Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on clause 1 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, which is the title clause. The title of the Act will be the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010. The question I want to ask actually relates to the title. I am really keen to hear from the member in charge of the bill, David Bennett, who is in the chair. I congratulate him. It must be the very pinnacle of his career so far to be sitting in the chair on this occasion as the member in charge of the bill. I would like him to clarify for us why the title has “2010” in it when I am sure we all know that we are here debating the bill in 2011.

💬 Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Unless I am looking at a different bill, the bill does not have the year in it, at all.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a debating point. You will have a chance to speak and make the correction if need be.

I invite the member opposite to take a call on this issue, because the copy of the bill that I have in front of me and that has been tabled—the one we are debating—certainly has “2010” in the title. I think Mr Auchinvole is agreeing with me that the bill has “2010” in its title. Grant Robertson just got a copy off the Table and concurs that the bill has “2010” in the title. This seems curious, given that it is 2011. We are in the Committee stage debating the title of the bill, but the title indicates that the bill would be passed and enacted in 2010. That cannot possibly be the case, as we are debating it in March 2011. I really would like the member in the chair to clarify that point. We want to get it right.

We are passing this legislation on behalf of the Hamilton City Council, and as a Hamilton-based member of Parliament I want to ensure that we get the detail right. Although I am not the member responsible for the bill, I take the responsibility upon myself as a Hamilton-based Labour MP to make sure that we get that detail right. It would be very unfortunate if we let the Hamilton City Council down in that way, if the title showed the wrong year that the bill was enacted. That, of course, assumes that it becomes a bill; it has every prospect of becoming a bill—

💬 David Bennett: An Act.

—sorry, an Act; thank you. It has every prospect of becoming an Act because the Labour Party is supporting it. But in supporting it, we want to make sure that we get the title right. I want to hear the member in the chair explain why “2010” is in the title. Maybe there is a very good explanation—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: A drafting error.

Perhaps it is. If it is, as Mr Auchinvole thinks it may be, then the Committee of the whole House is exactly where it ought to be picked up.

I recognise that it does not appear that any Hamilton MP sat through any of the select committee process.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: You could have come along at any time.

I wonder whether due respect and regard was given to this very important bill from Hamilton to make sure that we got right not only the content but also the detail. Mr Auchinvole has kindly said that I could have come along at any time; I would have welcomed the opportunity.

I really would have thought that the member in charge of the bill would be watching this bill very carefully indeed as it went through the Local Government and Environment Committee. If Mr Auchinvole is correct and this is a drafting error, I would have thought that the select committee was the right place to pick up that error. However, the Committee stage is also a good opportunity for that matter to be rectified, if Mr Auchinvole is correct and it is a drafting error. I would like some clarification on the year that is named in the title.

Irrespective of the title, I also suggest that another—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: It will be 2012 if you keep going.

The member is quite right: it could be 2012. Perhaps that is a challenge to members on this side of the Chamber, and we may well rise to it. I point out that the very reason why we have the Committee stage is to make sure that we get these things right.

It is a great pleasure to rise and participate in the Committee stage on clause 1 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010. I suppose some of the confusion may arise because the year 2010 in the title is not in the heading of the bill. But the title clause shows 2010 in bold; it is beaming out at us from the page. I would not be as uncharitable as to suggest that maybe this is the Hamilton calendar that we are working to. I am sure that Hamilton MPs will not only put that right but may bring Palmerston North into the debate later on. One never knows; it could happen. I congratulate my colleague Sue Moroney on picking up on that very important point about the date.

