Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill

I move, That the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill be now read a first time. We intend to send this bill to the great Local Government and Environment Committee to deliberate on and to hear any submissions that there may be from the public. This bill is brought to the House on behalf of the Hamilton City Council, which approached me as the local member for Hamilton. The bill is in relation to an area of land known as Parana Park. If people have been to Hamilton they will know where Parana Park is. The park is aptly named because it is right on the edge of the Waikato River and is beside Memorial Park, which is where we have our great memorials for fallen soldiers and those who have served this country. It is the centre place for our Anzac Day celebrations and commemorations. It is also a public area and space used along the riverside and is very much part of the community of Hamilton and Hamilton East, so we have great pleasure in presenting this bill to this House today in regard to Parana Park.

I will give members of this House and the public some understanding of the history around Parana Park. Parana Park was gifted to the city by George Parr, who died on 26 February 1929. By his last will he gifted the house situated at 3 River Road to Hamilton City to be used for a children’s convalescent home for patients from the Waikato Hospital. The land surrounding the house was to be used as a children’s playground. In the 1950s it became apparent that the house was most unsuited for such a use and the 1958 Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act was established to give the Hamilton City Council more effective administration and management of the Parana Park area.

It is interesting to look the obituary of Mr George Parr on 26 February 1929 from the Waikato Times. It describes him as an old and highly respected resident of Hamilton, at the age of 60 years—nowadays 60 years would not be old. He was the son of the late Mr John Parr, a former Mayor of Hamilton, and the Parr family had a grocery business on Hood Street in Hamilton. If members have been to Hamilton they will realise that Hood Street is now the nightlife capital of Hamilton, and I imagine the building with Parr Bros on is still there.

George Parr was an active person and took an active interest in public life. He was president of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. He actually advocated for a few issues that are not dissimilar to many issues that are being advocated in Hamilton at the moment: the connection of the Waikato River with Waiuku by means of a canal, and a train service from Kāwhia and Raglan to Hamilton. Those issues are interesting when we look at what is being advocated in the city at the moment. He was a member of the Hamilton licensing branch, and the most telling thing was that he was a very strong Liberal supporter and had a great active interest in politics. He was somebody who was known to be very successful and community-orientated and not to have any enemies in the city.

Unfortunately, Mr Parr never married and had no family that would have taken over the property in normal circumstances, so he gifted it to the city council. When it was vested in the city council in 1958, as I said before, the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act gave Hamilton City Council the ability to effectively administer the park. I will read from a speech on that legislation by the Hon Dame Hilda Ross, who was a member for Hamilton, and a member of the National Party as well—a very fine member. She told us some history of the property. She said: “In 1929 on the death of the late George Parr, his property and his house were left to the Hamilton City Council. In his will he expressed his wish that the property be held as a children’s playground and the house as a convalescent home for children from the hospital. The house has been found most unsuitable for that purpose—”

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is fascinating but I wonder whether there are any limits on the extent to which members are allowed just to read out Hansard. It is unusual to give leave for it to be tabled, but it is in the record and those of us who are well prepared for this bill of course are well up on this.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): In answer to your question, the Hon Mr Mallard, there are no limits. Do I have an opinion as to whether there should be? Yes, I long for the days when members were not able to use prepared notes in the House. However, that is not the case and the member is in order.

It is a very short extract from Hansard from those times, as members can see. I was going to read only a small part of it to the member but I am sure he will be most diligent, and look for it and read it later when he goes back to his office. Essentially, Dame Hilda Ross echoed the thoughts we spoke of earlier about the hospital not finding the land able to be used for the intended purpose, so the council used it as a park. The council found that it could use the property only for rental and it was not used for the specific purpose for which it was intended in the original vesting with the Hamilton City Council.

She noted: “There is a paddling pool and a barbecue, which the Girl Guides use a great deal. An outdoor stage has been built so that people can sit and watch. Trees are planted so that people can look at this attractive part of the city and take advantage of it.” I was reading that out for a purpose in the sense that Hamiltonians use that part of the city for its aesthetic qualities often and many a time. It is appropriate that Hamilton City Council now be able to deliver to the residents the ability to use that land in such a way that they have better control over the property so that it can deliver exactly what the residents want and have wanted for many years in the way they use that property.

So the purpose of this bill is to assist the Hamilton City Council to provide the amenities that Hamiltonians want. Hamiltonians use that land now for those purposes, and through this bill we give the city council the full extent of the powers that they desire so that they can implement and deliver those services to the community. As Dame Hilda Ross said, it is a very pleasant site but brings in no revenue. The city council wants to run the ground and use whatever proceeds there may be as a means of maintaining it. So things have not changed terribly in the last 50 years.

