Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill

on behalf of David Bennett (National—Hamilton East): I move, That the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill be now read a second time. It is my great pleasure to open the second reading of this debate on behalf of my colleague, the member for Hamilton East—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am doing this now in the spirit of helpfulness rather than have the member start the speech all over again later on. I think the member meant to say at the beginning “On behalf of my colleague David Bennett, I move,”. Otherwise, of course, he cannot move the motion.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I guess that the member is technically right. Speakers’ ruling 24/3 states “if the member … has the authority …”. Whether that has to be stated is not something I have given consideration to, but it may be helpful if the member just assures the House he has the authority.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I thank the former member for Hamilton West. On behalf of the member for Hamilton East, I move that the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill be now read a second time. The city, and its representation, just gets better and better. It is my great pleasure to open the second reading of this debate. The member for Hamilton East, as has been noted by the former member for Hamilton West, is the sponsor of this bill, and Parana Park is located in his electorate.

I believe we bring this legislation to the House with the full support of the Hamilton City Council and, I think, the citizens of our fast-growing, diverse, and beautiful city. Parana Park is located on the eastern side of the Waikato River in Hamilton, and because that taonga marks the boundary between the electorates of Hamilton East and Hamilton West, it is literally just a stone’s throw from the constituency that I am privileged to represent in this House—or, at least, a stone’s throw for those who have a better throwing arm than I do at the moment.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: They shouldn’t throw stones.

They throw peaches—they actually throw peaches on the river, but that is another story. [Interruption] I did not think this bill would be so controversial. The purpose of this bill is to vest Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council as a recreational reserve, subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. The bill will repeal the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act of 1958, which was passed when Mr Mallard was in his middle age and beginning his first campaign in the electorate. Those of us whose children have grown up in or near Hamilton or who are young enough, as Mr Mallard will be, to have childhood memories of playing in Parana Park will know what a wonderful attraction it is for Hamiltonians. When my children were little, they used to love playing in the park, especially on hot days, when they would run in and out of the shallow pool or push their dolls and buggies while my wife and I enjoyed our walks along the river path that winds through the park. It may sound a little bit sentimental, but these memories linger in the minds of children and are what great family memories are made of. My family has passed many happy hours in Parana Park.

💬 Grant Robertson: Tell us more about that.

I know that Mr Robertson was also pushing his dolls and buggies around in Parana Park many years ago. It was always a pleasure to see him there and we would welcome him back any time.

The area is equally well known now for its civic importance, with poignant war memorials; the cenotaph, which is the focal point of Anzac Day ceremonies; and an attractive park setting that is often used for public gatherings. The most recent of those events, sadly, was a very moving memorial service held last November, when the tragic news that 29 lives had been lost in the Pike River mine disaster became known. That was an occasion that I, and everybody present, will never forget.

Those are just some of the reasons why Parana Park is such a special feature of our city, but it was not always available for its current purpose. The passage of this bill will enable the Hamilton City Council to more effectively manage and administer Parana Park. It will also enable the council to proceed with possible future development plans for the area. The existing empowering Act does not make the area a reserve or provide any special protection for Parana Park. It gives our council the power only to lease the dwelling on the site and to allow other uses for it, because the council is constrained by the provisions prescribed in the last will and testament of a great Hamiltonian, the late George Parr.

The land now known as Parana Park, and its dwelling, was gifted in 1929 by Mr Parr, a farmer and the son of a former mayor of the city, to be used for a children’s convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital. About a quarter of a century later it had become apparent that the house was not suitable for use as a convalescent home, but as Mr Parr had wanted his property to be held as a children’s playground, the decision was made that the council should manage it as a park for the benefit of local citizens and visitors to Hamilton.

The 1958 empowering Act was passed by this House under the guidance of one of our greatest MPs, the late Dame Hilda Ross, to facilitate that outcome. By that time the paddling pool that I mentioned earlier and an outdoor barbecue were in frequent use, and many trees had been planted to enhance the beauty of the riverside setting. More than half a century later the park is as beautiful and as popular as ever.

We are amazingly fortunate in our city not only to have a picturesque and well-used park adjacent to the heart of our city but also to boast what are arguably New Zealand’s finest botanical gardens, within walking distance of Parana Park. I am sure many members of this House have enjoyed visits to the Hamilton Gardens and Parana Park, and if any members have not, I invite them to do so because they are missing a treat. As the annual Hamilton Gardens summer arts festival gets under way, I suggest that now is the ideal time to plan that visit. The varied performances are always of an extraordinarily high standard, and they are greatly enhanced by being held in such a stunning setting. The finale, a sunset symphony performed by the Trust Waikato Symphony Orchestra, attracts thousands of appreciative patrons and is always a world-class crowd pleaser.

It is something of an indulgence to be able to stand in this House and extol the attractions and beauty of the delightful city of Hamilton. I am confident that members of the House will welcome and support this measure, so I close by thanking members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their close consideration of this bill.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: It was a pleasure.