The title—Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill—superficially looks quite appropriate. The city council is seeking to secure the area commonly known as Parana Park to maintain it as a publicly owned asset for the people of Hamilton. The title seems quite appropriate, but another title could be the “Hamilton City Council (Security of Public Assets) Bill” or the “Hamilton City Council (Working for its People) Bill”. This bill is quite a different approach from the approach we see from this Government. But this is not a Government bill; it is a local bill. If this were a Government bill coming from this National Government, I suggest it would be the “Parana Park (Flog It Off for the Lowest Bid) Bill.” This is a public asset, but this Government does not pay much heed to public assets. It is not particularly fond of public assets. It would want to try to flog it off to one of its mates, or maybe to some foreign company, for a nice sum so that the private individual could make the profit out of it. I have no doubt the asset would be horrendously devalued in the same way that the Government is trying to devalue our Crown pastoral land in the high country of the South Island, and then some private operator would be able to make all the profit out of it. But, no, the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010 is all about securing this particular public asset for the people of Hamilton. I congratulate the city council on taking that approach and on bringing this local bill to its local member David Bennett to do so.

In the second reading of the bill we discovered that the name Parana Park may not be completely without controversy. I am no scholar of Hamilton geography, and I am prepared to admit that. My colleague Trevor Mallard, a former representative of the people of Hamilton, said that in his day the area was known as Pūtikitiki. I am a bit sketchy on the details but I believe that the name is associated with a stream or a river that runs nearby the land. In fact, many people would refer to the area as Pūtikitiki, rather than Parana Park. So an alternative name could be the “Hamilton City Council (Pūtikitiki) Land Vesting Bill” but that would be quite debatable. Some people might say that having Parana Park in the title of the bill is in a way alienating those people who call the area Pūtikitiki. The local members might have more knowledge on that than I do and might explain why the area is not being called Pūtikitiki in this legislation.

Normally the titles of bills are not considered particularly contentious but this one might be a little bit contentious because of that alternative name by which Parana Park is known.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Mr Mallard was simply trying to fill up his time.

He may have been, but he raised an important point and it should be considered. The Committee stage is where those sorts of contentious matters can be dealt with by way of Supplementary Order Papers and the like.

It is a great pleasure to take a call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I acknowledge the member in the chair, David Bennett. I have sat in that chair and I will treat him as well as he treated me when I had my turn in that chair! I say to him: “Watch out!”. It will be very, very interesting. In addressing clause 1, “Title”, I congratulate the Hamilton City Council and join with my colleagues in saying thank goodness for councils like the Hamilton City Council. It was prepared to ensure that land that has been gifted by our forebears stays in public ownership as a recreational reserve for the use of the public and their families. As we have been hearing from other members, if this land belonged to the National Government it would be up for sale before one could blink an eye.

I am interested in a couple of things in the title clause. First of all, I am not very familiar with Hamilton, and I apologise to my Hamilton colleagues. I spend a lot of time driving through—[Interruption] The sky always seems too low to me in Hamilton. I am interested in a couple of things. First of all, I ask why Hamilton is called Hamilton. Why is Hamilton called Hamilton?

💬 Sue Moroney: Actually, it is Kirikiriroa.

Oh is it? OK, perhaps one of my colleagues or the member in the chair could enlighten me about that. “Kilikiliora”?

💬 Sue Moroney: Kirikiriroa.

OK, so where did “Hamilton” come from? Why is it in the title clause, why was that not considered, and why has the Hamilton City Council not changed its name? It is a very, very important question.

I am also interested in the name “Parana”. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway talked about the contribution from Trevor Mallard, and I have to correct him because he said Parana was in Argentina and it is not.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Uruguay?

No, it is in Brazil. It is Brazil. It is absolutely in Brazil. I am really interested to know where the name “Parana” came from.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: You looked that up, didn’t you!

I did look it up, actually; I had to think of something to say. But I am genuinely interested in the name “Parana” and where it came from. I suppose it could have come from the name “George Parr”, but I am not sure. “Parr-ana”—I am not sure whether that is its history, so perhaps the member in the chair can enlighten me about the name “Parana” and what its history is. I have had a quick look over the history—it is very interesting. Parana Park has a very interesting history, but I could not find anything that explained why it is called Parana Park, let alone anything on why Hamilton is called Hamilton.

