National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill

I move, That the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill be now read a second time. As is well known, this bill is required to enable the National War Memorial Park, or Pukeahu, to be completed by April 2015. Unlike the 2008 plan that was proposed, this project will entail the undergrounding of Buckle Street in front of the National War Memorial. The park will consist of a large plaza for commemorative ceremonies flanked on either side by landscaped areas with trees, seating, and walkways. Without the legislation it would simply be impossible to complete this work by April 2015.

There is broad consensus across the House and throughout New Zealand about the need for the project. The site is nationally significant and the new park will be a valued local amenity for the people of Wellington. In order to complete the park in the required time the bill grants resource consents, heritage authorisations, and building consents, and provides the designation, powers of entry on to land, and property rights to the two Government agencies that are tasked with this work: the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and the New Zealand Transport Agency. The bill removes the standard objection and repeal rights available under the Resource Management Act 1991, the Historic Places Act 1993, and the Public Works Act 1981. Rights to compensation under that latter Act are, however, preserved.

Although the bill grants authorisations and rights, it makes them subject to a range of checks and balances, including the usual associated conditions. Some conditions require plans or documents to be produced, and the bill will introduce a process for certifying independently that these documents satisfy the requirements of the conditions. In the event that further consents are required, the bill enables the Governor-General to grant them by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport or the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. Orders in Council can be used only to achieve the stated purpose in the Act, and there are a limited number of Acts that are affected.

Importantly, the bill establishes an independent review panel to scrutinise any recommended Orders in Council. In addition, the bill provides for parliamentary scrutiny by establishing an expedited disallowance process. Equally important, a community forum is set up by the legislation. It will comprise key stakeholders, who will provide information and advice in relation to the park. I anticipate that this will be supplemented by a series of public information meetings. The member for Wellington Central and I have, in fact, attended our first such meeting at Mt Cook School a week or so ago. The provisions in the bill overriding normal statutory processes will expire on 31 July 2015.

💬 Grant Robertson: It’s always a pleasure.

Did the member say it was a pleasure to be in my presence? I thank him for that. I am touched.

It has been necessary to impose a tight deadline on this legislation to ensure that work on the undergrounding can begin as soon as possible. That has put a lot of pressure on everyone involved, including the sturdy members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I thank them for their tireless efforts. That committee received 18 submissions from interested groups and individuals, and heard eight submissions. Principal matters raised concerned the purpose of the bill, constitutional issues, public engagement and the community forum, Orders in Council, and the role of the review panel. A number of changes to the bill have been made to address some of the very good submissions that were proposed by various submitters. I particularly refer to Taranaki Whānui.

So what are these amendments? Submissions on clause 3, which deals with the purpose of the bill, included the suggestion that the park needed to recognise 19th century New Zealand wars. I totally agree with the sentiment but also note that the purpose of the park itself is outside the scope of the bill. Clause 4 has been amended to clarify the circumstances under which the provisions of the Wellington City district plan have effect for the purposes of interpreting and administering the bill. The definition of “Park land” in clause 5 has been amended to include additional land parcels. These changes more accurately reflect the area intended to constitute the park. Landscaping work can be much better integrated and subject to the same fast-track processes for the duration of the legislation. Clause 5A clarifies the legal status of the plans in schedule 10 to ensure that where there is an inconsistency between the boundaries marked on the plans and the legal description of the land, the legal description prevails.

The Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, the Wellington Tenths Trust, and other submitters raised concerns about the general grant of resource consents and the potential extension of those consents beyond the lapsing date of 31 July 2015. Clause 7(5)(b) has consequently been amended to provide that a resource consent granted under the bill will lapse “unless, on or before that date,—(ia) the resource consent is given effect to; or (i) substantial work of any kind relevant to the consent has been commenced;”. Clause 7(6) specifies that “In considering an application … the consent authority must take into account—(a) whether substantial progress or effort has been, and continues to be, made towards giving effect to the consent; and (b) whether the applicant has obtained approval from persons who may be adversely affected by the granting of an extension.”

There is an amendment to clause 9 regarding authorisations for work on archaeological sites, and the effect of that is to remove reference to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. This is because a number of necessary archaeological authorities have already been obtained from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust under existing statutory arrangements. An amendment to clause 16(2) will allow the chief executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to delegate the powers of entry that would be conferred by the bill.

In their minority report the Greens expressed concern about the potential proliferation of legislation that overrides appeal rights of other statutes and empowers the Governor-General to grant Orders in Council. I can assure them that other alternatives were carefully and fully explored, including expedited consenting procedures under the Resource Management Act, but none of these could guarantee the completion of the park in the necessary time.

I assure my colleagues that this bill has been drafted to meet the very particular circumstances. It has a narrow focus. The applications are closely prescribed, and they apply for a finite period. The intent behind the Order in Council procedure is to provide a measure of last resort, and I can assure the Greens that the bill has safeguards in place around the use of Orders in Council, including scrutiny of all recommended Orders in Council by a review panel, and a speedy disallowance procedure by Parliament. The committee has further augmented these safeguards, and we accept them. Under clause 24(4) a Minister must not recommend the making of an Order in Council unless satisfied that all other reasonably practicable ways relevant to the particular circumstances have been looked at, and in particular taking into account the objective of completing the park by April 2015.