In the end, we are providing this bill to the House on behalf of the city council. The land was gifted by an individual for a children’s convalescent home for patients of the hospital. The land has been used as a playground in the past. In the 1950s it became apparent it was unsuitable, so was vested in the city council through the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act. Parana Park is currently used for recreational purposes, and the Hamilton City Council considers it is appropriate to update and modernise the legislation by which it holds Parana Park, to enable it to more effectively manage and administer the park. The repeal of the 1958 Act will allow Hamilton City Council to do just that and will enable it to carry out any plans for development of that area.

In essence what we are doing here is making the vesting of this land into the Hamilton City Council a reality so that it can use it for the most appropriate community purposes, as it is currently used by the community now, and we recommend this legislation to this House. National supports Hamilton City Council in its desire to maintain this land and Parana Park in a way they can serve the community interests. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is just a slight technical matter. The member referred on occasions to “we” with regard to the intention. I think the Standing Orders indicate that someone has to indicate his or her intention, not his or her party’s intention. I seek leave for the references to “we” in the intention to move the bill to the select committee to be read as “I” in the member’s speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave has been sought. Is there anyone opposed to it?

Mr Assistant Speaker, I seek your guidance on this before we vote on it. Is the motion that the Hon Trevor Mallard moved necessary? Does it make a difference to the process that David Bennett has put here? If it is irrelevant, then I do not think we need to vote on it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I have not done any homework on this particular issue, it being one that has not been raised with me before. My perception is that it will not impact the overall final outcome. It is a technical matter. [Interruption] Yes, well, if the member can direct me to an appropriate Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling. The member has the right to put the leave. I will put the leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Yes, there is objection.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When I moved this bill, I did read “I move that the Hamilton City Council” in that first line. I may have used “we” later in the speech, but the first line, which is the appropriate one, I did say “I”.

Just to correct the member, I agree absolutely at the beginning that he said “I move”. But later on I think instead of saying “It is my intention” or “I intend to move”, the member said “we”. I think it is a requirement of the Standing Orders to give the member introducing the bill’s view or intention clearly, rather than other members’ intentions.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): At the outset the member did say “I intend that this bill goes to”, so he fulfilled that requirement.

No, he didn’t, Mr Assistant Speaker. He said “we”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): At the very initial stage he said “I”. I am informed that that was what he said, and I am prepared to accept that. In any case, the motion that would do that has not yet been passed. If the bill goes through the first reading, then the actual adequacy of the wording would be measured on the motion.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I very respectfully want to disagree with you. It may be that that was what was provided to the member to say. He certainly said “I” at the beginning—I am not disputing that at all. I am disputing that he said “It is my intention” or “I intend to move this bill to a particular select committee.” He did not say that. I specifically listened for it to make sure that it was accurate. He may have been ad libbing and he may have got it slightly wrong. I think the Standing Orders are pretty clear that the member introducing the bill has to give his intention. I am still digging into him as to which one it is. I was trying to be helpful to the member and to get it right, because as a former member for the electorate across the river, and knowing the area relatively well, I would hate to have this upset later on for lack of form. That is why I am trying to get it tidy now.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Originally I did say “I” for that first sentence. In that sentence I said that the bill was going to the Local Government and Environment Committee—that we would be moving it to that committee. I can check that in the Hansard to make sure that it is correct. That may be a solution that we can do.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we just do something for the avoidance of all doubt? I seek leave that if there was an error in the member’s words, that will not affect the motion at the end.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Righto. So if there has been a breach it will not affect the outcome. Leave is sought. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

It is my pleasure to rise to support the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010 at its first reading. I want to say at the outset that Labour will be supporting this bill through to select committee because Labour members will be very interested to hear whether there are any issues with this bill. Currently, it is Labour’s perspective that this bill is not controversial. However, we do not know if there are any descendants—it appears that there may not be. I think the previous speaker, David Bennett, who is sponsoring this bill, let us know that the original owner of the land was not married. However, that is not to say we do not know that there are descendants lurking about somewhere in Hamilton who may want to have something to say about this.

I thank the member David Bennett for bringing forward this bill on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. My only wish is that the member would also agree with the Hamilton City Council over pursuing a train service between Hamilton and Auckland. It would be great to see him support that initiative from the Hamilton City Council, as well as this one. Although this is a useful bill, I do not think it is quite as important to the local population of Hamilton today as the initiative to establish a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland. I take this opportunity to ask him to consider that initiative from the Hamilton City Council.

