Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill

Clause 5 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is a very important clause. It is the clause that makes effectively null and void the last will and testament of George Parr, who gifted the land to the people of Hamilton. On the day after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent, the land is entirely vested in the ownership, if you like, of the Hamilton City Council. So it is actually a very—

💬 Simon Bridges: Give us a families perspective.

The legislation is very significant, actually.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What about a Māori perspective?

I do not know why Government members want to heckle in the debate on this bill, particularly this part. But I invite Tau Henare to take a call—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Mr Chairman—

Are you taking a call, Mr Henare?

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Want to sit down?

Are you taking a call?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It is disorderly for members to have a conversation across the Chamber. Contributions are to be addressed to the Chair, and the Chair alone. A member may ask another member to yield, and that member will yield if that is what the member wishes. We will not have a conversation. Contributions are to be addressed to the Chair, and I am ready, willing, and interested to hear what the member has to say.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am pleased that the Chair is ready and interested in what I have to say, as opposed to the members opposite, who just seem to want to heckle their way through this debate. But I look forward to their contribution. They will have a chance soon.

With regard to the vesting of the land in the council, this legislation is really an important matter. I want to make sure—and I would like someone from the Local Government and Environment Committee to give me this assurance—that an attempt was made to find any surviving relatives of George Parr, because this clause is effectively putting to rest his last will and testament. I do not want to do that lightly or without ensuring that any surviving relatives have had the opportunity to comment on this particular part of the bill. I would like to hear from someone on the select committee about that issue, because we are now laying to rest the Parr family’s official legal involvement with this very important piece of land, which, as we have already heard, is so important to the history of Hamilton.

George Parr, whose last will and testament we are about to part from in this clause, was an old and highly respected resident of Hamilton. He was 60 years of age when he gifted this land to Hamilton, and though he was 60, he obviously wrote into his last will and testament what he wanted this land to be used for. He wanted the land to be used for children. [Interruption] It was actually for children. I know that members opposite cannot understand why someone would be so interested in looking after children first and foremost. Those Government members over there have shown their colours—they have shown their lack of interest in children.

💬 Simon Bridges: Next she’ll start to sing “We Are the World”.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: She’s going to sing the “Red Flag”.

They continue to do that by their interjections during my contribution on this bill. They do not want to hear about George Parr. They do not want to know about this man, who put children at the heart of what he was doing.

I will tell the Committee the other reason why those members do not want to hear about George Parr. George Parr was a visionary. He showed the sort of leadership that National could never imagine showing. When he was alive he was an enthusiast and an advocate for passenger train services in the Waikato. He was a visionary. I want to pick up that mantle, because I am the only Hamilton-based MP who is prepared to go out and advocate for a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland. Tim Macindoe is not interested in advocating for it, and David Bennett is on the worst end of the spectrum—he actively opposes a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland.

I think that George Parr would wonder what on earth had become of representation and leadership in Hamilton, because the two local MPs are nowhere to be seen in terms of getting passenger train services established between Hamilton and Auckland. You know, for the people of Hamilton it is an absolute no-brainer. We have a track—about 121 kilometres—between Hamilton and Auckland. We own the train service—well, at the moment we own it; we may not if this Government gets another term—but those members will not support it.

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call, but I have to say I am surprised I did not see any of the Government members on their feet seeking to take a call, particularly the Hon Tau Henare, who has made such a lot of noise from the other side of the Chamber. He has wanted to hear all of the different perspectives. He wanted to hear the Māori perspective. He could have got up on his feet and given us his perspective, but he preferred not to—I will take that glass of water if the member wants to bring it over. He has nothing to say, but he will bring me a glass of water; he is a gentleman and I thank him very much.

Clause 5, as my colleague Sue Moroney has said, is somewhat like the purpose clause: it really gets to the heart of what the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is about. It puts to rest, once and for all, the last will and testament of George Parr. But that is not to say, by any stretch of the imagination, that this legislation would in any way upset Mr Parr, or annoy Mr Parr, because it is a continuation of his legacy.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: How can you upset him? How’s that possible?

Mr Tau Henare has asked how that is possible. I said that it would not. If George Parr were still with us today, he would not be upset by this legislation, because he, unlike this Government—unlike those members on that side of the Chamber who are making so much noise—

💬 Hon Members: Had a plan.

That is exactly right; George Parr had a plan. He wanted to see New Zealand going forward. He had a plan for the economy in New Zealand, and he had a plan for New Zealand society, as well, because he was a visionary. Economically, he wanted to see passenger rail services between Hamilton and Auckland. I would love to know when he was advocating for that, but I bet it was around the turn of the 20th century. Here we are in the 21st century and the National Government still does not want to see that plan go ahead, because it has no plan for the economy in New Zealand.