I thank Mr Auchinvole, and Dr Calder—two fine members. The committee has reported the bill back with some minor but worthy amendments recommended, including an amendment to clause 6 to indicate that the reserve be formally known as Parana Park, and to reinforce the fact that the Hamilton City Council be the administering body of the reserve. I thank my colleague David Bennett for his work in sponsoring this bill. On behalf of our mayor, Julie Hardaker, our city councillors, ratepayers, residents, and future generations—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Name them all—name the councillors; run through them.

I could certainly do that. That member would like me to name the councillors; I am happy to do that for him. He would remember many of them well—people such as Peter Bos, Daphne Bell, Marijke Westphal, and Martin Gallagher is one he would remember particularly well. I am delighted to see my predecessor there. There is Gordon Chesterman, who is now the deputy mayor.

💬 Chester Borrows: Chesterton—no relation to—

No, his name is Chesterman—not the great poet, but a great man nevertheless. But I am aware of the fact that the whip is sitting here thinking that perhaps I should—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Name the rest.

Ewan Wilson—I tell Mr Mallard that I will name the rest for him later.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no, this is a test.

I think I have done pretty well there. I thank all those councillors. On behalf of the present and future generations of Hamilton, I thank all members of this House, even the unruly bunch opposite me at the moment, in anticipation of their support for this most important local bill.

It is my pleasure to rise to support the second reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010. I congratulate the member who has just resumed his seat, Tim Macindoe, on correctly anticipating that there will be support from Labour for this bill. I tell the member that that was well-anticipated. It could be the pinnacle of his career—great anticipation. I also congratulate David Bennett, the MP in whose name this bill came forward. It may well be the pinnacle of his career to date to have brought this bill forward and sponsored it. I think the member opposite who spoke before me was correct in saying that David Bennett is the sponsor of this bill. It was drafted, I would think, by the Hamilton City Council and brought forward in David Bennett’s name, so congratulations to David Bennett on doing that.

💬 Chester Borrows: A hardworking MP!

Well, he is getting close to getting legislation through this House, after his 5 years in Parliament; he really is getting somewhere now. I think it was also very gracious of David Bennett to allow his colleague Tim Macindoe to move the second reading of the bill, in his absence. Obviously, it was not quite important enough for him to be here for, but it is important none the less.

Parana Park is a really important asset in our city of Hamilton. It is widely used by all manner of people, in all age groups. It has recently been used to host the city walks, and the Hamilton half-marathon starts in Parana Park. Go By Bike Day was another recent event that started in Parana Park. We can see that the park is hosting all modes of transport, and healthy modes, at that. It is also annually the place where we hold the very important Anzac Day ceremony and commemoration. It hosts many Hamiltonians and people from the broader Waikato. I have certainly been to many other events there. I have been to weddings in Parana Park. One of my favourite events that I have attended in Parana Park was the celebration of May Day.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Was Macindoe at that?

I do not recall Tim Macindoe being there, at the celebration of May Day. May Day is, of course, the day on which we celebrate workers’ rights, right around the world. It is an international day that has been recognised by the local unions, which host a family picnic to commemorate May Day, and to think about how we are doing in this country on the issue of workers’ rights. On 1 May members might be able to imagine, if they have visited Hamilton, Parana Park resplendent in its autumn colours around that time. It would still probably be warm enough to get out and have a picnic, as people have done on May Day, and the park looks absolutely a picture, nestled there beside the Waikato River, and with the autumn leaves. It is quite a stunning environment to be in for such an event.

The history of Parana Park is also incredibly interesting. I think it represents the type of history had by not only much of the Waikato but in fact much of New Zealand. The park sits on land that is raupatu—confiscated land. It is land that was confiscated from Tainui in the 1860s. In that regard, it is quite similar to large tracts of land in the Waikato. So this prime land right beside the Waikato River, which had been used as an entrance and exit spot for transporting goods up and down the river, was confiscated from Tainui in the 1860s. In 1866 it was granted—quite a quaint word when one thinks about it—to a man by the name of William Moule. He was granted not just Parana Park but 400 acres. Part of those 400 acres is the land that has become known now as Parana Park. I say it “has become known now as Parana Park” but, because of the work of the select committee, it will now formally be known as Parana Park. So the legislation will reflect for the first time the name by which Hamiltonians have known this piece of land for decades. I congratulate the select committee on doing that. It may seem like quite a small step.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Isn’t that going over the top?

It is not going to change the course of history. It is not necessarily going to make anyone’s life better, but we have a piece of land that we have traditionally known as Parana Park. It is now going to be formally recognised by that name in statute.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What? That’s outrageous. I think I’m opposed to it now.

I do not think we can oppose it on those grounds, I tell Mr Mallard. Really, not to recognise it by the name it has been known by would not be correct, and I do not think the people whom I represent would be in favour of that. The select committee members used the opportunity to make sure that the name is now recognised in statute, and I thank them for that.

Since the land was granted to William Moule in 1866 it has changed hands twice, which again reminds us about the travesty of justice that occurred during that period of time. The land was taken from its lawful owners, quite unlawfully, in the 1860s and then sold twice—for private profit, I would imagine—before it landed in the very kind hands of George Parr. George Parr gifted this land to Hamilton, so he was a very visionary man. He was in his 60s when he made this decision. I can only imagine the type of man he was. We know he was a farmer. He was a son of a former mayor of Hamilton, so he obviously felt strongly about civic duty. He was very involved in politics; he was involved in the liberal politics of the time. I imagine that although I may differ with George Parr on some of his views on many things, I think there are many things we have in common. For example, it is clear that he had a strong love of children, because the very reason he gifted this land—this very special area—to Hamilton was to make sure that the welfare of children in the city was looked after. He actually left the land to be developed as a playground for children, and he left the building to be developed as a convalescent home for children who were ill. So he clearly valued children and put children at the heart of his thinking. Although I may have differed with him on many other points of view, valuing children is something I strongly believe in, as well.

