Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill

We are considering the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. We are just about to commence debate on clause 2, the commencement—a very narrow debate.

Yes, this debate is on the commencement clause—clause 2 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. The commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent.” It seems pretty straightforward, but we have already heard quite a bit of debate on the title clause in terms of what year this legislation is coming into effect. Is it 2010 or is it 2011? I can well imagine, when we talk about the commencement, that surely the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent would be in 2011—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: We’ve already talked about this. This is repetitious.

—although Mr Auchinvole offered the view before that it might be 2012. He offered the view that it may well be 2012 before we get to the commencement of this particular bill.

I think it is important that we get to the commencement of the bill. This bill is about a luxury we have in Hamilton. I will depart from what has been at times a jocular debate this evening to say that at least in Hamilton we have the privilege to talk about this land and do not have to think about its destruction or about the things that people in Canterbury now have to think about very seriously. Every single piece of public—

💬 Jo Goodhew: Commencement date!

I am sorry that the junior Government whip does not allow me the opportunity, as it is one of the first times that I have been on my feet since the Christchurch earthquake, to offer my condolences to the people of Canterbury and Christchurch for what has occurred. I am sorry that she finds that offensive, but I take the opportunity to say that to the people of Christchurch.

We are talking about the commencement date of something that is fairly minor, in fact, for our city. I know that in a jocular way I said before that this bill must be the pinnacle of David Bennett’s career and, perhaps, of Tim Macindoe’s. It is great for the Hamilton City Council to bring this bill forward, but in the grand scheme of things, compared with what this Parliament ought to be dealing with and the things that the Government has ahead of it at the moment, this bill is very, very minor.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Why are you dragging it out?

Why am I dragging it out?

💬 Simon Bridges: She’s not in drag, Tim.

If the two members have stopped their interjection with each other I will continue.

I say to Mr Macindoe that this is the Committee stage on this legislation; the select committee overlooked the fact that it had the wrong date in the title clause. If we were not giving proper scrutiny to every single clause of this bill—as the Opposition, at least, is prepared to do—then that would have not been picked up. That is the role of this Parliament: to give decent scrutiny to legislation like this.

That is unlike what the Government is prepared to do with another piece of legislation that talks about vesting land. It is rushing it through a select committee process and rushing it through its processes in the House. Yet the Government is complaining because the Opposition dares to give this legislation the proper scrutiny that it is supposed to have in the Committee stage! I do not apologise for that at all, I say to Mr Macindoe, because that is actually the job of parliamentarians: to give proper scrutiny to legislation as it goes through.

💬 Simon Bridges: So righteous.

Mr Bridges has just said: “So righteous.”

💬 Simon Bridges: If it wasn’t for you, where would democracy be, Sue?

Good question. A great question from Mr Bridges. Where would democracy be in this House, quite frankly, if it was not for the Labour Opposition calling for democracy and proper process? I think Mr Bridges asks an absolutely appropriate question.

💬 Simon Bridges: This is the bill to stake democracy on!

It has to start somewhere, I say to Mr Bridges, because it certainly is not happening much in the legislation that this Government is putting through when it comes to talking about vesting land and who owns the interest in land around this country. I think it is quite useful that we are giving proper scrutiny to this bill, because it certainly is not happening with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.

I am happy to take this call on the commencement clause of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is, in fact, my first call on the bill. I wanted to take a call on the commencement clause, which is a very specific clause, because I think commencement clauses in legislation are vastly underrated and are not debated enough. Members fail to understand the significance of a commencement clause and the complexity of the issues behind a commencement clause. Although they may seem simple on the surface, there is actually a huge amount of complexity involved. I will talk members through some of that complexity.

This commencement clause, clause 2, states: “This Act comes into force on the date after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” That may seem very simple in writing; it is nice and clear in black and white. But what does “the day after … it receives the Royal assent” actually mean? In New Zealand it means, effectively, the day after it is signed by the Governor-General. The Governor-General in New Zealand has some reserve powers; the Governor-General could refuse to sign this bill. This bill could be passed by Parliament and the Governor-General could say he does not like it and is not going to sign it. The New Zealand Governor-General has that ability on behalf of the Queen, as it is at the moment, to refuse to assent to legislation.

💬 Tim Macindoe: You’re making a mockery of Parliament, Chris.