I mentioned the community forum. The membership and role of that forum have been addressed by amendments to clause 36, and I believe that that is going to be a very valuable forum to provide advice and information on the design of the park. It will meet at least three times a year. There have also been some minor changes to the schedules, but I can go through those in the Committee stage.

In conclusion, I want to thank the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor of Wellington and the Wellington City Council for their enthusiastic support for the project, and the pledge by the council to provide $5 million towards the creation of the park. I appreciate the relationships I have developed with community representatives during the consultation phase of this project, which in my case go back to 2008, and I very much look forward to working with them as we move to make this great park a reality.

It indeed was a pleasure to attend the first community meeting in the Mt Cook School hall the other night with the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. He was paying one of his royal visits to the electorate, so it was good to see him there, and should he choose to grace us—

💬 Hon Annette King: He’s moved out of the Labour electorate.

Oh, he has given up on Rongotai—he could not beat Annette King—and has decided that he will come into Wellington Central. Well, we welcome him with open arms into Wellington Central, to be able to oversee this project.

The Labour Party is supporting this bill, the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill, and first, at the outset, I want to thank not only the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but also the officials who worked alongside the committee. It was a process done at speed, and there was a lot of technical detail that needed to be dealt with. The officials were able to meet extremely quick turn-round times, and we are very grateful for the work that they did, working across the New Zealand Transport Agency, the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, so we are very grateful for the work that they did.

The Minister has run through the substantive changes that the committee made, but I do want to highlight just three or four of them because they are areas that the Labour Party was particularly keen to see included in this bill to give us the confidence that this legislation will meet the purpose that it has been put forward for. The Minister has made clear that this is a very limited scope for this bill. It is all about the creation of the war memorial park by April 2015, to meet the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings. The committee was anxious to make sure, and it is in the commentary on the bill, that everybody was aware that those were the limits around this—the fact that this was a nationally significant project, and that it had to be completed by 2015. Those two elements were vital to the conclusion of the committee that this was the only way in which we could ensure this project happened.

I do want to put on the record again, from the Labour side of the House, that we know this is not ideal legislation. It would be much better if we were able to go through the normal processes. But the truth is that since 2009 the Government has dragged its heels around getting this project going and we are very pleased it has finally decided that it will back it, but by deciding only now, at the last minute, the only option available to this Parliament to facilitate that is to pass empowering legislation of this sort. It is not ideal, it should not become the regular practice of this House, but there are going to be situations where it is necessary, and we believe that this is one of those situations.

The Minister mentioned the changes the committee made around Orders in Council, and, again, this is important to make sure that all the checks and balances that need to be in place are in place when we are giving such wide powers under a bill, as we are in this one. The committee felt that the process around the granting of Orders in Council was not sufficiently robust as it had been proposed, and we made three main changes to that. The first of them is what I would call the “last resort clause”. This is new subclause (4) in clause 24, which makes absolutely clear that the use of Orders in Council is a last resort. The processes that the bill sets up should allow for all that needs to be done to be done in the construction of this part. But if it does not, the Order in Council process is there to be used only in the last resort. The wording that we have come up with there was to say that when making an Order in Council, the Minister must have considered all other reasonably practicable ways relevant to the particular circumstances to achieve the purpose of this legislation.

So that notion of “all other reasonably practicable ways” is vital to our agreement to having this Order in Council process. It is a last resort. We also included a new clause to require the review panel that is set up under this legislation to look at Orders in Council to report to this Parliament every 6 months. It is important that Parliament stays in touch with this project. We have given significant power to the New Zealand Transport Agency and to the developers of this project. We need to know what is going on in the project—whether Orders in Council have been granted—and the new clause 27A in the bill allows us to have that ability.

We have also recommended amending clause 31 and deleting clause 32. These are around what are called the disallowance provisions. Essentially, this is to make sure that there is time for members of this House to review the Orders in Council and exercise their rights around whether or not they think those Orders in Council should be able to go ahead. The way that this works is that normally it would have meant a very short turn-round time, so we have extended it out to 12 sitting days after the day on which an Order in Council is presented to the House. So with those three changes the Labour Party has a higher degree of comfort around the exercise of the Orders in Council process, noting as we do that it is a last resort.

The other area that I just want to mention in terms of the changes made in the committee is around the community forum. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he thinks the community forum is going to be an important part of this process, because the wider Wellington community, and in particular the Mount Cook community, are strongly supportive of this park being built. They have long wanted Buckle Street to go underground and allow there to be the kind of place that all New Zealanders would want to be part of, but particularly the people who live in this community who would like to use it, enjoy it, and have it as a place to reflect. But as a community they obviously also want to be involved in the decision-making process. The community forum will now meet at least three times a year, and I strongly encourage the Government to see that forum meet more often than that, because it will be an opportunity for the local Mount Cook community to have their say.

I should also note that the membership of the community forum has been increased, and it has been increased to include two particular groups whom I want to mention. The first is the owners of the former Mount Cook Police Barracks, and any members of the House who come into Wellington via the motorway will know the police barracks. They sit on the corner of Tasman Street and Buckle Street. They are a historic building. They have level 1 classification. The owners have tenants in the building, and clearly the park will be built around them, and it is very important that they have a say. The people on the opposite side of that intersection are those people who live in the Tasman Garden Apartments, and we have also included the Tasman Garden Apartments body corporate in the list of people to be part of that forum.