Another thing I think we may have had in common is that he was a visionary when it came to issues about transport. George Parr was a visionary, and he was a train enthusiast. Even back in those days, and I am talking about the 1920s—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Remember them?

—no, I do not remember them—George Parr was advocating for a train service between Kāwhia, Raglan, and Hamilton.

💬 Phil Twyford: It’s an idea whose time has come.

It is an idea whose time has come, and I wonder what he would think of the fact that one of the debates still raging in Hamilton today is whether we ought to have a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland. I think if George Parr were alive today, he would say: “You’re debating what? Why don’t you just get on and do it?”. That is what I think the practical man in George Parr would have said. I am with him on that, because I am the MP in Hamilton who is advocating for that service to be established, against the wishes of the other local members. I think I know where George Parr would put his vote in that instance.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Hamilton City Council on pursuing this legislation, because they have obviously seen a need to have more flexibility in their use of the land—in particular, wanting to be able to lease the dwelling on that land. I am sure we will see that put to good use in future. Without any further ado, I commend the second reading of this bill to the House.

It is very pleasing to hear the previous speaker, Sue Moroney, being so positive in the whole approach to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill.

This bill vests the area known as Parana Park as a recreation reserve. In the first reading speeches, members mentioned, as have previous speakers today, that the park is also used for Anzac services, and for occasions when the community wishes to put on a particular memorial activity, and indeed it is next to Memorial Park.

Today is a day of great celebration and at the same time a day of great sadness. We have the Australian and New Zealand flags in Parliament flying side by side, but sadly at half mast, in honour of a soldier who lost his life during active service. Parana Park is one of hundreds of places in New Zealand where we remember and revere the memory of those we have lost, and it has a very significant part to play in the life of Hamilton.

Now I come to the bill. I too acknowledge the efforts of David Bennett in bringing this bill forward. I commend his colleague Tim Macindoe, the other member from Hamilton, for bringing the second reading on his behalf. I also thank members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who certainly applied themselves diligently to this bill, as has been my experience during the 5 years I have been here. They have always attended themselves with particular diligence to city council member’s bills.

The Hamilton City Council and other submitters made five submissions in total. One question, in particular, that came up was the official status of the park. Should it be an historic reserve or should it be a recreation reserve? There is special historic significance attached to the park, and that was clearly enunciated by the submissions we received. However, in the council’s view, the recreation reserve is the best fit for the purpose. To quote from the council submission: “…a historic reserve classification may result in unintended consequences which could impact on the continued enjoyment of Parana Park as a children’s playground.” The committee carefully considered the submissions and was satisfied with the recreation reserve classification, none the less it still required the council to recognise and manage its obligations under the Historic Places Act 1993. We concurred with the view that the council put forward.

This is not a controversial bill. It is small but significant. It is significant to the people of Hamilton and it is significant to respect the origins and the purpose of the park. It has been a pleasure to be associated with the bill. I join with the earlier speakers from this side of the House and, indeed, the speaker from the other side of the House in commending this bill to the House for passing. Thank you.

I rise in support of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, which has been taxing the abilities of the Local Government and Environment Committee for some time now. It is a great pleasure for my fellow committee members, I am sure, to see this bill progress to the second reading debate. It is a relatively uncontroversial bill that we are happy to support.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I don’t know!

Well, Mr Mallard questions whether, in fact, it is uncontroversial.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: There was a good report to caucus on this.

Well, I will have to see about that. It has been very pleasurable, if a little soporific, to hear the colleagues from Hamilton recounting good times past at Parana Park. It is clearly a great asset to the city and the citizens of Hamilton, and it is good to see this legislation pass through the House. The bill tidies up the legislative basis for Hamilton City Council’s ownership and administration of the park.

I make a comment about clause 5, which makes the Parana Park land no longer subject to the conditions of the will of the long-deceased George Parr. This is really an empowering provision that greatly simplifies the situation for Hamilton City Council. It repeals the existing legislation and vests the fee simple in Hamilton City Council. So this is really an empowering clause. I think that it is fair to observe that it stands in stark contrast to the general thrust of local government policy under this Government, which is, one would have to say, disempowering of local government and local communities. Over the last couple of years we have seen many, many examples of that.

The tendency of this Government is to take power away from local communities and put it in the hands of its handpicked friends. We saw it in the Auckland super-city where the fundamental thrust of three very big, complex pieces of law passed in this House was to take power away from the elected representatives of the community and vest it in handpicked corporate boards, who in the case of Auckland will be responsible for managing some three-quarters of the city’s assets and resources. We saw it again in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, passed towards the end of last year. That legislation took power away from communities. It took away the right to be consulted on a number of important issues for the community. For instance, services that had been delivered by councils could be contracted out to the private sector—something that many New Zealanders care about. It is an issue that is important to people. That law change took away the right of communities to be consulted. There are many other examples of that.