Having driven through, as I said, I have not been to Parana Park, but I understand that it is on the other side of the river.

💬 Sue Moroney: Yes.

Across the river?

💬 Sue Moroney: Yes.

It is a wonderful recreation reserve that is used for a variety of purposes, and when we get on to later stages of the bill I will talk about what some of the submissions said about the historic nature of Parana Park.

There have been suggestions about other names for the title. I did wonder whether the member in the chair could explain why in a title like this brackets have been put around the words “Parana Park”. I ask whether this is a normal thing to do in legislation. Is this a design thing for legislation or could it just be there without the brackets, and would it make any difference? I would be interested in hearing an answer to that question, as well.

As I said, this is a very important bill and I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution on it. I am really pleased to be able to talk about something a little bit positive in the House. It has been a harrowing couple of weeks for members of this House, and I acknowledge the colleagues who live in Christchurch, and all the people who are suffering at the moment. Of course, our thoughts are with them, and we will work together to rebuild Christchurch; we are all in this together. It is quite good to be able to talk about something like Parana Park, where children can go and play, where there can be picnics, and where there are, from what I have seen in the pictures, beautiful trees and—is it native trees, as well, and gardens?

💬 Hon Member: A bit of both.

A bit of everything. I would also welcome an invitation from my colleagues in Hamilton to Parana Park.

In the absence of my colleague the member for Hamilton East, I had the great privilege of moving on his behalf the second reading of the Hamilton—[Interruption] I beg the member’s pardon? The member can sit down. I am delighted to take this double act with Mr Shearer. I say to the member: “You hum it and I’ll play it.”

💬 David Shearer: For a moment there I thought you were going to sell it.

Absolutely not. I think I might actually get on. I was saying that I had the great privilege of moving on behalf of the member for Hamilton East the second reading of this most important Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill when he was absent on Government business. Some members opposite on that day indicated their support for the measure. In fact, they were very fulsome in their praise of my speech. They even suggested that some of my insights suggested it might be the pinnacle of my career. Nevertheless I say that, sadly for them, that is not the case, and I look forward to impressing them over and over again for many years to come during a long and industrious career as the MP for Hamilton West.

Today I will take just a short call during this Committee stage to once again commend this measure to the Committee and commend the work of my Hamilton colleague David Bennett and our local council, which has already been acknowledged, in promoting it.

Following my second reading speech, one of my predecessors who represented Hamilton West nearly three decades ago, the Hon Trevor Mallard, asked me to explain how Parana Park—as it has long been known informally and will now be known officially—got its name. Having already spoken in the debate that day, I had no right of reply, but I am happy to do so now, especially as Ms Fenton has just posed the same question, although other Labour members who spoke before her have so far spent a fair amount of time unnecessarily prolonging this measure without saying anything remotely relevant about it.

I am pleased to say that although the matter cannot be resolved with absolute certainty, the best guide we have comes from a submitter to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill called Laura Kellaway, who is a Waikato-based architect and heritage consultant. In her submission, which was available to all members of the committee and, therefore, to Labour members had they—[Interruption] Absolutely, I say to Mr Auchinvole. Had they chosen to go along they would have known that she pointed out that the most likely derivation of the name “Parana” comes from combining, as Ms Fenton has just correctly guessed, the surname of George Parr, who donated the land in his will in 1929, and the first name of Annie MacPherson, a young child who had died a year earlier.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: So it’s not from Brazil?

It is not from Brazil, I say to Mr Lees-Galloway. The member may be, but I am pleased to say that the name is not.

George Parr was an important contributor to 19th and early 20th century Hamilton. Indeed, his entire family, although little is remembered of them now, were certainly very prominent in their day. George and his brother Robert were by 1901 the General Shopkeepers of Hamilton, who had acquired a New Zealand co-operative farmers association that had been established in 1882. They acquired it in 1884. Both brothers and their father, who became a mayor of Hamilton, were heavily involved in the early development of Hamilton and its community.