Mr Parr also wanted to see the water from the Waikato River being linked to Waiuku. Waiuku, actually, is the town where I grew up. It would have been very useful if Waiuku had had that link for a water supply from the Waikato River back when George Parr was advocating for it. There was a man with a plan. There was some vision—the kind of vision that, sadly, is absolutely lacking from the members opposite, who are barracking and making so much noise on the Government benches tonight.

George Parr did not just have a plan for the economy; he had a plan for his society, as well. He wanted to give back to his community. He was a man who was interested in his community, which is why he gave the land in Parana Park back to the community—so that it was a public asset that the public would be able to enjoy. It was not to be hocked off to some foreign investment company; it was there for the public of Hamilton to enjoy.

Not only was that the case, but George Parr had an interest in children’s health and well-being, because he set up a children’s convalescent home at Parana Park. There was a man who wanted to see good things happening in his community. He did not want to see front-line health services cut. No, he did not. He wanted to put a children’s convalescent home in the park. Mr Bennett is indicating that I need to get back to the legislation, but I tell him that this has everything to do with the bill, because this is what George Parr wanted to see happen. We are changing the use of the land that George Parr gave back to the community, so we need to talk about what George Parr wanted to see happen. He was a man who wanted to see good-quality front-line health services for his community.

George Parr was not out of touch with ordinary Kiwis in the way that this Government is. This Government is completely out of touch. He wanted to support ordinary Kiwis who were struggling to make ends meet, and he did that by providing an asset that everybody was able to use. Would this Government do that? No way—no way! That is not the way this Government operates. Its members would not have touched that with a bargepole, because this Government is not working for us. It is not working for normal New Zealanders; it is working for its mates and foreign interests—the people it would have sold this land to, if it had had the chance. That is what this Government is about, and George Parr would not have wanted to touch that with a bargepole. He would not have had a bar of it.

George Parr was a man who wanted to see his success as a Waikato farmer shared with the community, and that is why he vested this land in his community and handed it over to the Hamilton City Council. This legislation solidifies that. It makes sure that George Parr’s legacy will be respected and honoured by the people of Hamilton.

My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway made some excellent points in his speech. I will pick up on the relevance of the great legacy of George Parr, the man who built a children’s convalescent home on the very piece of land we are discussing here tonight. It is obvious to everybody listening to this debate that this National-led Government would have closed down the children’s convalescent home if it had had the decision-making power over this important resource for the people of Hamilton.

We are debating clause 5, which comes under the heading “Vesting of land in Council and related matters”, and it is a very, very significant clause in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Because of this clause, the land is freed of trusts and vested in the council. The land is no longer subject to trusts or to the last will and testament of George Parr. I think that change is very relevant, because we have seen a track record of this National-led Government interfering in—tampering with—the trust New Zealanders place in their elected officials to manage, govern, and steward the resources of this nation, the assets that generations of New Zealanders have invested in.

We saw a very, very good example of that interference that is highly relevant to clause 5. Only a few months ago we saw this National Government repealing provisions in the local government legislation that guaranteed to New Zealanders the right to be consulted before a local territorial authority could dispose of, alter, or change the terms under which land had been given, bequeathed, or donated by people like George Parr. Under the local government legislation provisions that this Government repealed, the people of Hamilton and the descendants of George Parr would have had to be consulted before the designation of this land was changed. But because of Rodney Hide, the Minister of Local Government, and the way in which he has run the local government portfolio for the last 2 years, the people of Hamilton no longer have the right to be consulted about the future use, governance, and management of Parana Park. That democratic right has been taken away from them. I reckon it is worth reflecting on that as we debate clause 5, which is precisely about the vesting of this land in the council—the fee simple estate in this land being given to the council. It is no longer subject to the last will and testament or any trusts related to the legacy of George Parr.

That is an important principle. The key word is trust, and trust is something that the people of New Zealand are rapidly losing. They are losing trust in this National Government. Te Ururoa Flavell, who has been here during this debate, brought a bill to the House only a few months ago to look at the Public Works Act having been used to take property away from New Zealanders over generations. It is often the case that the land is then used for other purposes.

Once this bill is passed, the fee simple estate will pass into the hands of the Hamilton City Council. The descendants of George Parr and the trusts associated with the legacy of the land will no longer have any relevance, and the Hamilton City Council will be free to do whatever it wants with the land, within the terms of this bill. I think that is worth reflecting on.