However, it is worth reflecting that the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, the simple uncontroversial bill we are debating today, makes life easier for Hamilton City Council. The bill gives the elected representatives of the community of Hamilton more power to serve their citizens in managing this important community asset, and that stands in contrast to the general thrust of local government policy under this Government.

Clause 6 states that the council is to hold this land as a recreation reserve and provides that the land will be subject to the Reserves Act, which is incredibly important legislation. It reflects a deeply held conviction by New Zealanders that parkland is somehow special, that it is an asset that we hold in trust for future generations, and that our communities cannot be liveable unless we have adequate recreation land available to people, whether it is sporting reserves, native bush or beaches, the volcanic cones in Auckland, or lakes and streams.

Assets like Parana Park are vital for the well-being of our kids and our families, and we hold them in trust for future generations. That belief, that value, runs very deep in the New Zealand community, and that is why people are fundamentally suspicious of this Government’s agenda around the privatisation of publicly owned assets.

We have seen it in Auckland. We have seen it in the intense public reaction against Rodney Hide taking away the right of Aucklanders to decide in a binding referendum whether the ports of Auckland should be privatised. He took away that right that existed in law for Aucklanders to decide in the referendum whether the ports of Auckland should be privatised. We saw it with water, which is another asset that has a special sacred place. New Zealanders think that water is too important to be privately owned and driven by the profit motive, and what did we see last year? We saw Rodney Hide open up the municipal water supply to private ownership and private control through public-private partnerships—legislation deliberately crafted to encourage private ownership.

I contend that in the public mind parkland like Parana Park is accorded a special status. In the hearts of New Zealanders, it is not just parkland that deserves that special status. There are many other assets that traditionally we own and manage in the public interest. This Government does not seem to understand that, and is hell-bent on opening up those precious assets to privatisation and private control.

Clause 9 is also very interesting. It deals with the powers of the Registrar-General of Land. The clause authorises the Registrar-General of Land to make such entries in the land transfer register as are necessary to give effect to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is a seemingly innocuous provision that delegates a very specific power to a public servant. It is perfectly normal that the Registrar-General of Land is empowered to administer and make the changes that are necessary to give effect to the bill. But that is very unlike many other changes and policies that this Government has implemented in local government that muddy the division between public servants and elected officials.

It is one thing for this bill to empower the Registrar-General of Land to make these quite minor administrative changes, but it is a whole different thing for this Government to give important political and decision-making powers to unelected officials, which is exactly what has happened in Auckland with the creation of the Māori Statutory Board—it is quite a different thing. No one would object to the Registrar-General of Land being given those specific powers, because that person is a public servant, and it is a very minor thing that he or she is being asked to do. But that is quite different from the management of huge publicly owned assets and resources being handed to hand-picked corporate boards in Auckland by this Government.

This Government does not seem to understand that there is a very important distinction to be made between the powers of elected officials who are accountable to the community and to the people who elected them, which is why the community in Auckland wanted to see democratically elected Māori representation, and the handing over of political power, and wide-ranging powers, to hand-picked corporate boards, which seems to be a particular penchant, shall we say—

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Penchant!

Or “ponchont”; it depends which side of the tracks one went to school on. I think this bill highlights some very interesting issues about this Government’s discharge of its responsibilities in the whole area of local government. I am glad that we are able to stand up here today and support—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I remind members that we are debating a bill pertaining to Parana Park, and that there are Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that limit the scope of what members can talk about in the second reading debate.

The Green Party joins with every other party in this House in supporting this small but nevertheless very significant piece of legislation, the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. In particular, we would like to join the tributes for George Parr. It is interesting that we are here in this House 80 years on, thanking George Parr for his extraordinary generosity and far-sightedness in designating and gifting this land to the people of Hamilton. Many people leave gifts, leave legacies, but what a magnificent legacy it is to gift a park to a city. Actually, when I think about it, I realise that any great city in the world is distinguished by its park. When we think of New York, we think of Central Park. When we think of London, we think of Hyde Park. When we think of Christchurch, we think of Hagley Park. When we think of Auckland, we think of the Auckland Domain. When we think of Wellington, well, we have the Wellington Botanic Garden, and now we have Waitangi Park—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: And the Basin Reserve.

—and we have the Basin Reserve. But I do want to mention Waitangi Park, because when I was a Wellington city councillor there was a proposal to build five-storey townhouses all over Waitangi Park. I and many other councillors fought vehemently against the covering-over of Waitangi Park with townhouses. Finally we won, and now we have this small but wonderful park, Waitangi Park, in Wellington, as well.

What would our cities be like without parks? This is particularly the case today, as our cities—and I am thinking of Hamilton City, too—are becoming increasingly congested, and increasingly spread with suburban sprawl. In Hamilton, where I spent quite a bit of my time when I was growing up—my grandparents and all my relatives lived there—there was a lot of open space. There was lovely open space around the lake, but now all of that open space—or most of it—is gone, and there is just suburban sprawl. So for the people of Hamilton, I say thank heavens for the vision of George Parr, and thank heavens that he gave Parana Park, and that this park, like so many other open spaces in Hamilton and other cities, has not been built on, and is not covered in townhouses or suburban sprawl. He was a very great visionary, and I hope he is remembered in Hamilton and honoured for this great gift. I agree with my colleague from Labour about what a visionary he was.

