Hughes Gareth: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5779. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill which is now in its third reading. I feel like we have been speaking about it a bit lately in this House because we have. With the speed at which this bill has gone through its first reading through a very fast select committee process through the second reading through the Committee stage and now the third reading we have been talking about it a lot so I feel well versed in some of the issues. But I still have not heard anyone from the Government benches talk about the real reasons why we have to go through this extraordinary step of passing legislation to get a park—the extraordinary step of passing legislation to get a park. We have created parks for more than 100 years pretty well without legislation in the past and the Greens would prefer to keep it that way. 
I would like to elaborate and say as we have said in the numerous stages of the debate that the Green Party supports the establishment of this park. We would support it through its normal processes; we want to see it completed in time for the 100th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings for Anzac Day commemorations in 2015. We think that as well as providing New Zealanders and our Aussie Anzac cousins who come and our overseas visitors a tranquil place to enjoy throughout the year it would be an amazing way to commemorate the 100th anniversary of those landings which some people say is when New Zealand came of age which obviously was a significant milestone. It is also an opportunity to remember all those servicemen who have died who are commemorated around this Chamber. 
But the Green Party will not be supporting this bill in its third reading because of the process issues because we are going through this extraordinary step of passing legislation to get a park. We do not think it is worthwhile and we still have not heard from the Government benches—and less so from the Labour benches as well. I do not blame them; I think they did it appropriately by announcing it in 2004 because they put money behind it. But no one on the Government side has said why they—remember they were the Government at that time—scrapped the funding in 2009. If they were such huge supporters of the park why did they scrap the funding? It is the question that those on the Government benches do not want to talk about and of course they do not want to talk about it because it is embarrassing. 
I agree that New Zealanders and Wellingtonians of all persuasions want to see a park. We want to see a respectful war memorial. We want to see it in time for 2015 but we do not want to see an abuse of process. I still have not heard from the Government benches why we have to pass legislation to see it by 2015. If there is such astounding goodwill amongst the community—and I acknowledge the support of the council including the commitment of $5 million and the support including from the Green Party to see the outcomes—why do we have to pass legislation? We still have a number of years before the anniversary. Let us not forget that we have known about this anniversary for 97 years. What we know is that the Government— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Oh there’s always a few crazies to hold the process up. That’s why the Green Party’s in existence! 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Simon Bridges is quite happy to talk in interjections about the Green Party but he refuses to talk about why his Government scrapped the funding in 2009 why his party has to abuse the process and why his party has to go through the extraordinary step of passing such laws. I am sure that the member who is also a learned lawyer would prefer to see in respect of some of the more important pieces of legislation crowding out the Order Paper some actual achievement there. What we are doing is passing a bill to get a park and there is a huge opportunity cost. What this bill does obviously is override the Resource Management Act the Historic Places Act and the Public Works Act. It gives the Crown the powers through Order in Council essentially to do whatever it wants to get this park achieved. We are concerned about the precedent this sets for further legislation. We are concerned about the trend from this Government which can be seen in this legislation. 
Of course the Government talks about consultation because it has to—it is a statutory obligation on many functions—but this Government does not genuinely believe in consultation I believe. You can see it in the earthquake legislation which has extraordinary powers of the highest degree and where the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has extraordinary powers. We can see it in the way Government members have approached controversial transport projects. They do not want to hear from the community. They do not want to have a real conversation about what are the alternatives—how do we have smarter transport options. All they want to do is ram things through a fast-tracked Environmental Protection Agency process where people’s rights to have a say are severely constrained. The rights of appeal are virtually non-existent because people can appeal only on points of law. 
But let us get to the good stuff. I would like to acknowledge the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I would like to thank the submitters. Both groups we have to note went through a very fast-tracked process. I think there was only a week between the first reading and the closing of submissions. We would like to acknowledge them and thank them but note that it was a very fast process. We are very concerned that the trend seen in this bill is being abused by this Government and that is why we are not going to support it. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: We haven’t done any late-night urgency in this Parliament. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Well we are not seeing late-night urgency because we have got the— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I miss it. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: The member Simon Bridges interjects about late-night urgency. It is because we have the support of the House to go through a new process called extended hours to deal with legislation of a non-controversial nature. Obviously this is pretty controversial because we are not doing it in extended hours. What we know though is that we still have a significant number of bills on the Order Paper—important parliamentary work that we should be getting down to but instead we are passing laws to get a park. It is absolutely extraordinary. We have known about it for 97 years. The Government refuses to talk about the real reasons why we have to go through this extraordinary step. It is because it stopped the funding. 
I would like to quickly comment on the comments by the member Annette King that it would be nice to have unanimous support. We agree it would be nice to have unanimous support. However there was a better way to go about this: a better way that did not mean we have to set aside a number of laws; a better way that did not mean we have to give the Minister extraordinary powers to do whatever he or she wants through Order in Council. But I have got to take exception to the comment made by the member Annette King that the Greens should put aside their principles and support the bill. The one thing the Green Party will not be doing is putting aside our principles. We will never put aside our principles. To the Green Party that is the core of why we are in this House. This is why New Zealanders voted for us in record numbers at the last election because they want some principle in this House. They do not want the tired pragmatism the petty point-scoring the tribal battle across the House. 
 They want some principle and the Greens will not be putting aside our principle. [ 
Interruption 
] The House is riled up now that is good. I will let the members quieten down for a second because I would like to finish on a serious note. I would like to finish on a serious note. 
I would like to finish with a comment made in today’s newspaper about this. I would like to finish with the comments of historian and journalist Dr Rachel Buchanan from today’s paper which I think sums up exactly why the Greens are taking this principled approach. Dr Buchanan says: “Pukeahu is a subtle powerful significant site and this place deserves to be treated with more respect than this draconian empowering bill seems to allow.” We will continue to vote with principle we will continue to support this park but we will not be supporting this abuse of process. Kia ora Mr Speaker.