Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill

Clause 3 is the interpretation clause, and there are just two phrases that it seeks to clarify. One of those is the meaning of the word “council” as it is used in this bill. Clause 3 states: “Council means the Hamilton City Council”. I reflect on a comment made earlier by my colleague Phil Twyford, who made a very good point about whether we are giving enough flexibility in naming the Hamilton City Council. Sorry, I should wind back and let members of the public know that the clause states that the word “council”, when it is used in this bill, means the Hamilton City Council.

Mr Twyford raised the question of why we would bind ourselves to that definition when the current Government seems to have a penchant for forcing amalgamations amongst various councils, thereby changing their names and making bills like this irrelevant. Under this bill, even if there was a forced amalgamation or an agreed amalgamation between Hamilton City Council and another authority—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Or a unitary authority.

—or a unitary authority—we would have a bill that no longer made sense. It would state that every time we read the word “council” in this bill, which will become an Act, it would mean Hamilton City Council.

I for one am not in favour of forced amalgamations in my region at all, and I have been really clear on that. In fact, the Labour Party has made a public pronouncement that it is not in favour of forced amalgamations in the Waikato region—or anywhere. I specifically recall making that statement on behalf of Labour, for the Waikato area. I am certainly not proposing that Labour would want to see that changed.

💬 Shane Ardern: The member should study Labour’s history. What happened in 1989?

No forced amalgamations. The point I am raising is that we may be about to sign off a bill—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Take a call, Mr Ardern.

Maybe Mr Ardern would like to take a call, because he has rather a lot to say. We are binding ourselves to an interpretation where the word “council” always means Hamilton City Council. In years to come, that may not be the name of the council. It might change because a Government might force amalgamations on other councils with the Hamilton City Council, or it might change because Hamilton City Council chooses to amalgamate with other local bodies. It might change because, as I think somebody else said in the debate on clause 1, the Hamilton City Council might decide to call itself the Kirikiriroa City Council in days to come. Who knows? But here we are saying that every time we read the word “council” under the interpretation clause it will mean Hamilton City Council. I certainly do not want to be responsible for coming back at a later date and wasting parliamentary time to amend this bill to reflect a new name for that council. I wonder about the wisdom of using that interpretation whereby every time we use the word “council” in the context of this bill it means Hamilton City Council.

The other thing the interpretation clause clarifies is that when the phrase “the land” is used, it means “the land commonly known as Parana Park”. We have already had some discussion about the fact that it might only be a section of the community who commonly know it as Parana Park, and there is another section of the community who know that piece of land by a Māori name. Never mind, this interpretation clause states: “the land means the land commonly known as Parana Park”. Then it goes on to describe that the park comprises an area “more or less 1.2141 hectares; and (b) described in computer freehold register SA128/41.”

I notice that before the Local Government and Environment Committee made its amendments there was a much more thorough description of that piece of land in the interpretation clause, and I wonder why it has been shortened to become, I would imagine, a good legal description, but significantly less than what the original bill contained in terms of describing where the land is. I would hate to see any dispute on this issue in the future.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on clause 3 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, which aims to give more certainty to the people of Hamilton on the ownership and use of what they know as Parana Park. I was deprived of the opportunity to speak on clause 2 on the commencement of this bill. I understand that on the commencement of this bill the land defined in clause 3 as “(a) comprising more or less 1.2141 hectares; and (b) described in computer freehold register SA128/41.” will be officially put into the realm of the Hamilton City Council, so that the good people of Hamilton, and those who visit Hamilton can enjoy Parana Park. I also understand that this land can be described as “Lots 1, 2, and 3 on Deposited Plan 3401”. Under the commencement clause I would say that on that day the land would officially have gone into the realm of the Hamilton City Council. Being a Wellington member, I do not think I have ever visited Parana Park.

💬 Sue Moroney: I will take you.

My good friend and colleague Sue Moroney will take me there. I believe that this bill will also give more certainty to the Hamilton City Council about the way it administers Parana Park.

It is important to look at the history of the land and of the Hamilton City Council. I understand that the land was gifted to the people of Hamilton in 1929 by George Parr. Am I correct, I ask Sue Moroney?

💬 Sue Moroney: Correct.

I think I am correct. It was originally gifted to the people of Hamilton. The original purpose was for a playground and convalescent home, but it came to be that it was not suitable for a convalescent home, so the good people of Hamilton started using it for passive recreation, and that is what is set down in the bill. I understand that the Hamilton City Council uses it for Anzac Day ceremonies to pay respect to our fallen soldiers, and for other festivals.

