Robertson Grant: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5696. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I have several matters to raise in this call but I just want to pick up the point that the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage was just raising. The question of whether or not there should be a Treaty clause in the bill was dealt with in discussion at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and there certainly was some discussion about whether that was needed or required in this bill. 
One of the important things to note and it is one of the issues that I certainly myself raised in the select committee is that the bill’s title does include in it the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill and that is a reference by the inclusion of the word “Pukeahu” in here to the way in which that land is known to particularly the Taranaki Whanui and those who are part of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. I do believe it is incumbent on this House to have some recognition of the important role that the Taranaki Whanui have played in this particular area. We were given in the select committee an excellent submission on behalf of the Port Nicholson trust by Liz Mellish and she did go through some of the history of this area and the significance of the area for the Taranaki Whanui. 
What the committee did was make specific recognition in the commentary on the bill around the important role that the Taranaki Whanui and the Port Nicholson trust have played in this area and certainly our belief that they must continue to play that role. They are involved in a number of places in this bill in their role as a landowner. In particular the land immediately beside the Carillon is owned jointly I think by Massey University and the Port Nicholson settlement trust. So they do have a significant role. They should have a significant ongoing role in the way that this park is developed and I certainly hope that is something that the Government will pick up given the support that the trust has given over the years for the war memorial and obviously now we hope for the park. So on this side of the Chamber we would certainly like to note that an important part of this bill is the recognition of the role of the Port Nicholson trust and the Taranaki Whanui and they certainly will have a role in a number of areas. 
Now that we are taking the debate on this bill as one question I just wanted to pick up several of the key changes that have been made throughout the bill. In a sense for me as the local member where this park will be built I have had concern throughout this process to make sure that yes we do everything that we can to see it built in time for the 100th commemoration of Gallipoli in April 2015 and that is an important thing. This park has widespread support in the electorate that I represent and everyone who sat through the select committee process would have seen with a couple of exceptions that the submissions that came before us strongly supported getting this park built and strongly supported getting it built in as quick a time as possible. 
As I said in my second reading speech this is not ideal legislation. I do not like the fact that the Government is passing empowering legislation that goes over the top of other Acts of Parliament but from time to time there will be sufficiently nationally significant projects that require this for whatever reason and I will not rehearse those arguments again around how it is that we find ourselves in this position. We on this side of the Chamber feel more activity could have happened in the last 3 years but it has not. We are now in the position of wanting to support the bill and get it through. But we do in that context have to make sure the community is as involved as it possibly can be. 
The significant changes that I want to highlight are in particular the expansion of the role and the number of meetings of the community forum established under clause 36 of the bill. The two organisations that the committee has included are the owners of the Mount Cook Police Barracks and the Tasman Garden Body Corporate which is on the other side of the intersection of Buckle Street and Tasman Street from the barracks. It is important that the local residents have a role in the development of this park and a significant change we have made in the committee is to include that community forum having a role in the final design of the park. That is important to the people of the Mount Cook community. They want this park to be in their community and they strongly support the reasons for it but it will change their community and in the process of it being developed it will severely disrupt their community. Therefore they deserve the chance to have a role in its development. 
So we are pleased that the community forum is being expanded. We are pleased that the number of meetings has gone up to at least three and I would urge the Minister to make sure that that community forum meets as often as is needed and that there are other opportunities. The Minister and I discussed this in the second reading. There have already been some community meetings. I want there to be more. There was actually another community meeting last night which discussed this in some depth—the Mt Victoria Residents Association annual general meeting which the Minister in the chair was to have attended but did not. He was not there. He will be thrilled to learn that a fake Mr Finlayson attended the meeting and offered a number of positions on his behalf. I am sure that he would warmly endorse those positions. There is a great deal of community interest in this bill and I think that if we can see the community forum playing that key and important role members on this side of the Chamber would be reassured. 
The other area that I want to raise is the whole question around Orders in Council. Certainly going into this bill this was something that we on the Labour side of the Chamber wanted to ensure—that is there were the right protections in place so that Orders in Council are seen as what they should be which is as a last resort in the event that the extensive provisions contained in this bill are not enough to achieve the goals of the bill. That may occur from time to time but if it does the process of Orders in Council is such that we need to put all the protections possible in place to make sure that they are used only in that way. 
That is what new clause 24(4) is about. It is the last resort clause. It mentions the fact that the Minister can go down the path of Orders in Council only if they have “considered all other reasonably practicable ways relevant to the particular circumstances to achieve the purpose specified …” in the legislation. The key phrase there is “all other reasonably practicable ways”. What that is signalling to the Minister under this Act is that they can use the Orders in Council process only when it is absolutely necessary as an absolute last resort. I would hope that there will not be a great deal of need for that because the schedules of this bill outline a very extensive set of regulation powers and consenting powers that are given under this Act. But if it is needed that is the last resort clause. 
The other part of that Orders in Council process is making sure that this Parliament has a role if that is done. The Minister has wisely set up a review panel so that any Orders in Council must go to that review panel. What we wanted and what I am pleased to say is now in this bill is that there will be a report back to this House every 6 months about what that review panel has done what Orders in Council have come up. That is important. It will allow members of Parliament to know what is happening. 
The other change that we made there was an extension around the disallowance process. This is actually to give members of Parliament the right to be able to oppose any of these Orders in Council to actually give some proper time for that to be considered so we have extended that out to 12 sitting days from the 6 sitting days that was originally in the bill. 
From our point of view on this side of the Chamber we are strong supporters of this memorial park. We believe that it will give New Zealanders the kind of place to reflect on the sacrifices people have made in war to reflect on the impact of war. It will give green space to Wellington where it much needs it. It will be a place that Wellingtonians will be proud of. In terms of this legislation we have to make sure that in giving the power to make this park happen we also protect the rights of Wellingtonians and of New Zealanders more generally. I believe the changes that the committee has made make that happen and on that basis we are happy to be supporting this.