Lees-Galloway Iain: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17113] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I will address some of the detail of clause 6 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill which is all about the council being able to hold the land as a recreation reserve. Clause 6(1) refers to the Reserves Act 1977 and states that Act applies now to the land as if the council had declared that the land be held for the purposes of a recreation reserve under section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of that Act states that a “local authority may … declare any land vested in it to be a reserve”. That is all about ensuring that local authorities have the power to set aside portions of land as reserve land that is available to all of the citizens that fall under their authority. It is very much about providing a service for the public which everybody is able to access. Section 14 of the Act also refers to other sections sections 17 through to 23. Those are the sections that lay out the type of reserve that a council will vest a piece of land as being. The choice was made for this land to be a recreation reserve under section 17 of the Act. 
Earlier in the debate we questioned why the Local Government and Environment Committee chose a recreation reserve over a historic reserve which is allowed under section 18 of the Act and which a number of submitters had suggested would be possible. But if we look at those parts of the Act we see that it does make sense that Parana Park be a recreation reserve rather than a historic reserve. Recreation reserves are classified as being reserves “for the purpose of providing areas for the recreation and sporting activities and the physical welfare and enjoyment of the public and for the protection of the natural environment and beauty of the countryside” and a range of other provisions as well which would be shared with a historic reserve. But historic reserves on the other hand are classified as being reserves “for the purpose of protecting and preserving in perpetuity such places objects and natural features”. 
If we go back to the original purpose that George Parr had for this land we see that it was very much to be a space that was accessible to everybody for recreation. It was to be a place where children could play as well as having the building in which children could convalesce. That was his original purpose and I think that although this bill ultimately overrides his final will and testament the desirable outcome is that we stick as closely to his original intentions as possible. So having a recreation reserve that is available for all of the public is appropriate. 
There were other choices available for Mr Parr. He did not have to offer that land up for the public. He could have kept it in his family he could have had it sold on for private personal gain or he could have denied the public access to it. But no he chose to do something quite different from that. He did something that was—frankly I suppose there is no better way to put it than this—for the many and not the few. That was a laudable outcome I think. It is great that we had someone as far back as that who was thinking in those terms. Clause 6 reinforces that. 
There is some controversy about the name that has been chosen. We have traversed that quite extensively. Often these areas of land are known by common terms that are accepted by the people in the area though the names are not a legal term and have no legal strength. But clause 6 says this area will be known as Parana Park despite the fact that there are a number of different options and probably a number of different ways that people will continue to refer to the land. One can legally change the name of something.