We are asking a lot of people who live in this area. There is going to be enormous disruption to their lives. The diversions on the road, assuming this bill passes, will start very soon. There has already been geotechnical work that has been causing some disruption. It is only fair to those people that they have the opportunity to have their say and be part of this process, so I am pleased that the committee has agreed to extend the membership of the community forum.

The final matter on the community forum that I want to mention is a very important change made by the committee, and this is to somewhat contradict what the Minister said in his speech. The community forum does have a role now under this legislation in the final design of the park. The committee feels it is an important part of this process that the community forum can have its say. The park has been designed, and well designed, but it will not meet every single need as time goes on. We want to make sure that members of the Mount Cook community and the wider Wellington community do have a say in how the park is designed. So I am pleased that we have been able to amend clause 36 in relation to the community forum to make that happen.

More generally, to conclude my speech, I want to make the point that this memorial park has been a long time coming. Helen Clark talked about it in 2004, and it is good that we now have some agreement—and I accept the reservations of the Green Party—across the House that it should happen. What it is going to create for New Zealand and New Zealanders is a place where we can reflect on those who have sacrificed themselves for us in war, and we can reflect on all those who have served in war.

I would just note in closing that Mr Finlayson said at the public meeting we were at the other night that he also favoured making sure that we have some recognition of those conscientious objectors in wars past—people like Archibald Baxter. I welcome that notion from the Minister that, actually, this will be a park where we can reflect on the war, the nature of war, the cost of it to us, and the sacrifice that people have made. We need to get it developed in time for the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli commemorations. On this side of the House we recognise that this legislation is the only way now that we will achieve that, the Government having lost the time over the last 3 years, and therefore we will be supporting the bill.

I would just like to echo the thoughts of the first two speakers and to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their hard work in getting this bill done in a timely way, and also thank the officials who assisted us in that process, who worked through tight time frames to enable this to happen.

This bill, the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill, is, as members have discussed, something that is seen by most parties in this House as necessary. It is probably not the procedure that we would want to be followed in every case, but special circumstances demanded this in this case to enable the park to be completed on time. I would like to thank the cross-party support that we had. I know the Green Party members will be voting against this, but they were actually quite constructive within the select committee even though they will not vote for the bill.

I think the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage needs to have a special thankyou as well. This is one bill where the public submissions made some really big changes in the sense that the public submissions in regard to consultation and involvement were actioned. You see those properties that were mentioned by the last speaker, Grant Robertson, and also the Tasman Garden Body Corporate—in regard to the barracks—now being included, with distinct rights to be consulted during the process. So that is very important for them, and it emphasises the way that the Minister has made this bill something that has worked with the community and within the national interest of getting this war memorial built. It is legislation that we believe will be effective, and that listens and works with the community. We recommend it to the House.

Labour, as we have already heard from Grant Robertson, wholeheartedly supports the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. I think it was unfortunate, however, that the Hon Chris Finlayson went straight into criticism of the 2008 proposal. It is unfortunate because he really just could not help himself. He could not recognise that there is a broad consensus for this bill, and I would have to say that I will never forget his comments to a former Mayor of Wellington after the 2008 election that he was not going to progress Helen Clark’s project, and she was not going to get any credit for this. That, in fact, was what it was about in terms of this delay.

I think it is most unfortunate there has been now a 4-year delay and that we need this legislation to be able to ensure that the park is in place for 2015 so that it can be opened for Anzac Day 2015 for the 100th commemoration of Gallipoli. But we will support this bill because it is important. It is important to all New Zealanders. The recognition is certainly important to our servicemen and servicewomen—a place where you can go and acknowledge the sacrifice made by men and women not just at Gallipoli but in the many conflicts that New Zealand has been involved in.

I want to pay a tribute to the Rt Hon Helen Clark because it was her vision. I do not think I have met another member of Parliament who has driven harder to acknowledge, commemorate, and respect the soldiers and service people of New Zealand. She had a passion that came out of her own family background. She had great-uncles and family members who had served in war and lost their lives. This passion came through in many of the decisions that were made by Cabinet between 2000 and 2008. One of those decisions, which has led to the decision to have the National War Memorial where it is placed, was the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. Many of us will remember the day, 10 November 2004, when the New Zealand Defence Force brought home the Unknown Warrior. There was a welcoming ceremony at Parliament and the Unknown Warrior was honoured with campaign medals from two world wars, an Operational Service Medal, and the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association’s highest award, the Badge in Gold.

About 10,000 New Zealanders queued to pay their respects to the Unknown Warrior lying in state here at Parliament. Then the following day, on Armistice Day, after a memorial service at the cathedral of St Paul, the Unknown Warrior was accorded a full military funeral procession through Wellington to the final interment ceremony at the National War Memorial. It is estimated that around 100,000 New Zealanders lined the streets that day to honour the Unknown Warrior, who was taken to a place that is now to become our National War Memorial Park.