Again, it is worth remembering, in the context of our tribute to George Parr, his vision for public transport—his vision not only in leaving this magnificent park but also in his understanding of public transport. He was a huge advocate for a train from Hamilton to Kawhiā—a great visionary, rather like Sir Dove-Myer Robinson. If only the people of Auckland had listened to men like Sir Dove-Myer Robinson and George Parr. Members can imagine what Auckland would be like if we had listened to Sir Dove-Myer Robinson, that great visionary. We would have had light rail or a mass transit system right through Auckland, but instead Sir Dove-Myer Robinson’s vision was defeated by National, in one of its many manifestations, when it came in and forced the abandonment of the plans for a public transport system in Auckland.

Unfortunately, the vision of George Parr for a train from Hamilton to Kawhiā was also not implemented; it was opposed by developers at the time. He had a vision also for a canal, and members can imagine what a much better place Hamilton would have been if that vision had been implemented—if Hamilton had had not only Parana Park but also a canal and a rapid train linking Hamilton to Auckland.

The other thing about parks is that not only are they wonderful places to have recreation—and many people have been sharing their memories of all the important things that happen in Parana Park—but also they are, of course, the lungs of the city. As cities become ever more congested with cars and houses, and even more built up, these green spaces, these rare little jewels of green spaces, are the lungs of the city as well as places for people to have recreation.

My colleague Phil Twyford was talking about what a pleasure it was to be talking about something positive—a positive piece of legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee, of which I am a member, has been able to consider—and about what a sharp contrast that is to most of the other legislation we have had to consider, which is all about getting rid of local government and its democratic rights in New Zealand. Mr Twyford was focusing on Auckland, and on the fact that with one fell swoop we got rid of eight democratically elected and well-functioning councils in Auckland and replaced them with a super-city.

But I am not sure why Mr Twyford omitted to mention, given his penchant for talking about these issues, the getting rid of Environment Canterbury. That would have to be the worst, the most blatant, taking away of power that has happened to local government in New Zealand. I remember an American who came to a big public meeting we were holding in Christchurch when the people there were so upset about this matter. He said that it could not happen in America; a local council could not just be wiped out like that.

So it is a relief that on the Local Government and Environment Committee we have had at least one bill that is completely positive, which is about giving to people and to local communities, rather than about taking away from them their rights and their democratic ability to vote, etc. It is fantastic that we can join with every other member of this House, completely unanimously, in supporting the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. We hope that Parana Park will remain for another 80 years as a precious piece of open space in Hamilton, and that all the other magnificent parks around New Zealand, such as Hagley Park and the Domain, will forever remain as this one is—protected for recreation and as the lungs of the city, and as an area not able to be encroached upon and built on as so many parks have been. Thanks.

I am pleased to speak to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee on behalf of the Māori Party.

💬 Tim Macindoe: And a good one.

I thank the member. When I stood to speak to this bill in the first reading on 16 June last year I ended with the statement: “It is therefore in the interests of the iwi and mana whenua that we support this bill to bring their stories to the fore.” So it was with pleasure that I read the submission from Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc., which made explicit the connection between Parana Park and the Waikato-Tainui settlements. I believe that some of the statements made in that submission form an important part of the record on this bill, in that they place the understanding around Parana Park firmly in the context of its location abounding the Waikato River and the Gibbons Creek as riverbank. I want to bring us back to the vision that Waikato-Tainui have for the Waikato River: “Tōku awa koiora me ōna pīkonga, he kura panihia o te mātāmuri.” This means: “The river of life, each curve more beautiful than the last.”

I think about the more recent history associated with the land around Parana Park. The land was originally intended to be the site of a children’s convalescent home and playground, but in 1958 legislation was passed to enable the council to administer Parana Park more effectively. The trusts of the last will and testament of George Parr required that the house situated within Parana Park be used for a children’s convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital and that the remainder of the land be used for a children’s playground. But the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958 changed all of that. Half a century later, the House is again considering legislation, this time to vest Parana Park in the council as a recreation reserve. I would presume that in this record the mayor and councillors are in themselves fulfilling the vision for the Waikato River of trying to make each curve more beautiful than the last.

The submission from Waikato-Tainui points out: “The world is not static but continues to evolve over time,” and they recognise the actions of the council being necessary to free it “from the existing restrictions in its administration of this land.” But they also make the interesting point that there is a moral obligation on the council to shape its administration towards the original intentions of the gift bequeathed by Mr George Parr in 1929—that is, for Parana Park to be centred around children. Waikato-Tainui suggested that in doing so the council would also in turn be supporting the Waikato River settlement purpose to restore and protect the health and well-being of the Waikato River and all it embraces for generations to come. The Māori Party strongly supports the recommendations from Waikato-Tainui and agrees with them that there is a moral obligation on the council to administer Parana Park for the benefit of children in line with the wishes of George Parr.