This Government has developed a habit of riding roughshod over the interests of communities and the desire of New Zealanders for special assets such as Parana Park to be managed in trust for the people of New Zealand. This Government has no interest in that concept. If it was up to this Government, it would probably corporatise Parana Park and hand it over to a hand-picked board of directors made up of the mates of Rodney Hide and David Bennett to manage it and make a profit.

💬 Hon Member: Turn it into a dairy farm.

They would! They would probably turn it over to a dairy farm, with the effluent running into the Waikato River.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am delighted to take a call on clause 5 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, which is David Bennett’s proudest accomplishment in his tenure as the member of Parliament for Hamilton East—his final months as the member of Parliament for Hamilton East. He wants this bill to be passed before the election, so that he can go out there and say to the people of Hamilton East that he has actually achieved something in the—what is it—5 years that he has been a member of Parliament. He has to have something to talk about, so he wants this legislation to be passed.

Clause 5 deals with the land freed of the trusts of the last will and testament of the late George Parr, and freed of the conditions imposed by that will. I have been very interested to read the biography of Mr Parr and some of the facts in it, but I have also been interested to read some of the history of the land itself, of course. It is interesting that there has been no contribution on this bill from the Māori Party, or from Tau Henare, Ms Parata, or Simon Bridges—because on reading through this information I have discovered that the land is confiscated land. It was Tainui land and it was confiscated land, so I am surprised that the Māori members on the opposite side of the Chamber have absolutely nothing to say about it at the moment—they have absolutely nothing to say about it at all.

The land is confiscated land. It changed ownership several times before it was bought by Mr George Parr, who, of course, later put it into a trust for the benefit of all the people of Hamilton. I am surprised by Mr Henare. He has been barracking and shouting a lot, but he could have taken a call, rather than moving a closure motion. He seems to have an awful lot that he wants to say, and he is getting himself very worked up over there. I am surprised that he is not keen to take a call and actually have a say on the bill.

I think that Parliament needs to be very cautious when we pass any legislation that potentially overrides somebody’s last will and testament. This is the second time, I think, in the time I have been in Parliament that I have been involved in a debate on legislation that does that. The first was a bill about Christ’s College, and freeing up money that was in trusts. This is the second piece of legislation. I think we really need to be careful about that. When people leave money, assets, land, or anything else behind, we need to be very careful that we do not override their last wishes about vesting that land and giving that land or placing it in trust. This land was placed in trust. We need to be very careful that what we do in this legislation is totally consistent with the objectives that Mr George Parr had when he set this land aside.

I sat through some of Local Government and Environment Committee proceedings on this legislation—not all of them, but some of them—and I wanted to be satisfied that Mr George Parr’s last wishes were being respected.

💬 Simon Bridges: Whatever!

Well, this is a very serious matter, I say to Mr Bridges, and I care about making sure that people’s last wills and testaments are respected. I sat through the proceedings, and I was ultimately satisfied that his last will and his last wishes were being adequately dealt with by this legislation. That is one of the reasons why I will support it. I think it is important that we take the time to consider what those wishes were, and to consider what his motivations were in setting this land aside, because that will be particularly relevant when we come to the next clause of this bill, which is about the sort of reserve it should be.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: You mean there’s another one?

We will debate that under clause 6—there are still four more clauses to go after this one, I say to that member. He can just knuckle down and look forward to it, I am sure.

George Parr was a very active member of the community, a very active—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: He used to be!

I said “was”. He was a very active member of the community. From what I can see from the biography, he was from a very active family within the community. He was clearly very community focused—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Did you know him?

No, I did not know him, but I am sure, given Mr Henare’s his advanced years, that the member went to school with him. George Parr was clearly very community focused and active in the community. I am sure that would have been part of his consideration when he vested this land in his trust, so that all Hamiltonians could enjoy it and benefit from it. We need to make sure that we are being—[Interruption] He was a Rotarian in Hamilton, and I have a lot of respect for Rotarians.

I move, That the question be now put.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Tū ake ana ahau i runga i te īnoi a tērā o tōku whanaunga a Tau Henare, i te mea, hiahia ana ia kia rangona i ngā whakaaro Māori e pā ana ki tēnei tautohetohetanga. Ēngari, titiro atu ahau ki tērā taha o te Whare, kite ahau tokotahi, tokorua, tokotoru, tokowhā me te hāwhe ngā Māori kei tērā taha, e mahara ake ana ahau he aha ai i horekau rātou e tūtū mai ana ki te whakaputa i ō rātou whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa. Mihi atu ki a rātou ēngari mehemea e hiahia ana a Tau Henare kia rangona i te taha Māori nō tēnei taha, māku e tū ake hei whakaputa i ōku whakaaro i roto i te reo Māori kia mōhio whānui ai tātou katoa i ngā whakaaro Māori e pā ana ki tēnei.