That is fitting. Many countries have such places where people can go and remember, and now we will have one in April 2015. It does mean, because of the delay, that we are having to use legislation. It does mean that we have legislation that has as part of it the use of Order in Council, and that is not always ideal. There is also always some resistance and feelings of it being not quite right to have to use Order in Council, and I understand those who feel uneasy. But I would say to them that I think the changes that are being made will ensure that there are safeguards put in place so that the use of that Order in Council will be done sparingly, and that it will be done only as a last resort. I would urge all parties in this House to join together to support this legislation so that those who are listening to this debate, and those who look to us to give leadership when it comes to those who have made sacrifices for this country, can see that we are a united Parliament in wanting to honour them.

I think that we can take comfort from the changes that were made that were suggested by Labour and secured at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. As you heard from Grant Robertson, the changes mean that the Order in Council can be used only as a last resort. Every other thing must be considered. All other reasonable and practical ways must be considered and looked at before an Order in Council is used. There is also a requirement, which I think is a very sensible one, that any decisions made by the review panel have to be reported to Parliament every 6 months. They have extended the consideration of Orders in Council to 12 sitting days. So I think with those changes, it has given some security to those who were worried about the use of Order in Council. Let us get over that and look to how we can make this work.

One of the ways it will work well is by extending the role of the body that is deciding, and the formation of a community forum, I think, is a really great idea. You see, too often in this place we seem to think that we know best, that we know how things should work, and that we have the knowledge at our fingertips. But from my experience over the years, I have found that often the best ideas and the best solutions come from the community itself—those who live in that community experience what is happening in that community. A community forum that can come together and say “This is how we think it should be going, this is how it should be designed, this is what it will mean to us, and this is what the impact will be.” is, I think, a very, very sound idea indeed.

I gather it is to meet four times a year, and there is some thought that this should be more often than four times. Maybe initially it could be more often than four times a year. Perhaps there would be a need for it to meet every month to begin with. We should not restrict how often it meets in a tight time frame and straitjacket, but rely on what needs to be done and what discussions need to be held.

This is a bill that is going to, when it is passed, allow for this park to proceed with speed. There is a lot of work to be done, but if I was going to make any criticism, apart from the criticism I have already made, it is that I do think that the Ministry of Transport ought to rethink what happens beyond the park, because its planning for the road beyond the underground tunnelling of Buckle Street is a dog’s breakfast. We are going to end up with a road, which someone has called a “circus road”—I think it is actually a “rollercoaster road”, where we go up and down and up and down—because the thinking beyond Buckle Street leading up to the tunnel has not been thought through by the New Zealand Transport Agency, which is working with the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. We ought not to have a flyover around the Basin Reserve. I would rather that we wait and get it right than rush ahead with a flyover that I think will actually detract from the memorial park.

That is something the Government needs to think about. Do not be driven by the agenda of the New Zealand Transport Agency and some need to have roads of national significance in place. Think about this park, what we are trying to do here, what we are trying to commemorate, and the significance of it. Think about the road beyond it if it is going to detract from it. It is certainly going to detract from a transport and flow of traffic solution that goes into my electorate through the Mount Victoria tunnel. They will be able to get to the Mount Victoria tunnel very fast through a flyover, only to reach a tunnel that goes just one way for each line of traffic.

So I support this bill. Labour supports this bill, as we have done from the time of its introduction. We have supported and assisted to make sure that it is passed, and that this park can proceed and be ready for April 2015.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak on the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. We are going to continue to oppose this bill because of the process, because of the precedents, and because of the importance of these values that we in New Zealand hold true.

We support the aims and the objective of this bill, which is to see a park—to see a quiet and more contemplative space—for us to remember those New Zealanders who served and died for their country. We support this, but we do not support the need for legislation to be able to make a park. I mean, it is simply incredible that we need legislation to make a park. It does not make sense when you say it out loud: “We need legislation to make a park.” It does not make sense.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: It makes perfect sense.

It does not make sense. As a Wellingtonian, I want to see a park there. It is a part of the city that is pretty much urban jungle. It is full of concrete, shops, and commercial and industrial facilities mixed in pretty closely. There is very little green space there. You have got the pine trees up on Mount Victoria. It is going to be lovely to have a quiet, contemplative space in the middle of the city. I was there recently for the Anzac Day ceremony. It is great when you actually close off the road. You can sit there, quietly contemplate, and listen to the speeches. It is a great experience. But, unfortunately, you do not get that for the other days of the year, because you have got State Highway 1 going straight past our National War Memorial.

I want to be clear. The Green Party supports the objectives of seeing a park. We want to see a park there. The question is whether the end justifies the means. This is what this bill is, because this bill is giving the Government extraordinary powers: the powers to override the Resource Management Act, the Historic Places Act, and the Public Works Act, and to go over the district plan. It is a dangerous precedent. The member Grant Robertson said that it is not ideal to have a process like that. You can say that again. It is “not ideal” to have a process like this. This is a dangerous precedent we are seeing in our Parliament, an abuse that we are seeing continually by the Government.

The thing that both sides of the House will not say, and the thing that they do not want to say, is that the fact is that we are here in this extraordinary situation where we are passing law to make a park—we are passing law to make a park—only because of sheer Government incompetence. That is the reason we are here. That is the reason why we have got an opportunity cost and we are not considering other legislation and seeing other things—the important questions our country faces. We are here because of Government incompetence.