We noted also the submission from Laura Kellaway, who supported the legislation being modernised as long as it reflected George Parr’s desire that it be focused on children. She spoke with the authority of someone who is both a Hamilton resident and a former user of Parana Park as a child. Her submission included a range of photographs showing children at play.

The focus on children was also referred to in a submission from Gerard Kelly from the Waikato Tree Trust. I remind the House that there were only five submissions received on this bill. Because the majority of them refer to children, I suggest that that sends a very strong message to the council about the preference of the community for how this park is to be used.

The Māori Party believes that providing space for our tamariki and mokopuna to enjoy the great outdoors, to flourish in the beauty of Papatūānuku, and to appreciate the awesome wonder of the Waikato awa is indeed worthy of our support, and to this end we support the second reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill.

For the reasons outlined by the mover of the second reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, ACT is very happy to support this bill.

I too rise to support the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, sponsored by our very excellent MP for Hamilton East, David Bennett. Parana Park, right next door to the Hamilton Gardens, is a great asset for the people of Hamilton. It is used for community gatherings, family occasions, local events, sports, and recreation. It is used for walking, biking, playing, and just lounging around. It is a very beautiful part of the city, it is well used, and it is well loved.

I would like to reflect on Rahui Katene’s comment on its use by children. I do not know whether Hamilton celebrates Children’s Day. I know we celebrate that in Christchurch, and it would be very nice to see a Children’s Day event at Parana Park. I am sure that George Parr would like that.

This bill is to allow the Hamilton City Council to more effectively manage and administer Parana Park, and under the Reserves Act the council will be required to complete a management plan for the reserve that will ensure that it is conserved, maintained, and developed for the future use of coming generations.

The Local Government and Environment Committee examined the bill closely and with minor amendments, such as the enshrining of the name Parana Park, recommended that it be passed into law. I am sure that George Parr, 80 years on, would be pleased to see so many Hamiltonians, especially the children, using and enjoying his wonderful gift to the city.

I initially was going to make a relatively brief speech on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill in support of it, but there have been a number of comments made that have frankly given me a few concerns about the bill.

Probably of all the members in the House I would be amongst the two or three who know Parana Park the best.

💬 Hon Member: Have you been there?

I have certainly been there many times, on occasion with children, and often on Anzac Day.

In fact, it was the place where we marched in Hamilton for Anzac Day. It was always interesting. We started on the west and marched to the east. We always broke time going over the bridge in order not to shake it too much. There was some anxiety about whether it would fall down if we did not, and then we went back into time again when the team was over the bridge.

I remember to this day the messages given by the Reverend Clarke, who was, I think, the parson for the RSA. He did not hang back. He was not someone who was forever promoting peace. He did not talk a lot about peacekeeping; his line was “blessed are the peacemakers”—“blessed are the peacemakers”. It made quite an impression on me.

I remember in particular, as some members might, getting some urgent messages as I was leaving an Anzac Day service at Parana Park. We used to know it as the Anzac memorial in those days, rather than as Parana Park, because that was the day that the then Prime Minister had made some comments on the East Coast of the United States about New Zealand’s relationship. At the time they seemed quite important, but one or two of his colleagues, especially Dr Bassett, were not particularly pleased about them.

But one of the questions I have of the member in charge of the bill, concerning his reply, goes to something that occurred to me only recently. I hear he is going to effectively fix in stone—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: The names of the councillors.

No, not the names of the councillors, but the name Parana, itself. I ask the member the origin of the name. I know there is the Paraná River in Argentina. I think it is the biggest river in Argentina, and I wonder whether—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: It’s not related to the fish, you know.

No, it is Paraná with an “a”, not an “i”. The member might be a biting fish, but the Paraná River, as I understand, is the largest river in Argentina. I am digging way back into my geography.

I wonder whether George Parr had some relationship with Argentina, whether his family had visited on the way, and that was the reason that it was named Parana Park.

I say thank you to my colleague Sue Moroney for highlighting to me the fact that we are putting Parana into legislation and effectively putting it into stone. I do have some anxiety about that. What happens if, for example, the New Zealand Geographic Board, after proper application by the tangata whenua from Kirikiriroa, decide to give it again the name that it was also known as, which is Pūtikitiki? The area around the creek and the area slightly north is known as Pūtikitiki. Why are we saying here that it should be known as Parana, and not Pūtikitiki? Is that appropriate for legislation to do? No, Pūtikitiki is the name of the area immediately around the Anzac memorial. It has been known that way for quite a long time. It was certainly used by the elders when we met there on occasions. I just wonder why, if we are legislating for the first time this name into the records of Parliament, and saying effectively that it cannot be changed, we are not giving an alternative use—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Because Hamilton City Council presented the bill and it was the name of the bill that they selected.

It is fine to say that Hamilton City Council presented the bill in this form, but we are Parliament. We make the decisions as to what legislation we pass, and to the name of it. The member might think he is still a city councillor, or a, what was it? A district councillor?

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: A community board member.

A county councillor; that is right. He thinks he is still a county councillor, but now he is a parliamentarian.