The member is quite right about the history of Parana Park, but I would have liked to hear a bit more passion about the beauty of Parana Park. It is a stunning part of our city. It is on the east side of the river, right up against the river. I think the important thing about the history of this piece of land is that it is now back in public ownership. Now, everyone in Hamilton and visitors to Hamilton can make use of that very beautiful piece of land. That was not always the case, as it was in private hands during the course of its history. It is really wonderful to see that the Hamilton City Council has the ownership of that land and that it makes the land available to the good people of Hamilton because it is such a special part of our city. It is alongside and adjoins Memorial Park, where so many special occasions such as the Anzac dawn parade and a civic ceremony on Anzac Day occur every year in our city. It hosts two major Anzac ceremonies on Anzac Day every year. It is also a place where many other activities take place. A lot of weddings take place there, many picnics take place there, and I have attended even union protests at Parana Park. So it is a very, very important part of our city. It is open to the public for a whole range of activities, which very important.

The bill that we are addressing ensures that the Hamilton City Council can use the park for all of the many diverse ways in which it is currently used. The original intention of George Parr in his will, when he gifted the park to Hamilton in 1929, was for it to be used as a playground for children, and it is, but with the plan that the house on that land was to be used as a children’s convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital. Clearly, George Parr was a man who loved children, because this was at the forefront of his mind when he gifted this land; he was gifting it to the children of Hamilton. I think that is such a fantastic thing to do. I wonder what he would think if he were alive today about the way the current Government is taking away rights from children, cutting the funding to early childhood education, and doing those sorts of things. I know that this playground is a place where many local early childhood education services take children along to for a bit of a day trip. Those are the very sorts of things that will be under threat because of the cuts to funding that this Government has put in place. It is the field trips and the excursions that many of those centres are looking at cutting out. I think that that would be a great shame, because the playground at Parana Park is a wonderful site for people and young children to visit.

Earlier this year there was a very significant event that took place on that very bank of the Waikato River. Local members of Parliament, local city councillors, and people involved with restoring and keeping Hamilton’s history came together to celebrate the restoration of a gunboat that is pretty important to Hamilton’s history: the PS Rangiriri. It was a very interesting event because we gathered on the opposite bank of the Waikato River to get on board what I would describe as a barge—that is probably even overstating what we were getting on to. It was like a floating platform. We got on, on one side of the river, and motored across the other side of the river to land right by Parana Park. The fascinating thing that happened was we were having rotten peaches thrown at us while we were doing that. Members may ask why that was—and this is a very important part, a very interesting part, of New Zealand history. It was apparently what happened when the PS Rangiriri first trawled up the mighty Waikato River. Local Māori were so concerned—members must remember that this was the period just following the Land Wars—and worried about the presence of that boat on their river that they threw rotten peaches at it, because it was the time of the year when peaches were abundant.

So there we were, earlier this year in 2010, recreating that moment, but without as much grandeur. We were celebrating the restoration of the PS Rangiriri, which now resides, in its restored state, under cover, and not at risk of having the flood plains of the Waikato River causing any more damage to it. Much money from the New Zealand Government and from the Hamilton City Council has been put towards the restoration, but the PS Rangiriri also has all the stories associated with it around it. I think that another important part of Parana Park, and its associated Memorial Park, is that it contains the stories of Hamilton. There are now stories there, which have been written for everyone to go and see, about the people who were involved with the PS Rangiriri and its arrival. I was particularly fascinated by a story of a woman who arrived on the PS Rangiriri, when it first came up the Waikato River. She was a particularly gutsy woman for those days, and she decided she was not going to wait for the captain of the boat to have the opportunity to make land first. She wanted to be the first one, so she threw off her shoes—and goodness’ knows what else—to leap into the waters of the mighty Waikato, run up on to the bank, and be the first person from that boat to land. She would have stepped on to land not too far away from Parana Park.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Was David Bennett there?

No, I do not believe that David Bennett was there at the time; this was many, many years ago. That woman claimed her place in history, and I think that is a jolly fine story to read when visiting Parana Park.

I will not talk too much more about the importance of this piece of land to our city and my support for this bill, but before I came down to speak on the bill I had a quick google of Parana Park. I found a really interesting site with a lovely photo, a beautiful photo, of Parana Park. Unfortunately, the person who had put that up on the Internet had misspelt it as “Pirana” Park, so many of the contributions and comments about that beautiful photo are telling the person to get the spelling right—Parana Park. However, there are many interesting stories that people have added, with their very fond memories of Parana Park. I have to say that supporting this bill has been so popular among Labour members that I had to fight off some of my colleagues to take a call on this bill. So many Labour MPs have very fond memories of this particular piece of land and they will enjoy putting those forward in this debate, as well. I look forward to the select committee process on this bill and to see whether any descendents of George Parr might want to come forward. I wish the select committee all the best in its deliberations.

It gives me great pleasure to take a call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is a wonderful thought that Labour members are lining up to support this Government-sponsored bill, under the excellent name, or certainly with the assistance, of the member for Hamilton East—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this is slightly unusual, but unless something happened when I popped out of the House for 5 minutes, I thought we were on local bills rather than Government bills. I just want to check that we have not somehow slipped down to another piece of legislation.