Let us go over history, because the Government benches are not going to talk about the history. Gallipoli 1915 was a long time ago. We have had a lot of preparation for this. Helen Clark, the Prime Minister in 2004, announced the formation of the park—2004. We have had an awful long time to prepare. In 2007 the Labour Government committed $10 million towards it, so there was real money behind it. Then we saw the bypass road completed roughly 5 years ago, a new road exactly where the Government wants to use legislation to dig it up—a new road. It is like those council concerns that you hear all over the country, where ratepayers are concerned because people are digging up the footpath to do something, but the gas company dug it up last year or the year before. We are seeing that in this situation, because only 5 years ago this Government spent an awful amount of money getting the bypass, and we are going to dig it up now. And then in 2009 the Government scrapped the funding. So it was announced in 2004, funded in 2007, then scrapped by the Government in 2009. This is the reason we are here, the reason we are in the extraordinary situation where we have to pass legislation to get a park.

It is a trend in this Government that was started by the earthquake legislation. It is important to note that what we are talking about in this Chamber is not a national emergency. It does not require extraordinary legislation like this to override numerous pieces of legislation and to give the Government power through Order in Council to effectively do whatever it wants.

I think it is important to quote from the Legislation Advisory Committee; it is quoted in the Green Party’s minority report. I think it is a very important point that it points out: “The number of ‘good causes’ for which government may wish to use its legislative power is unlimited, and citizens can be adversely affected by apparently ‘worthy’ causes as well as less benign ones … The bill is an awkward precedent and the committee is troubled that the more this sort of device is resorted to, the easier it seems to do it again.” We are seeing the process through other transport projects in the country where the Government is using the powers to call in projects, and to constrain public say, public rights of appeal, and, ultimately, a beneficial process, because you want to have numerous voices as part of the planning process.

We note that there were a few changes made in the select committee. We would like to thank those submitters who made a submission. We note, though, that it was a very constrained process. The bill was referred from its first reading on 28 August, then we saw submissions close a week later, on 6 September. Here we are, less than a month after the bill was referred to the select committee, for its second reading—less than a month.

We did see a few positive changes—and I would like to acknowledge them—to the make-up of the review panel. I understand from the comment of the member for Rongotai that the review panel minimum meeting times are being increased to three times a year. We have seen the changes to the Order in Council, so now the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage must have considered all reasonably practical ways relevant to the particular circumstances before he can use the Order in Council. For those people who do not know what an Order in Council is, it basically gives the Minister the ability to do whatever he wants under this legislation to achieve the objectives—absolutely extraordinary powers, and when you couple it with the ability to override legislation like the Resource Management Act and the Historic Places Act, it simply is extraordinary.

We have seen some changes to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and we would like to see a commitment from the Government benches that the historic Mother Aubert creche, which is right next to this site, will not be moved under this legislation. It is quite important, because I fear that what we are going to see is the Government using these extraordinary powers to see the next project down the line commence, or at least parts of it. This is the controversial, deeply unpopular, quite fiscally irresponsible Basin Reserve flyover. What we do not want to see is the Government using these powers to move things like the historic creche so it can facilitate its plans for an ugly, unneeded, expensive Basin Reserve flyover.

In summary, the Green Party supports the park. We want to see it done. We not think we need legislation to do it. In fact, if it was not for sheer incompetence by the Government, we would not have to be in this extraordinary circumstance. We oppose the process. It is a bad precedent and a damaging trend of this Government. What we are going to see, ultimately, is worse decision-making. What we want to see is people’s views actually listened to. When you have a review panel meeting a minimum of only three times a year, you are not going to get those important voices around a table—needed voices, because people’s homes and their businesses are going to be impacted. It is important that we hear from them, and what we are seeing in this bill is simply a fast tracking and a constraining of those voices.

So we are not being oppositional for opposition’s sake. We believe that we have got good grounds to be opposing this law. We think processes, plans, and consultation are important. We want to see a park, but we do not support the process. That is why we are voting against it. Kia ora.

This bill, the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill, enjoys considerable support around the House. All I really wish to do is endorse the comments of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and just provide a couple of points in rebuttal to the Green Party. This is an important piece of legislation to achieve the goals of having a National War Memorial Park in place by the 2015 Gallipoli centenary. There are strengthened provisions in this bill whereby we are seeing a stronger community forum in place; where we are seeing strengthened disallowance procedures, where there are 12 days in which members can lodge a disallowance motion if they feel the need to; where there is a review panel in place; and where the Minister’s powers to provide recommendations for Orders in Council have a significant check on them, whereby he has to have considered all reasonably practicable alternatives. This is a good piece of legislation and I endorse it entirely.

I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. This National War Memorial Park, to be here in our capital city, is a very fitting memorial and a milestone to mark the 100th anniversary of Gallipoli and of World War I. It will be a very fitting memorial park to note the 100,000 soldiers, men and women, who went off to World War I—18,000 of whom died and 40,000 of whom were wounded. Further than that, it will also commemorate the more than 300,000 New Zealanders who in the last century have served this country in many theatres of war. This will be a very fitting National War Memorial.

Many of our other cities in New Zealand do have significant war memorial parks. Auckland, in particular, has the Auckland Domain, a very large park, with the Cenotaph and the Auckland War Memorial Museum in its centre. It is a very fitting, substantial place for commemoration and for ceremonies to do with our ones lost at war. This park will not be of quite the same scale as the Auckland one, but it will still be a very significant park, with views out over Wellington Harbour. More important, it will provide the necessary ambience, green belt, and park-like atmosphere to link the National War Memorial, the Hall of Memories, the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, and the Carillon. At present, State Highway 1 is a very, very busy road that goes past these places of national importance. I have attended a number of ceremonies there over the years, and it is not at all pleasant, with such a large volume of traffic going by this very important national place of commemoration, that it is not in a more quiet and fitting place. This park will provide that place and will provide what any capital city should have: a place of substance and of note.