The point is that, although this matter is not absolutely able to be resolved, it does seem likely, as Ms Kellaway has pointed out, that Parana Park was named by truncating the “Par” from George’s surname and the “Ann” from Annie MacPherson to form “Parana” Park. Annie MacPherson was the daughter of an early settler who had gifted the memorial bridge that crosses Gibbons Creek to the park. As I said earlier, she died in 1928, and her plaque faces George Parr’s plaque on the bridge. The fact that the two face each other almost certainly explains the origin of the name.

I am happy to enlighten the Committee and also to have been the first member this afternoon to say anything remotely relevant about the bill.

It is a rare pleasure to take a call this afternoon in this debate on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. In commenting on the bill’s title clause I raise a question about the Hamilton City Council. We have seen all around New Zealand over the last year or two a great deal of concern. District councils and city councils around New Zealand have been rather worried about the prospect of a unified Auckland, as was executed by the Hon Rodney Hide, and we have seen a flurry of initiatives to amalgamate regions. The fear that has been stoked—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Title—we are on the title.

—around the use of the words “Hamilton City Council” in the title of this bill is that the region could very quickly end up being amalgamated and that we could see a different local government entity.

We saw this situation recently with George Hawkins’ Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. It was passed in this House at its first reading and then very quickly, with the creation of the new Auckland Council—otherwise known as the Auckland super-city—it had to be sent back to the Auckland Council. The council had to be asked whether it wanted to pick up the bill. What started out as a local bill sponsored by my colleague George Hawkins for the former Manukau City Council is now to become a local bill for the Auckland Council. I think that raises the question of whether the title of this bill for Hamilton City Council will have any sort of life or whether it should be changed.

Property Council New Zealand just published a report called Initiatives for Hamilton. It is one of a flurry of initiatives all around the country looking at local government amalgamation. Property Council New Zealand has proposed for Hamilton an amalgamation of four territorial local authorities in the Waikato region. That amalgamation would probably necessitate a change in the title of the bill, possibly even before the bill is passed. The bill would have to be referred back to the august Local Government and Environment Committee, which is chaired by my colleague Christopher Auchinvole, and it might have to be renamed the “Waikato Regional Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010”, because the kind of initiative that Property Council New Zealand has proposed would see four local bodies in the Waikato being merged into one.

It is quite interesting; Property New Zealand has also proposed the corporatisation of the assets and services of local councils in the Waikato and their amalgamation into a super-unitary authority. I think that raises the question of whether the title of the bill should be amended at this stage. Otherwise, the bill may have to be referred back to the select committee before it is even passed.

The “Land Vesting” aspect of the title is important. Perhaps the bill should be called the “Park Securing Bill”, because we saw recently in the legislation for setting up the Auckland super-city a threat to the security of local ownership of the Waitakere Ranges. There was a great deal of concern in Auckland, particularly in west Auckland, amongst people who fought long and hard for the Waitakere Ranges parkland to be held in perpetuity by the people of Auckland. There was a great deal of concern that the bill that transferred those provisions in the existing legislation and that transferred the title of the parkland to the new Auckland Council actually weakened the protections and could open the door for Auckland Centennial Memorial Park in the Waitakeres to be transferred out of local ownership. There was some concern about that issue and a great deal of debate. I think some of those concerns were somewhat assuaged but not entirely.

The “Land Vesting” referred to in the title of this bill is incredibly important.

I am happy to take a brief but, I hope, informative call on the title of this bill, having heard the earlier contributions in the Committee stage. I firstly recognise the contribution of my colleague Phil Twyford. Everything is in a name, as he rightly pointed out. In terms of the way in which land is vested, it matters that we retain some linkage with regard to the purposes for vesting lands and reserves like this, but we should also retain the history of how the land got its name.