💬 Todd McClay: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will deal with one point of order—

💬 Todd McClay: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): No. I do not think I need the member’s assistance, thank you. Generally, there is a little bit of flexibility about subject material in first readings, and it is up to the member to make any comparisons, or to draw into the first reading speech the relevance of what he is saying. We will give him the opportunity to do that.

Indeed, the correct thing is that the excellent member for Hamilton East is the sponsor of this bill. It is a local bill—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The Hamilton City Council is the sponsor.

Quite right. But I was so pleased about the fact that Labour members were so keen to line up and support my colleague Mr David Bennett—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, we’re supporting the Hamilton City Council.

—ha, ha!—who is sponsoring this bill.

Let us look at some of the history behind it. We have heard the description of Mr Parr, who died at about the age of 60. In fact, in the explanatory note of the bill I was interested to see that the date of his death was “on or about the 26th day of February 1929 …”, and I understand that David Bennett made note of Mr Parr’s obituary in the paper of the time. What a fine man Mr Parr was, and what a great legacy this is! I also note that he gifted the park to the “Mayor, Councillors, and Burgesses of the Borough of Hamilton …”. Maybe Trevor Mallard could assist us with the “Burgesses”, but I did look up the Oxford Dictionary. A burgess is an inhabitant of a town or borough who has full rights of citizenship. How we all celebrate the fact that we do indeed, in this modern democracy of New Zealand, have full rights of citizenship.

It was excellent that Sue Moroney googled Parana Park. I did too, and I note there were over 10 entries. Certainly, she was quite right about the picture she mentioned. It is an absolutely stunning park, on the banks of the Waikato River, and is an area that has been enjoyed by many people and many children for years. Hopefully, that will be the case for years to come.

The Hamilton City Council certainly supports this bill fully. The bill will update the legislation to allow the council to more effectively manage and administer the park, and enable any plans for development. That is the nub of the issue today. The council is now able to do what it thinks is right and proper for the good people of Hamilton; this is what the bill does. Undoubtedly the legacy behind it is very altruistic, and we certainly hope that the future of this park will be enjoyed by all for many, many centuries to come. Thank you.

I speak in favour of sending the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill to a select committee, to ensure that in the fullness of time those more expert in the history of this property can bring that history out, because I know that that could be a local concern.

I will offer some of my own childhood recollections. We used to live on Boundary Road when I was a child, and often would walk our dog down to Parana Park. It has been rightly said that this is a children’s playground. There were really two places my family went in Hamilton either as children or to take our children. One was Hamilton Lake, which had a walkway around it, and the other was Parana Park. We went to Parana Park mainly, I suspect—for my mother and father in summer—because we were able to swim in the little paddling pool there without too much problem. I have been there recently—just last summer, in fact—with my grandson. We took him there and he enjoyed the area. Sue was right to say that a lot of early childhood centres go there because it is a small and confined space. Children who go to that particular park are probably no older than 8 because of the nature of the small playground. It is a very confined space, and there is a small paddling pool for children to use. I am sure that the benefits of the park as a children’s playground will not be lost. This bill is just about the transfer of the management and future management of the playground.

I will comment on some of the remarks made by members in respect of the history of Parana Park. It is true that there is a post-raupatu history of Parana Park. Indeed, the land would not have been owned by George Parr were it not for the confiscations within Waikato. But Hamilton City is very rich in history and if anyone wants to find out all the different pā sites in the area, there is a well-indexed history at Waikato Museum, to which Ngāti Wairere and Wīremu Puke, in particular, contributed. It was really a means of trying within the city to ensure that those special places in the pre-raupatu history of Hamilton City would be retained. In the fullness of time through the select committee process a case may well be put by Māori community members to have both those historical accounts coexisting within the Parana Park story.

The gift by George Parr later on to ensure that the land would be retained for the city and the benefit of all citizens within Hamilton was a great gift to all members of the community, and it should stay as such. The little house there is a really nice little house, and in summer we see the full beauty of Parana Park. I am concerned, because there is an encroachment to the north of Parana Park. We are seeing more developments along Opōia Road and more apartments being put up. There is council housing in that area. I would hate to see in time Hamilton City Council choose to redesignate special characteristics of that whole area as a result of the changing residential profile of Opōia Road, which is just abutting Parana Park.

The select committee process will be important. It is an opportunity for those who have concerns about the future management and classification of this particular reserve to put their concerns to the select committee so that they can be heard by committee members. Not all Hamilton members will be on that particular select committee, but I am sure anyone who has an interest in Hamilton will know that any reserve around our city would be protected by the citizens there. That is really important. The other important thing about the select committee process is that the Hamilton City Council itself may, in its submission—and I hope that it will—set out its future management for that particular reserve.