Tim Macindoe says that I am making a mockery of Parliament by talking about the constitutional significance of the Governor-General signing legislation. I do not think that that is making a mockery of Parliament, at all.

Coming back to the issue of whether the Governor-General signs legislation, it is not the House that recommends to the Governor-General whether legislation should be signed; it is normally the Prime Minister, or often the Attorney-General, or it could be any other Minister. Usually a Minister of the Crown makes that recommendation to the Governor-General.

💬 Tim Macindoe: How does this relate to the bill?

It has everything to do with this bill, because it will determine when this bill actually becomes law. Parliament could pass this bill and the Prime Minister could recommend to the Governor-General that it be signed into law. When that happens the Prime Minister may do so very swiftly, as Prime Ministers normally do, or he may not. The Prime Minister may not report it very swiftly to the Governor-General for signature and the Governor-General, as I have said, is under no obligation to sign it. There is a constitutional convention that Governors-General will sign all the legislation presented to them on behalf of the Parliament by the Prime Minister, but they do not need to and they have a reserve power to refuse to do so.

In fact, there have been instances in the past when the Governor-General has been petitioned not to sign legislation. I think there was some legislation in the 1970s regarding the SIS. The Governor-General at the time, Keith Holyoake, a former National Prime Minister, had the opportunity, should he have chosen, to not sign that legislation. It would not have become the law. He decided not to go with the people who petitioned him but to go with the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon. He signed that legislation and it became law. I think that that was the constitutionally proper thing for him to do—to sign the legislation so that it became law. Parliament ultimately has that supremacy in New Zealand. The laws of the land are made by this Parliament and it is incumbent on our unelected head of State to sign those laws on behalf of the people who are elected.

There is a remaining technicality in here, which is that this bill does not give a specific date on which it should come into force. That is quite welcome. As a member of the Regulations Review Committee I am aware of issues around allowing any flexibility around the dates, for example. This bill is very specific: the Governor-General signs it and it becomes the law. It does not contain what is called a “Henry VIII” clause, which gives the Government of the day the choice to introduce this law whenever it feels like it. It does not say that this bill will come into force on the day that a Minister determines, or the day that the Hamilton City Council determines. It is very clear: it comes into force on the day after the Governor-General signs it. The democratic process is actually being respected by the commencement clause as it is worded, providing the Governor-General does his part and does not decide to utilise his reserve powers and refuse to sign the legislation, which under our current constitutional arrangements he could do.

As I said, the commencement clause in legislation is, I think, vastly underrated. It is a very important part of the parliamentary process and one that from time to time we probably should spend a little time talking about so that those who pass the laws actually understand them, and those who follow the proceedings of Parliament at home—and there are many of them—understand what we are doing.

I move, That the question be now put.

The commencement clause contained in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” That seems quite appropriate to me because it is about as fast as a bill can come into force. We certainly would not want to delay this bill unnecessarily, because it is a good bill. The member in the chair is signalling to me that he would like me to sit down. I suggest to the member in the chair that he—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member cannot bring the Chair into the debate.

I was referring to the member in the chair, David Bennett—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): OK.

—the member in whose name this bill stands, who was signalling that he would like me to take my seat. He might want to reflect on why the Opposition has taken so much interest in this bill and, in fact, is taking so much interest in all the bills before the House this week. He might want to reflect on that tonight in particular and this week, as well.

I come back to the commencement clause. The member would not want to put off this bill any more than is necessary, because it is a bill that ensures that a public asset stays in the public domain—remains in public ownership. We have seen many other attempts by this Government to dispose of public assets, so a commencement date whereby this bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent—the fastest possible way for it to come into power—is excellent and entirely appropriate. This bill is not a Government bill. It is a Hamilton City Council local bill. The council is working on behalf of its people and making sure that this legislation comes into force quickly because it ensures the public ownership of a public asset at a time when we have so many attempts going on around us to have public assets shifted into private ownership.

The other thing the bill does is bring certainty to the people of Hamilton in relation to the ownership of a public asset, and we need to see that happen quickly, as well. There is so much uncertainty for people at the moment with costs going up, GST going up, the unfortunate effects of the earthquake in Christchurch, and the fact that so much uncertainty has been generated around what that means for the public at large. Certainty around this legislation brings some certainty to the people of Hamilton as to exactly what the future is for Parana Park. That is a very important aspect of the commencement clause and the commencement date, which, of course, will occur in 2011, which is unusual for a bill whose title clause states: “This Act is the Hamilton city Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010.” I accept the submission from the member in the chair that that date should be reasonably easy to amend.