I was quietly interested to hear Tim Macindoe’s contribution clarifying how Parana Park got its name. In fact, we had a small conversation about whether the word “Parana” could be partially “pā” and “rana”. Then I was asked by Darren Hughes whether I knew of a “Rana Pā” in Kirikiriroa and I told him that no, I did not. However, the discussion did urge me to set straight some of the record in terms of the history of this particular bit of land.

This land was part of the lands of notable significance confiscated in 1863 as a result of the Land Wars in the Waikato region. Parana Park is situated opposite Rangiora, a hill on which an Anglican church now stands. It was a significant pā site and a place for spiritual and cultural practices in the area. Parana Park is also to the left of Miropiko Pā, which is somewhat down the road. By way of clarifying some of Parana Park’s pre-European history, I think it is of note to mention that Parana Park has a history that precedes its being a park. It is in a very special place in that part of Hamilton.

The other point I will comment on in so far as the title is concerned is that it is really important to ensure that the purposes of vesting lands is for reserve reasons—in this case, a recreational reason. That is really important. If the prospect of an amalgamation such as the one Mr Twyford commented on is a very real prospect for the Waikato region, a number of reserves across Hamilton City Council, the Waikato District Council, and Waipā District Council will need to retain their special significance, which is why the councils are now managing those particular reserves.

I commend the member David Bennett for bringing this bill into the House on behalf of the city council. I bet that when he introduced the bill, he did not realise there would be a long and vociferous debate on every part of its purpose.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Hang in there, David. You’re doing well.

Ha, ha! But one thing we Hamiltonians can say is that we are proud of the reserves we have in the city, which provide recreational opportunities for our families and children. For my part, the small stream that links Parana Park and the memorial park together is a delight for the young kids who get their gumboots on now and then, in summer mostly, and have a little kick around in water that is probably no more than 3 or 4 centimetres deep. I know my son enjoys doing that when he is there.

In so far as the title is concerned, I want to further ensure that any future consideration of amalgamation of the city’s assets across the region retains the special nature on which lands have been vested, and the purposes of the history of that vesting in any transfer of assets or amalgamation of those assets. The title is very brief. Anyone listening to this debate will know that Parana Park is but a small shareholding of the council’s managed reserves, but it is a unique reserve, and it is something very special in the lives of a lot of kids. A lot of early childhood centres use the park and visit it often—kōhanga reo and people across the community. With that in mind, I commend the title of the bill, and register some of those future concerns I have with regard to the purpose and management of this bit of land.

I will take a brief call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Though Tim Macindoe is not here at the moment, I thank him for his explanation of how the name of the park became Parana Park. I was sitting here talking to Nanaia Mahuta and asked her whether the name came from a Māori background. She said that, no, there is no such word as “Parana” in Māori. We thought perhaps it was named after George Parr, who, as we know, vested this land.

💬 Darien Fenton: Who thought of it first?

Maybe it was Darien Fenton who thought of it first. I would like to give her credit for coming up with that without having read the submission that Tim Macindoe told us about before. It raises an interesting issue, though, of how the name of George Parr and the word “ana”, which refers to the bridge, were joined together. I accept Tim Macindoe’s version of events in terms of how Parana Park got its name, and he might be able to enlighten us in terms of how “Parr” and “ana” came together in the name Parana Park, and how people came to know that park in the heart of Hamilton as Parana Park,.

💬 Tim Macindoe: She was a child, and he wanted to do something for children. She had died the year before, and he acknowledged her. The two plaques are there. They look at each other; they merge.

That is a very touching explanation. I thank Mr Macindoe very much.

💬 Tim Macindoe: You asked; I’m happy to help.

Ha, ha! I am pleased I asked.