It may be that the people of the Hamilton City Council are OK, but they do not dictate to us what we pass. They have a right to make a suggestion. But to say to that member that we are a mere rubber stamp for any county council that comes along—well, I just do not understand why the National Government is prepared to give up the sovereignty of this Parliament to every county council that wants to wander along. I asked Georgina te Heuheu to have a think about it and ask whether, as Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, she was consulted on the shifting of the name in legislation away from—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Does the member want an answer to his question?

Yes.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: The answer is that this followed the normal legislative pattern. We called for public submissions. There were no submissions on the name.

What the member says is that he will make legislation better only if someone suggests it to him, and he will not think for himself—he will not think for himself. A chair of a select committee tells us he is an unthinking rubber stamp for legislation. No wonder the people of the West Coast are saying: “Keep him in Wellington. Get him high on the list. We don’t want him coming back here.”

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Give him a sports car.

He has a sports car in Wellington, but I think it is fair to say that for the 6 months before the sports car was parked downstairs the Queen Street tractor was parked downstairs. That member very, very rarely focuses on the West Coast and does not listen to people—

💬 Phil Twyford: That’s because he’s never there.

We can tell from the location of his vehicle where he is.

I will go back and say that I know this park relatively well. I will visit it. I have looked at Parana Park. I examined it from a bar across the river relatively recently, and I thought: “Well, that is Parana Park.” I remember there was evidence every now and then on Anzac Day that it was often used for late-night activities, which were not what one would describe as ideal activities for children. Unfortunately, many of the participants left evidence. The point we got to in the end was that the council used to do a sweep around the park before Anzac Day to make sure that the evidence of the activities of the night before was not left on the ground in the way that it had been on a number of occasions.

We are prepared to support this legislation at this stage, but I think it is important that my successor in Hamilton West, whose name I have lost—what is his name?

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: McIntyre.

It is important that Mr McIntyre inform Mr Bennett, whose name I do remember, that support is not guaranteed for this legislation at its later stages because we are concerned that as part of this bill we are putting into concrete a name that the tangata whenua have not indicated they support. We want to know what the Kīngitanga think of this because there is a danger that we are about to promote an evil in this legislation.

I am very pleased to speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I will make just a couple of comments in response to some of the Opposition members’ comments. Firstly, we heard from Mr Twyford, who spoke a lot about Auckland local governance but failed to recognise that Parana Park is in Hamilton—“the Tron”. That is the first point I would like to make.

The second point I would like to make is that everybody spoke really nicely and said they supported the bill, until we heard from the piranha—the “Pi-rana”—of the Labour Party who chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater on probably the least contentious piece of legislation before this House. He managed to find something wrong with it. He suggested that we change the name of Parana Park. I am sure the constituents of Hamilton would be a little bit disturbed to read in their newspaper tomorrow that the New Zealand Labour Party has advocated changing the name of Parana Park.

Can I briefly acknowledge the local members: David Bennett, who has brought this legislation to the House, and Tim Macindoe, the excellent member for Hamilton West. I acknowledge the great work they have done to bring this legislation to the House. Even the Greens have supported it. We know that Labour members are staying on the fence at this point, but we hope that they will be able to support this legislation.

Obviously, it is great legislation in that it ensures that the park becomes a reserve, which means that Hamilton City Council will have much greater power to ensure that the public have clear entitlement to this reserve, to ensure that they have a complete management plan around the park, and to ensure that public interest in the reserve will be protected by the Reserves Act.

I am very pleased to support this legislation. I am very pleased to be part of a Government that is protecting reserves and supporting the people of Hamilton. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to stand and speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill and to congratulate—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: We passed a Palmerston North one for you, remember.

Yes, I was going to come to that, and I probably will at some point in time during this speech. I am very congratulatory towards David Bennett. Members will know that I am a big fan of David Bennett.

💬 Grant Robertson: He’s given you some of your best lines.

He has given me some of my best lines. I do not know what he is doing for Hamilton, but certainly in the House he is very articulate about what the Government’s agenda is, and he did a much better job than the Prime Minister in articulating that last week.

I say: “Well done!” to David Bennett for bringing this local bill to the House. I also congratulate Tim Macindoe on his speech today. It was a fine contribution, even though Parana Park is not in his electorate. It is a stone’s throw away, as I learned from his speech—and that was excellent to know, as well.

We may have discovered a slip-up with the issue of Pūtikitiki, which I certainly was not aware of earlier, and I am pleased Mr Mallard has raised it. We may find that a Supplementary Order Paper comes to the House and is discussed during the Committee stage—[Interruption]—and obviously Mr Auchinvole’s contribution on that would be useful. The Local Government and Environment Committee has done a lot of hard work on this bill, and I see that it has made a number of amendments, and it is very possible that I could examine those very closely later in this speech.

I am happy to admit that I have not spent an awfully large amount of time in Hamilton. I think my most recent visit to Hamilton was with my colleague Sue Moroney, and we spent a good day there. We visited one of the private hospitals, and we held a public meeting about alcohol issues, as that was before the Alcohol Reform Bill was brought to the House. It was a great day, and we had lunch by the lake. What was the name of that lake?

💬 Sue Moroney: Rotoroa.

Lake Rotoroa—not to be confused with Rotorua. It was a very pleasant day. To be fair, I think that—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It used to be called Hamilton Lake, when I was there.