Tautoko kaha ana ahau i ngā kōrero a te hoa nei a Chris Hipkins me wōna kōrero mō te ōhākī o tēnei tangata a Hōri Parr; me te pātai he aha ai te ōhākī o ngā kupu mutunga o tēnei tangata e whakakorengia. Kua ngaro te mana i te mea, e huri ana te mana o tēnei wāhi whenua ki te kaunihera o Kirikiriroa, arā, ko Hamilton City Council. I ōku nei whakaaro, mehemea ko te ōhāki o ō mātou tūpuna ka mau tūturu rawa. Hōrekau mātou o Te Tai Tokerau e whakakorengia i ngā ōhākī o ō mātou tūpuna, pēnei i te ōhākī o tēnei tangata a Hōri Parr.

I rongo hoki anō i te whakaaro, nō hea tēnei ingoa a “Parana Park”. Ki tōku nei whakaaro, ehara tēnā he ingoa Māori ēngari, mahara ake ana ahau tērā pea, he whakaroatanga ake o te ingoa “Parr”. Ka whakaroangia kia “Pārana”. Tōku mahara tēnei. He īnoi ki te mema nāna nei i kawe mai tēnei pire ki te Whare, he aha tēnei ingoa i Parana ai? Nō hea tēnei ingoa i te mea, mōhio ana mātou ko taua whenua kei roto i te takiwā o Tainui. Mahara ake ana ahau, he aha ai i horekau he ingoa nō Tainui mō taua wāhi whenua? Nā reira, wēnei wētahi pātai e hiahia ana ahau kia rangona i ngā whakautu o te mema nāna nei i kawe mai tēnei pire ki te Whare.

He pātai hoki tāku, nā ngā tautohetohe, ngā whakawhitiwhitinga whakaaro i puta mai i te pō nei mō taua kotahi eka kua ngaro. Me te tautoko, tērā pea ko te hiahia o David Bennett kia whakatū tōna pāmu, tōna whare miraka kau i runga i taua wāhi whenua me te whakatupu i tōna kāhui kau i runga i tērā pito whenua. Me te āwangawanga hoki, tērā pea tētahi rangi, ka pahure ahau i tērā wāhi whenua ka kite ahau he whakapākokotia tino nui o te mema rā e tū ake ana ki tētahi kokonga o taua wāhi whenua.

Nā reira, wēnei ngā whakaaro i puta mai i tēnei te wāhanga tuarima o tēnei pire me te mōhio, e rima ngā wāhanga kei te toe tonu me tō mātou tino hiahia, kia haere tonu ngā whakawhitiwhitinga, ngā whakaaro e pā ki tēnei wāhi whenua; me te mōhio hoki, he whakamanamana ana mātou o te Rōpū Reipa i tēnei tangata a Hōri Parr me wāna whakaaro nui, ōna whakaaro rangatira mō ngā tāngata e noho ana kei roto Kirikiriroa; wāna whakaaro rangatira kia ōhākina tēnei wāhi whenua mō ngā tāngata katoa o Kirikiriroa; kia haerengia, kia whakatā, kia whakaokioki ai i ngā rā. Nā reira, mihi kau ana ki tērā tangata me wāna mahi hoki atu e pā ana ki ngā tereina me tana hiahia kia hangaia he huarahi tereina, mai i Tāmaki-makau-rau tae noa ki Kirikiriroa. He tangata tino whai whakaaro, rangatira ia i aua rā.

[Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise because of the plea by that one of my relatives, Tau Henare, that he wanted to hear Māori views relating to this debate. However, when I look at that side of the Chamber, I see one, two, three, 4½ Māori, and wonder why they have not made a contribution and why they have not sought the call to express their views. That aside, I acknowledge them. If the Hon Tau Henare wants to hear the Māori perspective from this side, then I will oblige him by expressing my thoughts in the Māori language so that we will all have a broader understanding of how Māori view this.

I strongly support the sentiments advanced by fellow member Chris Hipkins, his comments about the legacy gifted by this gentleman, George Parr, and the question of why the word of this man at his death was repealed. The legacy is no more, because the land is now vested in the Hamilton City Council. To me, if our ancestors made that testament on their deathbed, it would remain for ever. We of Northland would never break a testament like the one made by George Parr.