It is very, very noteworthy that the Australian Government, as part of the 100th commemorations, is including a $5 million donation to the park to provide also an Australian memorial here. Again, it is wonderful that our Anzac friends are participating to commemorate this new addition to New Zealand. Likewise, of course, New Zealand, in the past, put up the Australia - New Zealand Memorial in Canberra, and in just the last few years also the New Zealand Memorial in Hyde Park in London. Similarly, it is very wonderful and a great gesture of the Australian Government to do likewise here in what will be our National War Memorial Park.

The project itself is $12 million for the park and its development. However, the vast bulk of the cost of $75 million is for the underpass and undergrounding of State Highway 1, to go under this area of Wellington so that the park is maintained without that busy, busy highway. It is somewhat disturbing that in 2007 $11 million was originally allocated for the park, and this project was under way under the former Labour Government, with support from New Zealand First. However, in 2009, most disappointingly, the National Government axed the funding for the National War Memorial Park and put the whole project on ice. Again, it was very disappointing to hear that that was perhaps attributable to differences in personal feelings towards the former Prime Minister, rather than to what was in the interests of the nation and the people of New Zealand. It is a shame that petty politics became involved in what should have been a project of national significance.

However, the National Government has chosen to get it back on track this year. Unfortunately, now it has to be done under urgency, so it is probably going to be in a situation of having to be pressure-cooked through to get done in time for the 2015 Anzac Day commemorations of the 100th centenary of World War I. However, I am sure that because of the goodwill on the part of all parties—apart from the Green Party, which is not supporting this bill—to get this done, it will be achieved. Likewise, it has the support of the Wellington City Council, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and all the other various other agencies. It is most important that everyone does cooperate so that this can be done in a very timely manner.

This country owes a great debt to all those who died in the service of this country. This Chamber commemorates many of those battles, and the names of many of those great battles and theatres of war are on the walls of this Chamber. Likewise, New Zealand, moving into the next 100 years, will have a fitting National War Memorial Park in Wellington when this project is completed. New Zealand First is very much in support of that, and of honouring all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country.

I think it is a chance, in this short speech, to acknowledge the cooperation that has occurred around the House in bringing this bill, the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill, forward. I certainly acknowledge the Greens and their opposition, for their reasons. But, really, this is about a national memorial for those who have served us in war. I think it is not my or our speeches today that are going to be the memorial but the memorial itself, which is to be built in 2015. I just ask that we pass this bill and have that appropriate memorial set up.

I call the honourable member Iain Lees-Galloway.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. That is what they call me in caucus, too. As Labour’s veterans spokesperson—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s a breach of privilege.

Oh, that is true, actually. As Labour’s veterans spokesperson, I have the privilege to spend a lot of time with our veterans who have served in various conflicts around the world and over the decades. In recent times, like many members in this House, I have had the opportunity to lay wreaths and to honour the sacrifice and service of a number of our veterans at the National War Memorial. And in discussions that I have had with members of the RSA and with members of different veterans groups, their response to the National War Memorial Park has been uniform in every sense.

Their initial enthusiasm and excitement when Helen Clark first proposed the National War Memorial Park back in 2004 was then followed with some trepidation and nervousness when the current Government declared that it was going to abandon those plans and slow the process down. For a while it looked as though the opportunity to have the National War Memorial Park in place by Anzac Day 2015 was being lost, and that the Government was losing focus. That trepidation has now been replaced with relief that there is a process by which the National War Memorial Park will be completed in time for that centenary commemoration of the landing at Gallipoli.

I have to say that veterans have also expressed their appreciation of the fact that this has had, more or less, bipartisan—I suppose “bipartisan” is the term that many people use—or multipartisan support from parties around the Parliament. And it has to be said that, for the most part, the veterans are not terribly concerned with the intricacies of empowering legislation, of the powers that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage will be given, or of any precedents that might be set. All that those veterans, their families, and their descendants are concerned with is the completion of that original vision that was first espoused back in 2004. They are pleased that Parliament has found a way to ensure that that memorial will be completed in time.

That is not to say that we as parliamentarians should not be concerned with the situation that we find ourselves in, and, as other members have expressed, it is not ideal that the Government’s procrastination around this issue has led us to the position where we are having to pass empowering legislation in order to complete the job. It was not necessary. If the National Government had continued on with the plans that had been put in place, had continued on using the funding that had been set aside for this project, then we would not find ourselves in this position, and that has to be recognised as well.

But it is important on issues of national significance, like this one, that the Opposition lend a hand to the Government when it finds itself in this sort of trouble. It is appropriate that we act in a constructive manner and get the outcome that the veterans, their families, and, in fact, really, all New Zealanders are looking for. So although it is not ideal, it would have been unfortunate in the extreme if all Opposition parties had chosen to vote against this legislation and make it more difficult for the Government than necessary.