I want also to touch on the point Sue Moroney raised, which was the 2010 issue. I think we could all benefit from the wisdom of officials, etc., in terms of how 2010 comes into the equation when we are debating the bill in 2011. As Chris Auchinvole said to us before, if this bill does not proceed as quickly as it should through the course of this year, it could actually go into 2012 and we could be putting it through under a new, Labour-led Government—which would provide the same support, because Labour members are supplying support today to the bill—rather than a National-led Government.

The third point I will touch on—and it was brought up by my colleague Phil Twyford—concerns the word “vesting”. There is an enormous amount of nervousness around the country at the moment about land and assets being sold off. I think the people of Hamilton are also worried about it. I do not think they are an exception. When the opinion polls say that between 65 and 70 percent of New Zealanders are opposed to the selling-off of our State assets, then I imagine that the same thing applies to land inside Hamilton. This park is a piece of land that is well used. The Hamilton City Council wants it to be protected. The bill has been brought to the House by David Bennett—and I congratulate him on doing that—on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. The bill, hopefully, will ensure that this piece of land in the heart of Hamilton—which is being used, as we have heard, for kōhanga reo, for various early childhood centres, and for a number of different uses—is preserved now and into the future. This park is an enormously important asset to the people of Hamilton, and the people of Hamilton need to be absolutely and utterly assured that the intention of this House in using the word “vesting” is to ensure that the park stays with the people of Hamilton so that they can have the use of it both now and long into the future. It is, as I say, an asset that needs to be protected.

I can understand why the people of Hamilton want to ensure that this legislation goes through—to guarantee that this land stays in trust for them, for their children, and for their grandchildren. At the moment there is an enormous amount of nervousness around the country about the selling off of assets and, potentially, of land that people feel they have already paid for. They have paid for this park, as well.

I will take just a short call to thank all members for their interest in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill tonight, and especially the Labour members and National members who have said such lovely things about Hamilton. I am sure they will get to know the city even more over the course of the evening.

I will address one point that has been raised by Sue Moroney with regard to the year of the bill being 2010. If the member refers to Standing Order 307 she will see that it provides a way for dealing with such issues. So we do not have a problem with the bill, at all. Thank you.

I appreciate the solidarity that Mr Chairperson Tisch has shown as a former resident of the Piako area—and I am a former constituent of his, as it so happens. Perhaps that is the reason why I felt moved to speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, and specifically on the bill’s title.

I grew up in Morrinsville, and I like to clarify that because often people think that that just means I grew up in Hamilton. But they are two very different things, when one is from Morrinsville. However Hamilton was the nearest city, so the recreation areas of Hamilton, I think, were still very important to us. Of course, a trip to Hamilton was very special—so deprived was my upbringing. It was a significant move from the time I lived in Murupara, when a trip to Rotorua for the groceries was the highlight of the calendar month. But the point I wanted to make was that upon hearing Darien Fenton’s contribution, in which she delved into the history of both Parana Park and Hamilton, I wanted to come to the Chamber and explore whether some options for naming existed within those questions that Darien asked. I believe that she asked whether we should be putting into the title, perhaps, the history of the word “Hamilton” itself, and I am not sure whether that question has been answered yet. I have not been able to find the history behind “Hamilton”, but of course Kirikiriroa, the Māori name for Hamilton, actually means “long stretch of gravel”. I decided that on that basis I would not suggest that we call the bill the “Long Stretch of Gravel Park Bill”. The name was not really synonymous with the idea of a park, so I will not propose that. But I thought it was interesting that Morrinsville, one of the nearest townships, is a swamp, so the combination of a long stretch of gravel with a swamp is almost a match made in roading heaven.

I do not propose to rename the bill the “Long Stretch of Gravel (City Council) Parana Park Land Vesting Bill”, so I explored some other options based on a Wikipedia entry. Members will be interested to know that some of Hamilton’s nicknames are included in the Wikipedia entry on Hamilton. On this occasion I have not turned to Wikipedia for policy advice, as Bill English has done in the past, but I thought that from a creative perspective it might help us with the naming, the title, of this bill. So some options include “Hamiltron”, “the Tron”—I thank Sue Moroney—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: City of the Future?