As I was thinking about how Hamilton City Council administers Parana Park I wondered about what kind of activity it would try to encourage there. I am sure the council would be thinking of family activities and picnics, when families, mums, dads, aunties, grandparents, colleagues, and friends might get together to enjoy what the Hamilton City Council provides for them, and what we here tonight are supplying for them. Then I was thinking about what conversations would be going on tonight. If people were having a picnic tonight at Parana Park, which is administered by the Hamilton City Council, I think they might be talking about the price of petrol, and the fact that it has gone up so much, and looks like it might go up another 5c. They would also be talking about such issues as the cost of living, because they would be enjoying the outdoor area of Parana Park—as soon as this bill is commenced and the Hamilton City Council is be able to administer it. There would be increasing talk at Parana Park about what is going on with the Government of the member who is sponsoring this bill, and that under National things seem to be going backwards in Hamilton.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Interpretation.

OK. Clause 3, “Interpretation”, defines the land itself and the council, Hamilton City Council, which will have administrative authority over this park. As I said before I was pulled up, we were wondering what kind of activity would happen at Parana Park. The people of Hamilton want to be assured that they can do that kind of thing at the park—have open, free, political conversation. As people enjoy Parana Park they could also talk about whether the member for Hamilton East’s Government is delivering a brighter future, and whether they would leave Hamilton and the beauty of Parana Park for Australia, maybe, as the wage gap between jobs in Australia and Hamilton seems to grow. As they sit there in the Hamilton City Council - administered Parana Park they could also talk about how they ran into Sue Moroney at Parana Park and how Labour has a plan for their future.

💬 Sue Moroney: Yes, they will be talking about that. They will be.

That is right.

I will also talk about the certainty that this bill gives the people of Hamilton. Although it is an uncontentious bill, we on this side of the House think it is worth further investigation clause by clause. It is such an important bill for the people of Hamilton that we think that the interpretation, especially, should be looked at very closely.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will take a brief call on the interpretation clause, clause 3. Before I do so, as it is my first opportunity to speak in the Chamber since the events of last week in Christchurch I will reflect on them for a moment.

The pain felt by people in Christchurch has really reverberated through all our homes in a very personal kind of way. The days afterwards—and continuing from then—have been quite a lesson in how a country comes together to grieve and to respond to such a catastrophe. I will reflect on that response, but first I will reflect on the dignity of the House and how it conducted itself on Tuesday and Wednesday the week before last, when we were here, and then throughout the period following the earthquake. May that approach continue for as long as the House has to respond to Christchurch in a particular way.

As an immigrant New Zealander I certainly felt very proud about our response as a nation to Christchurch. I live in Auckland, and I reflect particularly on how Auckland has responded. It has been a great delight for me personally to see the ethnic communities of Auckland coming together—the ethnic radio stations and newspapers, etc. They address Christchurch’s needs and respond to them in a very human and very personal way.

I acknowledge those in Auckland who have made a solid contribution and who continue to do so by opening their homes, making accommodation available, and collecting money and sending it down. My colleague Raymond Huo and the Chinese community have made a tremendous contribution today.

I will also reflect on the plight of the refugees who now have to leave Christchurch and find a place away from—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think the member has taken half his call on an issue. I am quite tolerant because of the drama that has unfolded in Christchurch, but we are now on clause 3 and I ask the member to speak on it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. May I just finish what is a serious reflection on Christchurch during my first opportunity to speak in the Chamber since then? Are you denying me that opportunity?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member has had 2½ minutes and has not once spoken on clause 3. I understand the sensitivities around Christchurch, but this is not an opportunity to pad out a debate in the Committee, which is what I am determining the member is doing. The member is welcome to take a call on clause 3. I have given him ample time to make an expression.

Clause 3 is a good improvement. The bill has been returned from the Local Government and Environment Committee with a clause 3 that is improved from the old clause 3. The old clauses 3(a), (b), and (c) were redundant, really, in trying to look at the three part allotments and record them separately. It has been a good move to be economical about the calculation of the land by adding up all the amounts and referring to the size of the acreage as well as to the computer freehold register. Clause 3 is an improvement on what went to the select committee. It is an economic way of reflecting the actual parcel of land that is now being referred to. Thank you.

I am pleased to take a call on clause 3 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I will reflect on members opposite tonight, who look very agitated about the fact that Labour members are taking this bill seriously and debating it in the Chamber clause by clause. I think they should feel very privileged that we are paying Hamilton the respect that it deserves.

I heard about the history of this land in the debate on clauses 1 and 2. I think we jumped a little bit of history, to 1929 and George Parr. We forgot the original owners of this land. I am sure that my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell will be really interested in this. This bit of land, I say to Mr Flavell, was confiscated from Tainui. It is quite interesting that we are now calling it Parana Park rather than the name Kirikiriroa given to it by Tainui. I think that issue should have been better considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. However, we have the bill back before us.