That brings me to the Greens’ position. Although I respect the arguments made by Gareth Hughes, I wonder, if the Greens had found themselves holding the balance in this legislation, whether this legislation would have lived and died on the Greens’ vote, whether they would have voted the same way. That, perhaps, is a philosophical question that can never be answered. Well, Gareth Hughes is nodding, which suggests to me that the Greens would have blocked the completion of the National War Memorial Park had they been given an opportunity to do so. That, I think, is unfortunate. That is what people, I guess, expect of Parliament: that Opposition parties will oppose for the sake of opposition. It would have been an interesting question, whether or not the Greens really would have been prepared to stop the National War Memorial Park going ahead. Gareth Hughes said they want to see it happen. They like the idea of a park. They like the idea of a contemplative place where we can go and reflect on the sacrifice that our veterans made, we can reflect on the nature of war, and we can reflect on our desire for a more peaceful future, but they are not going to vote for the legislation that is going to make it happen.

💬 Shane Ardern: Sanctimonious.

And it is those sanctimonious barbs that other parties receive from the Greens that I think, perhaps, betray their desire to put process in front of absolutely everything, including an outcome that all New Zealanders want, that is going to be good for Wellington, that the local community wants, and that is in the interests of our nation. I do not want to dwell on that any more, but suffice to say that it is important for Opposition parties to help the Government out sometimes when it gets itself into a spot of bother.

I also have to say that veterans have expressed to me their surprise that the Government has seen fit to move with such speed on this particular issue when the Government has been dragging its feet so substantially on another issue, which is perhaps of even more significance to veterans, and that is the rewrite of the War Pensions Act, a process that was begun over 5 years ago when the Labour Government asked the Law Commission to carry out a review of the War Pensions Act. That review was returned to the Government more than 2 years ago now, and the National Government has had those 2 years since to get on with the job.

Nobody would say that it is an easy job. I think any veterans organisation and any individual veteran would have said that they would give the Government 12 months’ grace to get on with that job and sort out how it is going to introduce a new War Pensions Act that responds to the contemporary needs of New Zealand’s veterans. But now I think it is fair to say that veterans are getting tired of this Government dragging its feet over what is such an important issue to them. It is an issue of equity, it is an issue of justice, and it is an issue of recognising the service that was carried out on behalf of our nation and on behalf of decisions made by politicians. It is only right that we, as a Parliament, get on with the job of recognising that service in a more proper way.

Nevertheless, Labour does support this bill. We are pleased to see the completion of the National War Memorial Park. We are pleased to see that it will be done in time to honour the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli. We do believe that it is unfortunate that the Government has got itself in this position, but we are from the Opposition, and we are here to help.

Both my grandfathers served at Gallipoli. Both, fortunately, returned eventually to New Zealand. Many thousands of others did not. In subsequent battles to protect our heritage and our freedom of our country it is very appropriate that this new national memorial park be fast tracked through in time for the centennial commemoration of the Gallipoli landing. It is with enormous pride that I support the second reading of this National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill.

Just before I call the next member, I wish to advise the House that this is a split call between the Labour Party and the Green Party, and both speakers will get a bell with 1 minute to go.

Efficient as always, Mr Speaker—I appreciate it. It is a pleasure to take a call in the second reading of the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. I was pleased to find myself on the select committee, the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that considered this bill, because I listened to the first reading with great interest. The reason I did that, I suppose, is for the same reason many of us in this House have found this bill particularly interesting: it is about—as our very valuable veterans’ affairs spokesperson, Iain Lees-Galloway, has said—honouring past contributions but also our men and women who are currently serving in overseas conflicts.

One of the things that I got to do quite recently—in fact, Gareth Hughes was with me—on a trip with the Speaker was to visit Belgium and go through Messines, Ypres, and Passchendaele. I have people in my family who served in those wars—and, in fact, there is a story; I will come to that in a minute. I had no idea that only when you stand in those fields, those fields so far away from home, and understand how many of our young men were there—and I mean young; the youngest, I think, was 15; he lied about his age to go there—and you see the white stones going for miles and miles and miles, do you have any idea of the sacrifice that was made in those conflicts in the First World War. I was thinking about my grandfather, who actually served at the Somme, and I remembered coming across his diary. He left his diaries to my sister and me. He talked about how he walked from Messines to Ypres and then on to the Somme, which is quite a long way. So I stood in his footsteps, if you know what I mean. He came home safely, but it was a very, very powerful experience, and I know many of us here have similar stories in our history and in our families.

I felt very privileged to be on the select committee to be considering this bill, albeit with all of the concerns that people have raised. It was a very fast select committee process. It was referred to the committee on 28 August 2012, and we had a very short time frame for submissions, but, nevertheless, we did receive 18 submissions, and we heard eight of them. All of them were powerful. All of them were supportive. There were some concerns raised. I think we had very good advice also from the Regulations Review Committee, and the Legislative Advisory Committee as well, and we had good advice from the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, the Ministry of Transport, and the New Zealand Transport Agency that helped our committee get through this, I think, very fast process.