“City of the Future” is not named, so we will not be using that as a potential title. There was “H-Town”, “The Fountain City”, which is obvious, and “Cowtown”. That is not one I have heard before, and I do not suggest to members that we adopt that lingo. Again, I did not think that any of those did justice as a title, so I will ignore those nicknames, as well.

I think that perhaps the best contribution for a potential title was from Nanaia Mahuta, who explored the history of Parana Park and its surrounding area, and I think she captured the significance of its placement and its space. When we look at the original history—because that was another area where I looked for a more fitting title for this bill—we find the idea that Parana Park was intended to be a children’s convalescent home and playground. I note that the commentary on the bill now mentions that “Parana Park is currently used for passive recreation,”. I would quite like to know whether the member Mr Bennett could inform us of the criteria for passive recreation, as opposed to active recreation. I would not like to explore, necessarily, the difference between passive and active recreation, but I think it is important that we title the bill appropriately so that in future no one feels obliged to move into active recreation, because that would obviously be outside Parliament’s intent for that park. If the member would clarify that, I would be very grateful; that would assist with the title of this bill, which is incredibly important to this Parliament.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very disappointed that National members are trying to shut down this very important part of the debate, but I thank the member Tim Macindoe for his very informative comments on the derivation of the name Parana Park. But I say to him that he is not the member in the chair, and I think that in order for that information to have credibility, we need to hear it from the member in the chair, David Bennett. That member is known for being all over the detail, and is known for being all about facts. Mr Macindoe is an honourable member, but until we hear that information from Mr Bennett about where the name Parana Park came from it is very difficult to take Mr Macindoe at his word.

The name is particularly important. There is a story about Hamilton that is very, very relevant to this legislation. When I was in Hamilton for a Labour Party regional conference, I went for a lovely walk along the riverside and came across Lunar Park—Lunar Park in Hamilton. But to my horror and dismay Lunar Park has nothing in it, at all, that justifies its carrying the name Lunar Park. There is nothing about space travel, there is nothing about “Hamiltron”, “City of the Future” in Lunar Park. I worry that the name Parana Park may also not be relevant to the particular area.

💬 Sue Moroney: With due respect—

Sue Moroney tries to convince me that at some point there was a slide shaped like a rocket ship.

💬 Sue Moroney: There was!

I believe her, but I have to say that—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s what they told you!

I thank Mr Mallard. I always welcome his contributions, particularly during my speeches—they are particularly helpful. I just want to know from the member in the chair, David Bennett, in particular, that the name Parana Park is relevant to the piece of land that we are discussing, unlike Lunar Park, which to this day remains a gross misrepresentation of that particular piece of land in Hamilton, and is a huge disappointment to those of us in the science and innovation area who went there expecting to see the living embodiment of “Hamiltron”, “City of the Future”, and found nothing—just an old slide and a couple of swings. Nothing! That was pretty much it. I am interested to hear from the member in the chair an absolute assurance that the name Parana Park is absolutely relevant to that area.

I want to pick up on a very important point raised by my colleague Jacinda Ardern when she was cut off by the bell. It is the idea of “passive recreation”. I was also very interested to read that this part of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill—[Interruption] Trevor should shut up. I was interested to read that this legislation is for the provision of land for “passive recreation”. I think we need a definition from the member in the chair of what actually constitutes—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: No, you don’t.

I notice that Mr Auchinvole is telling me not to open that particular door, but—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: We discussed this at the select committee, in closed session.