I support the bill being referred to a select committee and then coming back to the House. I am not sure whether there will be a number of amendments, but it is an opportunity, perhaps, for the Hamilton City Council to consider its future management. It could have a member on the management committee of reserves in Hamilton. If that is a strong enough wish, it should be put to the select committee.

Lastly, the fondest memory I have of Parana Park was of the first slide that I slid down as a child. Kia ora koutou.

The Green Party joins with all other parties in this House in supporting the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, and in thanking George Parr, 80 years on, for his extraordinary generosity and far-sightedness in gifting this land to, essentially, the people of Hamilton. People have been sharing their memories of this area, and although I am a Wellingtonian I have strong connections with Hamilton. I went to the Hamilton West School for a period of my life, I have many relatives in Hamilton, and I have spent most of my holidays in Hamilton. It is interesting that Hamilton, when I spent my childhood holidays there, had far more open space than it does now. Others have talked about the open space around Hamilton Lake, for example. My relatives happened to live near there, and we spent a lot of our childhood playing in the open space next to Hamilton Lake. Sadly, that is no longer open space; it is now quite densely built suburban housing. As in so many cities, much of the open space that I remember in my childhood in Hamilton is now quite densely built-in with suburban housing. That is why we should be so deeply grateful to visionaries like George Parr, who ensured that there is some land that is not developed, built on, or subject to suburban sprawl; that there is some land in places like Hamilton where people can play.

I was in Christchurch very recently, and what would Christchurch be without Hagley Park—

💬 Grant Robertson: A total wasteland.

Well, indeed, it would be, without the visionaries who gave Hagley Park to Christchurch. It is a shame that Parana Park is not quite as extensive as Hagley Park; however, as others have said, it is incredibly beautiful. In the case of parks like Parana Park and Hagley Park, it is not just that they are wonderful places for recreation; they are also the lungs of the city. In a highly built-up and congested city like Hamilton, it is truly important that we have areas of green space, which are the lungs of the city as well as places for people to recreate.

I was just a little concerned when David Bennett was talking about the Hamilton City Council’s plans to develop this park. It has not been spelt out exactly what is intended in that development, but we will be interested to learn about it in the select committee. However, we are very reassured that it is remaining a recreational reserve and that it will come under the Reserves Act. Therefore we are happy to support it—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I don’t think there’s going to be a parking building there.

—because we are reassured by the Opposition spokesperson on education that parking buildings are not planned for this park. We certainly hope not. In fact, we think that the park is so beautiful that it really does not need development, and that probably the best thing that could happen would be absolutely no development at all. So we are very pleased to support the bill.

There is something interesting about the gentleman George Parr, whom we are all remembering today—and I think it is appropriate that we do that, 80 years on. I hope he was given an honour for doing this, and maybe if he was not, we could give him a retrospective honour, because his gift was very substantial. The interesting thing is that he was a visionary, not only in vesting a park to the people of Hamilton, but also in understanding the need for public transport. He was an advocate for a train from Hamilton right up to Kāwhia. What a visionary, and what a shame that that particular vision of his did not come into place. That reminds me of Sir Dove-Myer Robinson, the great visionary of Auckland, who had the vision of light rail or public transport for Auckland. What a shame that that vision was not implemented but instead was opposed by the developers of the time, as with the plans for a railway from Hamilton to Kāwhia. He also had visions for a canal. Hamilton would have been all the richer if we had implemented those visions as well.

Just over 6 weeks ago a historic bill, the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, was passed. It was the framework for a new era in the relationship between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui. That bill focused on restoring and protecting the health and well-being of the Waikato River for future generations. It is timely now to recall the words of the late Sir Robert Māhuta. He said: “The river belongs to us just as we belong to the river. The Waikato tribe and the river are inseparable. It is a gift left to us by our ancestors and we believe we have a duty to protect that gift for future generations.”

I make reference to that important precedent established by Waikato-Tainui as I believe it is directly relevant to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. To the people of Waikato-Tainui, the river is indeed a taonga tuku iho, the treasured legacy that their tūpuna have entrusted in their care. It is of the utmost relevance to this bill, yet today the local member for Hamilton East, in introducing this bill, spent a long time talking about Mr Parr and his relationship with the land and the park itself. Unfortunately, in bringing this bill into the House, he and the bill failed to even mention Māori, let alone the profound importance that Waikato-Tainui accord to the need to protect, enhance, and restore all waterways. So it was really good to be able to listen to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta talk a little bit about the history of Māori and this area.

Just to be clear: Parana Park is immediately adjacent to the Waikato River in Hamilton. If members have any doubt about the connection, they might talk to Environment Waikato scientist Bill Vant, who has confirmed that as recently as 50 years ago septic tanks at Parana Park were discharged directly into the river. Think about it: that is the place to which Waikato-Tainui would go to swim, to wash, to pray, to be cleansed, and to be healed. Pollution was being directly dumped into that pristine pool. It does not make sense.