One of the things I was pleased about was the way that we worked together in the spirit of this memorial park to overcome some of the concerns that we had. I know that we did not satisfy the Greens on all of them, but we did work together to overcome some of the concerns that people had about this fast process for empowering legislation, which we prefer not to do. But, of course, in this situation, if we want to see a memorial park on Anzac Day in 2015 that honours the sacrifice of all of the wars that are mentioned in this Chamber and all of the other wars, all of the people who have been lost to us in those wars, and all the people who are still serving, we have to support this. We have to see this wonderful park established, and, sadly, we have to take some short cuts. We do have to allow in this case, with reservations, the necessary legislation that will enable this park to be built.

Finally, I also want to say that it is a national war memorial, so even though I am not from Wellington, I take pride in the fact that it is a national war memorial. I look forward to its completion. I look forward to us celebrating as a nation and remembering in 2015 the wonderful event that it will be when we finally have this park together and when all of us as a nation can remember. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise to speak on the second reading of the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill, which I did not have the pleasure of following through the select committee. Like my colleagues Gareth Hughes and Holly Walker have said on this bill before me, the Green Party absolutely supports the creation of a National War Memorial Park in Wellington. We honour our fallen soldiers, we honour the memory of their service, and we hope that the creation of a war memorial park will enable reflection, an opportunity in the busy city for people to think about how we will work towards peace in this world.

However, as also stated by my colleagues previously, we simply cannot support this bill as it stands, because it uses extraordinary measures that undermine the fundamental principles of democracy, which are, of course, what our forebears fought for. It is simply not good process to use special legislation to give sweeping powers to the executive, and it is a flawed, top-down process that this Government has used repeatedly since it came into power. It is not only that this bill could set a precedent but also that it is continuing the precedent of the erosion of democratic process, and we simply do not accept the idea that one can get the desired outcome and aims through poor process. It is simply not possible.

If this Government had not axed the planning and funding for this park in 2009, we would not be in this situation of playing catch-up in this sloppy, irresponsible, and undemocratic way.

I acknowledge the comments made by members of the Labour Party, who have worked to improve the bill in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I acknowledge that at this late point in time, perhaps, this bill would be the only way that the park could be created in time. However, to answer the questions previously raised by Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, I think it is safe to say that if the Green Party held the balance of power, we never would have seen the park abandoned. We never would have seen such a poor solution as an urban motorway ploughed through Wellington as the bypass, which does nothing to solve the traffic problems of Wellington, but did desecrate our National War Memorial, which already existed in the heart of this city.

For those members who are not familiar with the latest research in urban and transport planning policy, I can tell you that, actually, there are cities all over the world that are removing motorways and creating parks. What they have established is the incontrovertible fact—it is incontrovertible—that when you reduce the ability of vehicles to flow through the city, actually, the traffic disappears. It is the exact opposite of the phenomenon that happens when you create a new urban motorway, which is to say if you spend hundreds of millions of dollars putting tunnels through this city to enable the flow of vehicles, there will simply be more people seeking to drive through the city and you will not reduce traffic. But if one takes a more creative, low-cost approach, which is being taken in many cities across the world—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Are we talking about Auckland or Wellington now? “Around the world”—which bloody tunnel are you talking about?

—it is entirely possible to get better traffic outcomes, better economic outcomes, and better urban amenities, and you can absolutely create your National War Memorial Park without the need to spend $70 million on a tunnel and without the need for this outrageous legislation.

To answer the question of Mr Mallard, the cities that I am referring to include Seoul, South Korea; New York City; Paris; Portland, Oregon—cities of absolutely comparable size to Wellington and Auckland. The principles of transport planning actually are identical, no matter where one is. So there is not the need for this legislation as it stands, although the Green Party does support the need for a beautiful National War Memorial Park in the heart of Wellington. Thank you.

I want to just preface my comments by reminding the House of what Mr Bennett said in his call, acknowledging the very good work that the Green members did in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in considering this bill, the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill, because that offering from Ms Genter completely confused me—

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Genter!

—Ms Genter—particularly the last comment, which was that it was an outrageous bill. Well, that is not particularly what her colleague Mr Hughes said, and I do not think we heard the answer to Mr Lees-Galloway’s very sage question, which was, had they held the balance of power, what would they do? Ms Genter tried to answer the question. I am none the wiser. I am none the wiser what they would have done, and at some point in the next 25 years, they may well be in power. They may well be part of a left-leaning Government, and the luxury will not be theirs to do nothing, to make no decision.

I think it is a very revealing insight into the challenge that the Greens have in considering this bill. The reasons for its delay, and the need for haste are very well documented. I do not agree with Mrs King on many of the reasons that she offered for this, but I think it is a very revealing insight into the way the Greens think on what they have previously said was a good bill but they did not like the process. Now it is an outrageous bill.

I think it is a good bill. I look forward to the monument being completed and to the tunnel being built. It is not designed to solve Wellington’s transport problems, but it is going to certainly not hurt. I support the bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek under Standing Order 107 to correct a misrepresentation made in the debate by the member for Palmerston North. The member—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

I was not actually seeking leave—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Under which Standing Order was it?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Standing Order 107. He wishes to make a correction.

I was not actually seeking leave, but just to alert the House that the member for Palmerston North pointed to me, saying how the Greens would or would not vote—

No, no. That is a debatable point.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are in a bit of a bind, because Speaker’s ruling 38/4 refers to interjections. I was not interjecting when the member made this case. It is not up to me to say how the Greens would vote; it is up to our caucus. Therefore—

No, no. The member should know better. He has been here long enough now. It is still a debatable point.