Auchinvole Chris: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18354] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I rise with the other speakers—nicely I am pleased to note from both sides of the House—in support of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is great to have arrived at the third reading; it really is. First of all I pay tribute to the excellent speeches that have come from members on both sides of the House in a remarkable intensive level of debate that I am sure the original authors of the bill never quite anticipated. They may have but they should rest assured that this bill has been thoroughly thoroughly debated. I pay tribute to the excellent work of my colleague David Bennett who has been my bench mate for 5½ long years in this Parliament. For 5½ years we have sat together on the benches over there in Opposition and over here in Government and the close association has not made any difference to either of us I am sure—not to either of us. 
I would also like to acknowledge those members who sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee as we considered this bill. It is always really interesting to have a local bill go through a select committee because it brings out the best in select committee procedure. I also acknowledge those organisations and members of the public who took the time to make submissions on the bill. 
This has not been a controversial bill. Today I would like to reflect on the man whose legacy we are considering the man who gave Parana Park to Hamilton. I do not personally know a great deal about him but I understand that George Parr was a local Hamilton farmer. I will talk a little further on Hamilton’s contribution to agriculture shortly. George Parr left a lasting legacy when he gifted to the city of Hamilton the area of land now known as Parana Park to be used as a site for a convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital and a playground for children. I think the phrase was “for passive recreation” and we will have more on that later. 
David Bennett 
: Passive recreation yes. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: We will have more on that later. I do not want to start the debate all over again. Apparently it was later realised that the building was unsuitable for that purpose and the area became a park managed by the council. I recall an MP from the other side of the House saying that George Parr was involved in Liberal Party politics at the time. Was it the Liberal Party? 
David Bennett 
: Yes. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The Liberal Party was of course the precursor of the National Party. Our origins go all the way back to Richard Seddon. When I consider that it is not at all surprising that this man was so concerned about the welfare of children and the welfare and well-being of the people of Hamilton generally. 
As I said I was surprised—in fact I was astonished—at just how long the bill took to reach its third reading especially through the Committee stage. Again I commend the MP responsible for the bill David Bennett my benchmate for 5½ years for the way in which he has shepherded this bill through the House. The previous speaker talked about the way in which he has shepherded the bill. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: He nurtured the bill. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No it was shepherded. We are talking about Hamilton which arguably is the Mecca of agriculture in the North Island—note the qualification of the North Island. It is the Mecca. I remember attending one of the first Fieldays in Hamilton in 1972. It was a great event to go to every year and talk to the farmers. It has become more and more sophisticated until it has become a world-class event—it really has. 
But in spite of modern technology when people think of agriculture—and every Kiwi thinks of agriculture—they think of the agricultural programmes on radio and television which are remarkably popular. Agriculture runs through the veins of every Kiwi and where is that more pronounced than in dog trials? When I saw David Bennett shepherding this bill I was reminded a little of a heeling dog as he snapped at heels and tried to drive the bill forward. And what happened? Members on the other side notably the Hon Trevor Mallard before his recent injuries from which I trust he is recovering well acted as a heading dog snapping at the head turning the bill sideways when dealing with complex issues such as definitions of what “passive recreation” is as opposed I suppose to “active recreation”. That was a puzzling thing that occupied the minds of members from both sides of the House for a long time. Many were the suggestions that were made and many were the cautious looks from the Chairperson at the time. There was also debate on the name of the park the origin of the park whether it was sustainable whether it was correct and whether it had another hidden name that should be referred to. I could not believe the level of consideration given to these items. 
I come back to the actual intention of the bill. I thank the Hamilton City Council for bringing this bill forward. We heard five submissions on the bill from people who were really serious about it. One question that came up was whether the official status of the park should be that of an historic reserve or a recreation reserve. I make special note of the very thorough and interesting submissions that outlined the historical significance of the park. From those submissions I certainly saw that Parana Park has a history that Hamilton can be proud of. It is a history that deserves protection. I can say in spite of the criticisms from the other side of the House that Hamilton has a tremendous amount going for it. It is a great place. 
The Hamilton City Council has given consideration to the issue and it wanted to have a recreational reserve option as that is the best fit for the park. To quote from the council’s submission: “The historic reserve classification may result in unintended consequences that could impact on the continued enjoyment of the park as a children’s playground.” After we considered submissions on this matter the select committee was satisfied that the recreation reserve classification would properly provide for this and other recreational uses while still requiring the council to recognise and manage its obligations under the Historic Places Act 1993. Therefore we concurred with the view put forward by the council. 
This bill in spite of the heading dog approach taken by members on the other side which I think had more to do with subsequent legislation than this piece is not particularly controversial. It is small and it is basically an administrative change. However it is significant for the people of Hamilton and their council who want their beautiful public spaces well managed for both recreational and historic value. I commend this bill to the House.