We understand that the purpose of this legislation, in vesting Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council, falls within a chain of legislation that should be updated and modernised. This bill is no longer subject to the trusts of the last will and testament of George Parr, a farmer who died back in 1929. It also supersedes the 1958 legislation, which was introduced to ensure the land was protected from inappropriate use, bearing in mind that, up until that time, it had been used for a children’s convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital. That history is important, but equally important is the history and authority of mana whenua, who take seriously their obligations as tangata tiaki to care for their environment.

The recent history is especially important in terms of the role of the Waikato River Authority. The co-governance approach associated with that authority shapes a new era of resource management in which accredited commissioners appointed by Waikato-Tainui, Raukawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Maniapoto, and Te Arawa river iwi will be appointed to Waikato Regional Council hearing committees and boards of inquiry for applications for resource consents. It is a very positive approach, the authority comprising equal numbers of Crown and iwi-appointed members sitting together at the table overseeing the management of the health and well-being of the river. In doing so, the authority gives life to concepts of te mana o te awa, the respect for the tūpuna awa, and mana whakahaere—the exercise of control over access to, and management of, the river and its resources in accordance with tikanga.

In undertaking my research into this bill, I came across a study in which 150 marked farm-reared juveniles of the threatened giant kōkopu were released into streams in the urban Kirikiriroa, Parana Park, and Mangakōtukutuku catchments in Hamilton. Survival of the kōkopu species is of vital interest as an aspect of our environmental protection and management, and reminds us again of the need to care for the health and well-being of the Waikato River, the river that runs directly adjacent to Parana Park.

Other aspects of the history of the land may come up in the select committee’s deliberations, particularly the historic association that Ngāti Wairere have with this area, which is known as Pūtikitiki. There may well be many, many more stories that need to be heard. It is therefore in the interests of the iwi and mana whenua that we support this bill to bring their stories to the fore.

I am pleased to stand in the House, along with other Waikato-based MPs, to speak to the first reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It reminds me of another bill recently before the House, which was also unanimously supported in its first reading. That was the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. It was similar legislation, where, with regard to an asset, further assistance was provided to the local city council so it could better manage the facility.

I first of all acknowledge the very hard-working, local National member for Hamilton East, David Bennett, for bringing this bill before us in the House today. [Interruption] Yes, I could add a number of other descriptions, but I only have 10 minutes, and I do not want to take all of that time in adulation of one of my colleagues.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In view of the fact that there is widespread support for this bill, and it is bipartisan, and as the member did indicate that she would like 10 minutes, I seek leave for her speech to be extended to 10 minutes if she so wishes, without that time being taken from any other member.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will hear the member. Well, actually, the seeking of leave is not a point of order upon which there are additional contributions. I will put the leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Yes, there is.

I will just say that this is obviously a bill that enables the local council to better manage one of its facilities. In this instance, it is Parana Park, and, as many of the speakers before me have mentioned, that park is a wonderful facility located in the middle of Hamilton City, on the edge of the Waikato River. Like many of the members who have spoken before me, I have had many occasions to share that wonderful playground and paddling pool with my children.

I guess that one of the things I will say in response to one of the comments made by a previous speaker is that that park is no longer a dog-walking or exercising facility. That, of course, makes sense. If someone gifts land for the purpose of children’s enjoyment, it does not make sense to use it as a dog-walking area. So that use no longer occurs, because of the work the city council is doing.

It is really important that we enable councils to do their jobs better on behalf of their constituents. In this case, we are enabling the council to manage that particular park better, and allowing the park to be vested in the city council as a recreational reserve. I hope that for many years many generations of Hamilton children, and children across the Waikato, will get to enjoy that park. Thank you.

It is a great pleasure to rise and join colleagues in speaking in support of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Members might be wondering why I, as an Auckland-based MP, am speaking on this bill. I am very happy to answer that question. Why am I? Interestingly enough, Parana Park is somewhere that I have very fond memories of myself—and not for the sorts of reasons that Mr Mallard was referring to earlier, I have to say. I am actually a Waikato girl. I grew up in a place called Ōhaupō, which some members may know. I went to school there and went to secondary school at Melville High School in Hamilton, and, indeed, on to university at the University of Waikato. Of course, that is where I got to spend time at Parana Park, because in fact I lived very close to the park. It is a beautiful park, on the banks of the Waikato, and Hamilton is, of course, blessed to have the river running through the city. It is an important feature of that city. The fact that it is not on the coast is quite unusual for a large city, but it is made up for, of course, by the beauty of the river.