You see, this issue of how we name things is important. Indeed, if that name had been put in legislation it might have been a very controversial decision to make, and Mr Mallard might have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper on that one, as well. But Hamilton is a fine city. Most of the time I have spent in Hamilton has been spent in trying to navigate my way through it, on the way to Auckland.

💬 Grant Robertson: Just like the slogan: even the river runs through it.

That is right. In a lot of ways, the citizens of Palmerston North see—[Interruption] Well, I was going to say that the citizens of Palmerston North see the citizens of Hamilton as kindred spirits. Hamilton is an inland city with a river running through it, a university, and a major—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: We didn’t use to look at it that way.

Well, obviously Palmerston North people are a little more charitable than Hamilton residents and former Hamilton MPs, but we have a lot in common with the city of Hamilton.

💬 Sue Moroney: Much maligned.

Well, Ms Moroney says we are much maligned, but let us not dwell on that too much. We know what we have going for us, and both cities are fine regional hubs, and the residents of both cities are proud to live there. From that point of view I am very happy to speak on this bill.

What I like about this particular bill is that it clarifies and reinforces public property rights and the concept of the importance of property rights. In this case it covers council land, but it also raises the issue of how we view property rights on Crown land and other publicly held land.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: The spectre!

Mr Auchinvole has used an interesting word. I want to clarify the word that he used: the spectre of publicly held land. Was that the word the member used? Crown land does seem to be thought a bit of a spectre by this Government. I compare this bill with another current Government order of the day, which we will come back to tomorrow, the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill, which undermines the property rights of the Crown and the concept of public property rights.

💬 Colin King: Stop being dopey!

I am looking forward to Mr King finishing his contribution. I was listening very closely to his speech.

💬 Colin King: This is a very important subject, and it shouldn’t be trivialised.

It is not being trivialised at all; it is a very important subject. I am comparing this bill, which reinforces public property rights, with another bill we are debating this week, which completely undermines Crown ownership of land and the value of Crown land, and that is the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill. That bill ensures a transfer of wealth from the public, the Crown, to private landholders, which is the exact opposite of this bill, which ensures the property rights of the public.

When we think of what George Parr did in terms of vesting this land in the public interest, we see it was to transfer the wealthy ownership of that land from a private individual to the public, notwithstanding, of course, the fact that earlier in this particular piece of land’s history it had been confiscated and taken from a group, Tainui, gifted to an individual landowner, then onsold at a profit, no doubt, between landowners before it was returned to the public.

That occurred much in the same way that we are now seeing publicly owned land almost given away by the Crown for a very reduced rate to landowners—who may be New Zealanders but may also be foreigners—who then onsell that land at a massive profit, with those windfall profits going to a small number of wealthy landowners rather than to New Zealanders at large. Again, it is a transfer of wealth away from the many to the very, very few. It is no surprise that this bill is not a Government bill, because that is not the way this Government operates. It does not operate in the interests of the broader public; it operates in the interests of a small number of very wealthy people, many of whom are from overseas.

But this particular bill, the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, reinforces and reassures the public ownership of that property. Of course this is not a Government bill. It has come from the Hamilton City Council, because the council obviously has a much greater interest in protecting public property rights than this Government. The council is obviously working for its people—the residents of Hamilton—in a way that, as is very obvious, this Government is not working for New Zealanders at large.

This is an important bill because it tidies up a number of matters—and these things happen over time. We saw a similar situation with assets and money that were vested in Christ’s College. The use of those assets had changed over time, and this is a case where the use of a particular public asset has changed over time.

Originally, Mr Parr’s vision was that it would be used as a children’s park, with a paddling pool and an open-air theatre. Importantly, the building that was there was used for a children’s convalescence home, but, of course, in the 1950s it became obvious that the building was no longer suitable for that use, so the legislation was updated at that point, and this bill is a natural progression from that change that was made in the 1950s. The Labour Party is very keen to see this sort of tidying-up happen, and we are very keen to support this bill.

It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I am delighted to observe that it enjoys wide support around the House. Such support has inspired the shadow Leader of the House with a fit of bonhomie, so much so that his contribution was spiced with a mélange of malapropisms and lessons on South American geography. I thank Mr Mallard.

The land and house were originally gifted, as we know, in a very, very generous bequest by Hamilton farmer George Parr, to be used as a children’s convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital. In the 1950s it became apparent that the house was unsuitable as a children’s convalescent home, and it passed in 1958 to the Hamilton City Council. The Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act was duly passed to enable Hamilton City Council to more effectively manage Parana Park.

William Pitt made the comment that parks were the lungs of London. No such grand claims have been made about Parana Park, but it is a much-loved area of recreation. The purpose of this bill is to vest Parana Park in Hamilton City Council as a recreation reserve, which will mean it is subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. Obviously, that will require repeal of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958.

Parana Park is currently used for passive recreation activities, and this would continue. The benefits to managing the land under the Reserves Act are that the public will have clear entitlement to use and enjoy the park as a recreation reserve, the council will be required to complete a management plan, and the public interest in the park will be protected by the conditions the Reserves Act imposes on the council as the administrative body of the reserve. The council will be required to manage the area in accordance with the Reserves Act, which provides for the preservation and management of recreation reserves. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.