Hughes Gareth: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5576. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga 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. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: 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.