In speaking to this bill, I realised that this is the first time I have spoken on a local bill. As a relatively new member of Parliament, I asked myself, as one does, what local bills were about. I thought I had better make sure I knew what I was talking about, so I went to a very important source, David McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, to check what local bills are about. I understand that local bills came about after the abolition of provincial government in 1876, that they are bills promoted by a local authority—in this case, the Hamilton City Council—and they must be confined in their effects to a particular locality. In this case, that is Parana Park. It was quite interesting to read that, and of course the local authority promotes the bill but has a member of Parliament to present it. In this case it was David Bennett, the National member of Parliament for Hamilton East, with whom I have worked quite closely on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

It was very interesting to hear some of the history that people have spoken about, and I absolutely concur with the point Rahui Katene made: that it is important to recognise all of the history when we are talking about a particular locality. One of the sad things, probably for every member in this House, is that our own schooling—maybe this has changed; I hope so—focused very much on post-colonial history. We learnt a great deal about events that happened in our recent history, and less so about the events before that time. Sometimes these very local histories can be hugely important to people in their understanding of the places where they live and the interaction between, for example, the original residents of the area, the tangata whenua, and more recent arrivals. It has been very interesting to hear some of that history, in the course of this debate.

I turn to my own dealings with Parana Park. I lived near there when I was a student at Waikato University, and Parana Park is a very beautiful place. Quite often, in fact, I would spend time there, enjoying the nice environment there. As Ms Moroney said, we used to have various demonstrations or events there to cover particular political issues. I have spent time at the park in that capacity. While I am talking about my colleague Sue Moroney, I note that she has recently been selected as our candidate for Hamilton West, and I would like to congratulate her on that selection. She is a very powerful advocate for Hamilton. She has lived in the area for a very long time, is closely connected to the city, and does a great deal of good work in Hamilton.

I come back to the purpose of the bill. This bill vests the Parana Park land in the Hamilton City Council as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. This therefore requires the repeal of the existing legislation covering Parana Park, the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. As others have said, Labour supports this bill. It is uncontroversial. It is important that Parliament reflects the interests of our local authorities in this way, and deals with issues like this. Finally, I just want to take the point that Sue Kedgley made.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member does not have a “finally”. Her time has expired.

That is a shame. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak today on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I thank the previous speaker, not only for her kind words about the member of Parliament who has helped to bring the bill before the House but also for reminiscing about her days at Waikato University, many years ago. I was fearful for a moment that she was going to ask the House to be allowed to make a personal explanation, and I am glad that she did not, because we all know what can happen in the heat of the moment when someone is studying very hard at Waikato University.

The local member of Parliament for Hamilton East, David Bennett, is an excellent local MP. He is revered by the local people. I am told that in Hamilton they believe that he is not only intelligent but extremely hard-working, and a real man of the people. It is important that we recognise the generosity of farmers in the Waikato, particularly of dairy farmers.

I was pleased to hear recognition from other speakers of the great generosity of the late George Parr, who gifted this land to the people—indeed, to the children—of Hamilton. David Bennett, the local member of Parliament for Hamilton East, in bringing this bill before the House today, continues the spirit of generosity that the late George Parr set in place. It means that if this bill passes through the House and into law, that piece of wonderful land beside the river in Hamilton will be there for the enjoyment of many, many people—students and otherwise—for many years to come.

I have had only one opportunity to visit this park, and I found it to be quite a beautiful place. I say to Mr Bennett—and I know he has visited my electorate on many occasions—that it is probably not quite as beautiful as most places in the Rotorua electorate, but it is stunning, none the less. It is a pleasure to stand up and support a very hard-working member of Parliament, who has brought a bill before us on behalf of all of the people who support it so very strongly in Hamilton.

My last point is that I notice that the previous speaker said Lynne Moroney was just selected—

💬 Carol Beaumont: Sue.

Sue, is it? Sorry, I was not listening; I should pay much more attention. It was actually someone from the Hamilton electorate who told me her name was “Lynne”, so they are confused there, as well. I wish Ms Moroney the very best of luck. She will need a hell of a lot of luck to beat our great, hard-working MP for that area. I support the bill.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Give us his name.

He is the man who is there, working very hard at the moment. He is a very hard-working member of Parliament.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Can’t remember his name. Doesn’t know who it is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Everybody in this House and in the whole of the Waikato knows Tim Macindoe’s name. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order.

All of my colleagues are very eager to speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill because of all the important issues that are raised within it. I am not sure whether some of those issues have been touched on, and it will be my pleasure to raise them in this debate. First of all, I am sure that Government members would be very pleased that Labour members are so eager to stand in support of this uncontroversial bill. But I contest that some elements of controversy in this bill might not have been touched on yet, and I wish to traverse them very briefly in my contribution.