I heard the question, too, about where this name “Parana Park” came from. In my view it is not a Māori name, but I speculate whether it is actually an extension of the name “Parr” to become “Parana”. Anyway that is my take on this. To the member who brought this bill before the Parliament, I ask why the name became Parana. Where is it from? We know that land is in the Tainui region. I wonder why the Tainui name for that place was not picked. These are questions that I welcome answers to from the member who brought this bill before Parliament.

As a consequence of the points debated and commented on this evening, I have a further question, as well, about that single acre that is lost somewhere. Maybe David Bennett has plans to build his milking shed on that part of land, or raise his herd of cows on it. I have a concern, as well, that one day I might go past that acre of land and see a very imposing statue of that member standing on a corner of it.

These, then, are just some of the views that emerged in clause 5 of this bill, and there are five left. We really want the exchange of views in regard to this piece of land to continue. I know, too, just how proud we in the Labour Party are of this gentleman, George Parr, and his great intentions for the people living in Hamilton in bequeathing this piece of land to them to stroll about and relax on in future years. So I really acknowledge that man and all he has done. He had a significant interest in trains, and a desire to establish a railway line all the way out to Hamilton from Auckland. He was a person of great foresight, and a leader of his time.]

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have not heard from Kris Faafoi. I look forward to an enlightened speech.

Taloha ni. Malo to the Hon Hekia Parata, who requested that I speak a bit of Tokelauan before I address clause 5 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I would speak entirely in Tokelauan if we had a Tokelauan interpreter in the Chamber—at least, I would give it a good go—but unfortunately members will have to listen to me speak in English.

Clause 5 is the fifth clause of 10 in this bill, so we are halfway. We are only halfway. We are looking in great detail into some of the very important implications of this bill. There are three subclauses in this clause and I want to address, first, especially for Mr Tau Henare’s benefit, subclause (1), which states: “The land is no longer subject to the trusts of the last will and testament of George Parr.” It basically takes away the influence of George Parr, who gave the land to the Hamilton City Council in 1929. As we have talked about many times tonight, he was a visionary, a man who cared about how children would be looked after, especially in Hamilton. His intention was that the land was to be used as a playground for children, and for over 80 years that is what it has been used as. I am sure that David Bennett has enjoyed Parana Park himself, with his children and perhaps with his parents, and it is because of the vision of George Parr that many generations of Hamiltonians and visitors to Hamilton have enjoyed Parana Park.

We also know that the house left by George Parr, who passed away at 60 years of age—a few years too early—was supposed to be used as a convalescent home for children, but over the years it has not been able to be used as that. So the Hamilton City Council for some time, and thanks to the local member who is sponsoring this bill, has allowed—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What’s his name?

The Hon—no, sorry. He is sitting in the Minister’s chair—David Bennett. I will take away the “Hon”!

This bill allows the Hamilton City Council to use the land in the spirit in which the council and the people of Hamilton want to use it, and not necessarily specifically for the purposes set out by George Parr. Sue Moroney said before that during the investigation of this bill the Hamilton City Council exhaustively tried to find the descendants of Mr Parr. I believe that that has not been possible. Clause 5(1) allows us to move on, and allows the city council to take complete ownership and control of Parana Park for its own purposes.

Clause 5(2) is very simple. It states: “The land is no longer subject to the provisions of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958.” My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway referred to that much earlier on, so I will not touch on it. But I will touch on clause 5(3), which states: “The fee simple estate in the land is vested in the Council.” That basically gives the council full ownership of this land.

I want to bring up a point that my colleague David Shearer mentioned before on the mystery around the missing acre. It could be a simple mistake, but I hope that the member responsible for the bill will investigate that. Maybe he could call on the resources of the council. It may need the services of a simple calculator or it may need quite a lot of resources to find out where this missing acre is. I would like to congratulate David Shearer on pointing it out. It is interesting that this bill got as far as the Committee stage and no one realised that a complete acre of land that is meant to be gifted to the Hamilton City Council at this stage seems to be in no man’s land.

Clause 5(3) states that the fee simple estate in this land is vested in the council. We have talked about George Parr and the fact that he was a visionary who gifted this land at his passing. We know that he was very interested in making sure that this land stayed in public ownership. This subclause makes sure that it stays in public ownership, as it vests it in the Hamilton City Council. I guess that that is something a little bit foreign to National at the moment, because National is quite happy to sell off or mine some of our most beautiful parks and assets.

I move, That the question be now put.