Well, I say then to the member who is interjecting that he was the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Why did he put “passive recreation” in the report back to the House if he is not prepared now to tell us what it is, and assure us that the title Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is appropriate for the provision of passive recreation? As my colleague Jacinda Ardern quite rightly pointed out, if people were to move into the area of active recreation—[Interruption] I tell Mr Mallard to be quiet. They could then be outside the intent of the legislation, as Parliament had intended. I wonder whether Mr Auchinvole could possibly take a call and explain why, as chair of the select committee, he decided that the intent of this legislation was the provision of an area to be vested for “passive recreation”, but did not provide Parliament with a definition of “passive recreation”. I think that is a fair point. Maybe Mr Bennett might feel compelled to take a call on the definition of “passive recreation”.

I have to say that whenever we see Government legislation with the words “land vesting” in the title we automatically take notice, and we want to know the detail.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s not a Government bill.

It may not be a Government bill, but this may be the way of getting things through in another way. We do trust the Hamilton City Council, but, of course, we are going through some very interesting debates in the House at the moment around the vesting of particular areas of land, where the Government has been less than forthcoming on its intentions. I want to know that when I see the words “land vesting” in a title we are not talking about the kind of land vesting that Parliament is about to push through.

I move, That the question be now put.

I apologise if I repeat some points that colleagues have made, because I have been held up in meetings. But as David Bennett, the member in charge of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, and his colleague from Hamilton West know, Parana Park is an area that I do know relatively well.

As a number of us know, the park is the base for Anzac Day services and memorials. One of the interesting things I did as a first-time MP was participate in a march. I had been to the services before, but I had never been part of the march, and on the way to Parana Park people had to break their step in order not all to be bang, bang, banging on the bridge at the same time and causing it damage. It is fair to say that I was slightly concerned about that. When we were seeing 45-tonne trucks going over the bridge, the idea that a few old soldiers could break it as they went across was something that concerned me, but that was the practice. It might have been a habit that had developed from Bailey bridges, or other bridges that engineers had built and people had used in times of war.

I will go to the question of the bill’s title, and particularly to the name “Parana Park”. I have two substantive questions for the member in the chair, David Bennett. The first is by way of confirmation that “Parana” is in fact the name of a South American river that one of the founders of Hamilton visited on the way to Hamilton.

💬 Grant Robertson: It turns out not to be that, but carry on.

It turns out not to be the case? It is fair to say that during a previous debate I spent quite a bit of time researching the name “Parana” to try to work out where it was, what the links were, and where that came from. I have not heard the explanation yet.

💬 Grant Robertson: We did earlier, but carry on.

Oh well, I apologise for that.

💬 Grant Robertson: It wasn’t from the member in the chair, though.

💬 Sue Moroney: And that’s what Moana raised. It wasn’t from the member in the chair—one of us raised that point.

Oh well, it is OK if the Committee has heard an explanation. Was it believable and acceptable? [Interruption] That is fine.

I will go on to my second point, which I will address to my colleague from the Māori Party who is currently in the Chamber, Rahui Katene, and that is whether she, and for that matter the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, are happy with the way that the Geographic Board process has been bypassed in order to remove a traditional Māori name, not from the whole park, but from the section of the park at the south end—the brewery end of the park, if you like. I say that setting up names by way of legislation that overrides other Acts, as this bill will do—because, as we know, the specific overrides the general in these matters—means that a name that has traditionally been used for the southern section—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: The brewery end.

Well, I am just indicating that the brewery is on the other side of the river. But it is on the south—well, it is not, actually, because we go over the bridge and turn left. But I am right; it is the southern end. It is, I think, the other bit of the park. I think the member in charge of the bill understands the section of the park I am talking about, which has traditionally had a Māori name ascribed to it. It has certainly been referred to in that way. I do not know about recent times, but roughly 20 years ago when I was a member in Hamilton—well, slightly more than 20 years ago—it was certainly referred to in that way. I am just wondering what Tainui think of the decision to override their traditional name and not use the process of the Geographic Board, which is the normal process. I would say that the Geographic Board has traditionally tended to leave options open in terms of using either imported names or Māori names. In this case, that right has been taken away from the Māori of Hamilton.

I move, That the question be now put.