into young Luka Peta, who is entered in the Guinness Book of Records as the world’s youngest skateboarder, and who can reputedly drop in—skate down—off anything in the park. Early Saturday morning the place is abuzz. The flea market is swarming with all types of produce and people. The vibrant diversity is evident in gourmet delicacies, cosmopolitan cultures, and the very best of organic vegetables. Inside the park is a majestic Canadian totem pole, which was gifted to the people of New Zealand in 1969 by the Canadian Government on the occasion of the bicentenary of the landing of Captain James Cook at the Kaiti Beach in 1769. If it is autumn in the park, it is—as described in promotional material—likely to be resplendent with bountiful olive trees. It is a great place to sit and remember how it was that Alfred Cox—a member of the mysteriously named 30,000 Club—came to donate this land to the Gisborne Borough Council in 1944. The 30,000 Club is apparently the same club that commissioned and gifted the iconic bronze statue Pānia of the Reef—my ancestor—which hit the news for all the wrong reasons late last year.

I enjoyed reading the Hansard transcripts of this bill’s first reading. The Hon Maurice Williamson summed it all up with the innocent question: “What would Alfred Cox actually think about this park and the fact that we now are validating the illegal activities that go on there?”. That is a question I want to explore further, for the illegal activities that are being validated here today extend far beyond the constraints of the Reserves Act 1977 and the deed of trust under which the park was originally gifted.

How could it be that this Parliament would let this bill go as far as this without consultation with, and involvement by, the mana whenua, Rongowhakaata? How could it be that, when Labour MP Janet Mackey spoke at the first reading of this bill, she fudged its significance and dared to label it as non-controversial? Is it non-controversial to take tupuna land from the people under the Public Works Act? Is it non-controversial to presume that Rongowhakaata land was idle land and there would be no great shame in using it as a dumping-ground for the town’s rubbish? Is it non-controversial if council records show that the dumping of rubbish began one morning at 8.30, 90 minutes before the matter was taken to a council meeting to receive the token rubber stamp? Auē te mamae, te pōuri. Kei te heke tonu ngā roimata.

[Alas, the pain and stress. Tears continue to be shed.]

There are many other histories, other stories, other tears yet to be shed about what is happening at Alfred Cox Park. There are memories to be shared of the uses of the Waikanae Stream prior to the creation of the Alfred Cox Park, evidence about the fish life, the bird life, the impact of tidal changes. In the debate at the first reading, Labour member Georgina Beyer congratulated Janet Mackey, saying: “This is the kind of thing whereby politicians should listen to what local people desire, aspire, and wish to have in their communities,”. Those were beautiful words; it is a pity they were not taken seriously. Where are the views of Rongowhakaata, and the submissions from the Rongowhakaata Trust? It is Manfeild Park revisited, which I also spoke about here. I really have to ask why no other party in this House has been seeking the truth about how mana whenua fare in this new bill. Why has it failed to register with the Māori caucus of Labour?

Who has the Minister of Māori Affairs consulted in his own electorate in order to hear the views of the electorate? It may well be that Rongowhakaata can accept the designation of their tupuna land being in the name of Mr Alfred Cox. Indeed, some kōrero that we have heard relays the mamae, the pain, of whānau who do want the pride of their memory to be scarred by association with dumped rubbish, while other members of the whānau want their tribal histories acclaimed, to assert place names of significance within their whakapapa. It is the birthright of Rongowhakaata to hold these debates, to discuss the merits of redesignating place names that hold meaning. As the original landowners, Rongowhakaata have a history and an understanding of this area that predates 1944—prior to the 30,000 Club, and before a minigolf course or a visitor information centre was erected on the site. No doubt it is a history which the borough of Gisborne is not fully familiar with. It is probably also a history which does not feature in the promotional paraphernalia of Tourism Eastland.

The Māori Party would love to be able to know more about this history, and to have our hearts and minds stretched by tales shared with the nation by mana whenua. It is not the concept of visitor information or flea markets that have caused us such consternation. As my colleague Hone Harawira said, flea markets are a fabulous site to hold constituency clinics. Indeed, one of my favourite weekend visits is to drop into the Manurewa flea market. We in the Māori Party want to be with the people and walk with the people, in order to ever represent the people in this place and time. If the local politicians had listened to what the local mana whenua desired, aspired, and wished to have in their communities, then the bills put forward by Janet Mackey and Anne Tolley would have looked vastly different. Until last night, the Rongowhakaata Trust—according to our sources—had not received a written briefing, a paper, a report describing this validation bill. It beggars belief. If I was to trawl further through the Hansard records, no doubt I would be able to locate the Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act of 1893, which Moana Jackson has described as validating the acquisition of all unlawfully acquired Māori land. One hundred and thirteen years later, this bill is another attempt to valid the acquisition of land acquired from Rongowhakaata for purposes other than that which the bill describes.

It is interesting that this week seems to be the week when we are being asked to validate illegal Acts, whether it be the breaching of the Broadcasting Act or the validation of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. The bill is controversial, it is offensive, and it is culturally arrogant. While the totem pole of Canada stands proudly as a feature of Alfred Cox Park, we in the Māori Party are looking for the carved pou of Rongowhakaata, the taonga that distinguishes the mana whenua, the unique treasures that are landmarks of their rohe.

The Māori Party will not support this bill. We ask the House to return to the question originally posed by Mr Williamson, but to consider anew what Rongowhakaata would actually think about this bill and the fact that we now are validating the illegal activities that go on in Alfred Cox Park. We will never know until we ask, and having asked, can we live with the response? The Māori Party would love to support this bill in its third reading, satisfactory discussions having been held, and having been seen to be held, with Rongowhakaata.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just bring it to the Māori Party’s attention that its local candidate in the last election is actually a member of the Gisborne District Council, which is the promoter of this bill.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for that.