💬 Sue Moroney: A Supplementary Order Paper would do it.

We would gladly debate a Supplementary Order Paper from the member in the chair to tidy up that little anomaly in the title, and that would sort out any question marks around the commencement date, because it will look a little odd if an Act that has “2010” in its title comes into force in 2011.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s very muddled.

It does seem muddled, but this is a muddled Government, and I think it is just part of its programme to be a little confused and a little muddled. We really want to see this commencement date tidied. We do not want any questions marks over it so that when it does receive the Royal assent it can be quickly actioned and the people of Hamilton can have certainty in relation to what this bill means for them and for the piece of land in Hamilton known as Parana Park.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am going to call Darien Fenton but before I do that I have a little clarification about terminology. Mr Bennett is the member in charge of the bill. The words “the member in the chair” would, by most interpretations, be regarded as referring to the Chairperson.

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Chairperson. We will certainly be careful about our contributions in the next little while. I am happy to take a call on clause 2, “Commencement”, of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010, which states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” We have had a very interesting dissertation from my colleague Chris Hipkins about how this works. What we are really talking about here is the Governor-General, who is the representative of the Queen in New Zealand. Right now we are going into a transition so it could be either the current Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand, who has been an excellent Governor-General and has done a wonderful job, as everybody in this Chamber agrees, or it could be the newly announced Governor-General, Jerry Matepārae, who is also a wonderful choice. There is cross-party support for that choice and there are a lot of things to recommend that appointment. I want to recall quickly if I may—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member should come back on track.

If I could just recall quickly in relation to commencement dates that my first year in Parliament was when we welcomed the then new Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand, and I am now looking forward to welcoming the next Governor-General.

If we are talking about the commencement date, I agree with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway that we want to see this come through as quickly as we can.

💬 Tim Macindoe: So why are you doing this?

A lot of important dates for our country are ahead of us. The member has talked about those dates in relation to Parana Park. In this debate we have heard about what Parana Park delivers and what it is used for in Hamilton. Parana Park is used for things like a very important memorial service on Anzac Day. This year we have a very interesting situation around the commencement date and whether it will occur before Anzac Day. This year we have a coinciding situation with Anzac Day and Easter Monday, and that is an issue. While I am talking about holidays may I say that I believe that the commencement date will come after the memorial service next Friday, and the Opposition will support a public holiday for that. Other things are coming up too, and whether they will come up before the commencement date is another question.

Workers Memorial Day is 28 April. Opposition members may not have heard of this day but it is a very important day in New Zealand’s history and on the New Zealand calendar. It is when we recognise all the workers who have been killed or injured in their jobs. I suggest that 28 April this year will be a significant day, not only in Christchurch and at Pike River, but right across the country. I understand that there has been a request from unions in Hamilton to have a space across the river for Workers Memorial Day. I suggest that before the commencement date of this bill, that might be something that could be considered so that we show our respect for the people who when going about their business—their jobs—are killed and injured. Unfortunately those numbers are increasing every year. As I said, this year will be significant and I think members opposite should show their respect because 28 April this year will be a significant day. It will be a significant day in Hamilton, Auckland, Christchurch, and on the West Coast. Right throughout the country there will be recognition—

💬 Simon Bridges: What’s that got to do with Parana Park?

It has an awful lot to do with the commencement date.

💬 David Shearer: It’s celebrated in Parana Park.

Yes, that is right.

Of course, other things could happen either before or after the commencement date. There is the Rugby World Cup. Forgive me, but I am not sure whether—

💬 Sue Moroney: It won’t be at Parana Park.

It will not be at Parana Park, but there must be something in Hamilton, surely, so people who are enjoying the Rugby World Cup will be able to take their children along to Parana Park and enjoy its wonderful—

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I ask for some clarification from you about just how narrow you wanted the debate on the commencement date to be.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Quite a bit narrower than it currently is.

Of course there are other important dates. As we are talking about the commencement date, we have the election date on 26 November this year. That is a very, very important date. Will the commencement date be before or after the election? No one knows, because of that clause.

I move, That the question be now put.