Part of the reason why we are concerned about the bill—and we like the clarity in it about the park being vested in the Hamilton City Council—is that we are really concerned that assets that have been built up by past generations should always be protected and never sold off, so that Kiwis can own their own future.

I think this bill, particularly the vesting of the park in the Hamilton City Council, at least fits our principle that we protect our assets, although there is some contention about the role of the Tainui Māori Trust Board and Tainui iwi, and in the naming of this land as Parana Park because that is what they called it in 1929. That is rather unfortunate.

This bit of confiscated land was ultimately freeholded, sold for generations, and then turned back into council land by George Parr. The bill protects the future of the land for its original purpose, which is covered in other parts of the bill. Clause 5 talks, really, about the tribute to George Parr and what he left for future generations of families in Hamilton to enjoy. So we are really pleased about the park being vested in the Hamilton City Council.

I think there should have been more caution at the select committee. My colleague Sue Moroney talked about forced mergers and unitary authorities. We know that when the next Government comes in, Rodney Hide, with his controlling mechanism of mergers around the country, will disappear.

That will give certainty to the next Government about whether Hamilton City Council actually has a secure future or whether we will face another bill like the Auckland super-city bill for Hamilton, which means we will have to go back and address this legislation all over again. I congratulate the member in the chair for sitting patiently.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Me?

Not you, no, Mr Chair—the member in charge of the bill, David Bennett. He should have a little chat to Tim Macindoe, who is not showing quite the same tolerance about the need for good debate about the bill.

We have learnt about the history of this law. We must correct in Hansard that Parana Park was confiscated Tainui land taken by the Crown in the 1860s. That is the reason we are debating this bill. We have been denied the ability to look at a Supplementary Order Paper on other bills that attempt to address mistakes of the past, like the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. We are absolutely fed up that the Minister tabled a Supplementary Order Paper yesterday on that bill that denies community access and public submissions. We will fight it over the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, and we will keep it going so the people of Hamilton know that we do not trifle with democracy on this side of the Chamber. We take things seriously.

We think the select committee did a fine job, but they did not look into the future with regard to the bill. We will debate the bill with fulsome debate right through every clause, because we believe in democracy. We know that people are listening out there. They know, and the people listening in the Chamber tonight know, that democracy was denied by the Government over the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a pleasure to take a call on clause 3 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I want to look at the interpretation clause, which is what we are debating. There are effectively three issues around the interpretation clause. Sue Moroney addressed the Hamilton City Council aspect of it. My colleague Steve Chadwick did the same in terms of addressing the risk of our changing the name of Parana Park and whether it is the most appropriate name for this park in Hamilton, although I concede that it is well known in Hamilton as Parana Park.

The other matter that I want to speak on is the amount of land that is part of Parana Park. It is very interesting to look at the interpretation clause and see the changes that have taken place from the 1950 Act to the bill today. Currently, Parana Park is the land “(a) comprising more or less 1.2141 hectares; and (b) described in computer freehold register SA128/41.”

💬 Shane Ardern: How many acres is that?

It is not about acres. I will refer to the words in the clause that have been crossed out. This is quite a substantive point, and it is a question; I am not trifling with the Committee. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) have been crossed out. If I add the square metreage of land in paragraph (a), which is “2832m2 more or less being Lot 1 DPS 3401 (formerly Part Allotment 219 Kirikiriroa Parish …”, to the land in paragraph (b), which is “8700m2 more or less being Lot 2 DPS 3401 (formerly Part Allotment 219 Kirikiriroa Parish …”, and to the land in paragraph (c), which is “4856m2 more or less being Lot 3 DPS 3401 (formerly Part Allotment 219 Kirikiriroa Parish …”, my addition comes to 16,388m2, which gives us 1.6388 hectares. I do not quite understand the difference between what was the land called Parana Park, which comprised 1.6388 hectares, and the current area of 1.2141 hectares that we will be voting on today. This is a pretty important point. Somewhere along the line from one bill to another we have lost approximately 0.4 hectares. That is about an acre, I tell Shane Ardern. It is a considerable amount of land.

This is a serious point. I read through the submissions very closely, trying to find out where the 0.4 of a hectare might be. I went through the Hamilton City Council submission, which I thought might have addressed where the 0.4 of a hectare had disappeared to, but I could not find any reference to it. The conspiracy theorists out there might say that the Government sold it off, but I tell David Bennett that I would not say that. I think what we have here is a mistake. It could simply be that something has been changed around. But I would have thought there would be an explanation, either in the commentary on the bill or in Hamilton City Council’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I would like to ask the members of the select committee—particularly David Bennett, who is sitting in a chair alongside the Chair—what the discrepancy might be.

I move, That the question be now put.