Members have already outlined that the purpose of the bill is to vest Parana Park land in the Hamilton City Council as a recreational reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, which of course requires the repeal of the existing legislation governing Parana Park, the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. The intent of the bill is to give the Hamilton City Council more flexibility in the way that it deals with Parana Park. But I will set out two areas where I have concerns over the use of the word “flexibility”, given the way that the Government has chosen to treat some of our park areas in recent times. I think members will note that that is a very natural segue into the wider debate we have had on the use of some of our parklands under the new regime of the John Key - led National Government. Nothing appears to be sacred when it comes to parklands.

I would like to set out for the Hamilton City Council that Parana Park—[Interruption] National members may laugh that this would seem absolutely ludicrous, but so did the Auckland City Council when it heard that Great Barrier Island might be mined. That seems like an absolutely ludicrous suggestion on the face of it, yet, still, that is what the National Government has put forward as a serious proposal in quite an extensive document. This suggestion applies not only to Great Barrier Island but also to the Coromandel. We can break that down into an analysis of the areas. Again, National members may laugh that that seems like a hysterical suggestion. Camping grounds in the Coromandel and around the Tairua area are proposed as areas that the National Government considers ripe for mining. It is not such a ludicrous suggestion that Parana Park may be captured by that, once it comes under the new cover of the Reserves Act 1977—not a ludicrous suggestion at all.

I think we should be raising in every debate the fact that nothing is sacred any more, even if it is a protected land area, and even if it is on schedule 4. Even the main protectant that we had for our national parks, for our precious, sacred conservation areas, was up for grabs. In fact, I sometimes question why we even have schedule 4 at all, given that it now seems to be meaningless. That is one point that I wanted to raise.

I find the background to Parana Park in and of itself fascinating. I enjoyed reading some of the history of Parana Park, about the fact that it was donated and that some community groups, such as the Hamilton Beautifying Society, were involved in the development of this space and created paddling pools, open-air theatres, picnic areas, and public conveniences, and the fact that Rotary was involved in developing those amenities, as well. That highlights for me that the Hamilton community takes their public spaces very seriously. My colleague Sue Moroney, who has been selected as the candidate for Hamilton West, knows that well and so do I. I think that Auckland would bode well by keeping in mind the importance of public spaces as the new super-city council comes in to develop some of its public areas.

I will touch on the one final issue that I had when I was reading about Parana Park and its great expanse, and the flexibility issue that the council now has. I would issue a word of caution to Hamilton City Council that the Government is now on the prowl for public spaces to send its Limited Service Volunteers to. Such a mass of young people is now being sent to Limited Service Volunteers that they are being denied access to support if they are unable to find work until they go on compulsory mini - boot camps, courtesy of Mr Key, and those are now being held in park spaces all over the country. Parana Park could be the venue for the next Limited Service Volunteers course, which is no longer a voluntary course.

It has been a pleasure to raise the first reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill in the House today, and it has been a pleasure to hear the many tributes from members about the park, and their memories of it, even though many of the members who have spoken do not live in the city of Hamilton or in its immediate areas. I think that shows just what a small community New Zealand is, but it also shows the importance of such pieces of land to the community and the role they play, and how much people enjoy them. Their benefit is remembered by generations over many years. The late George Parr, the original benefactor, who vested the land in the city council through legislation, would be very proud to know that he has had that influence on many people over many years.

The speeches made by members today raised some important points about the select committee process, and about the questions that would need to be asked during that process. We look forward to hearing them, as the Local Government and Environment Committee no doubt will address those questions when it hears submissions on the bill. The Māori Party raised some interesting issues as well around the wider context of the land and its role within iwi in the area. I am sure that the Hamilton City Council, with its strong relationship with iwi, has considered this already and has spoken with iwi. But I am sure that the select committee process will provide another avenue for that dialogue to occur as well. I do not presume that we will have any difficulty in this area, because the park has been in use for a long time in this manner. I do not expect there to be any issues, but the select committee is the appropriate process to check that off, in order that we can make sure that it is completed to everyone’s satisfaction. We look forward to that part of the select committee process being effective.

Essentially this bill will give the Hamilton City Council the ability to more effectively manage and administer the park. The park has a history with the people of Hamilton, and a history with the people of New Zealand, as an area of enjoyment and of recreation, and as a space where people can be with their families in an environment beside the beautiful Waikato River. People can take advantage of that stunning environment. They can see the river and the city, and see the growth of the city and its downtown environment. There is also a place of remembrance, Memorial Park, which has a very strong history, and an involvement in the culture of Hamilton and the Waikato for past and present servicemen and women.

We look forward to having the support of other members of this House for this legislation. I have great pleasure in promoting this bill, which will enable the Hamilton City Council to more effectively manage and administer the land and area, and enable it to provide those facilities for people in the future.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.