Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17074] 
Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on clause 1 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill which is the title clause. The title of the Act will be the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010. The question I want to ask actually relates to the title. I am really keen to hear from the member in charge of the bill David Bennett who is in the chair. I congratulate him. It must be the very pinnacle of his career so far to be sitting in the chair on this occasion as the member in charge of the bill. I would like him to clarify for us why the title has “2010” in it when I am sure we all know that we are here debating the bill in 2011. 
Tim Macindoe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Unless I am looking at a different bill the bill does not have the year in it at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a debating point. You will have a chance to speak and make the correction if need be. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I invite the member opposite to take a call on this issue because the copy of the bill that I have in front of me and that has been tabled—the one we are debating—certainly has “2010” in the title. I think Mr Auchinvole is agreeing with me that the bill has “2010” in its title. Grant Robertson just got a copy off the Table and concurs that the bill has “2010” in the title. This seems curious given that it is 2011. We are in the Committee stage debating the title of the bill but the title indicates that the bill would be passed and enacted in 2010. That cannot possibly be the case as we are debating it in March 2011. I really would like the member in the chair to clarify that point. We want to get it right. 
We are passing this legislation on behalf of the Hamilton City Council and as a Hamilton-based member of Parliament I want to ensure that we get the detail right. Although I am not the member responsible for the bill I take the responsibility upon myself as a Hamilton-based Labour MP to make sure that we get that detail right. It would be very unfortunate if we let the Hamilton City Council down in that way if the title showed the wrong year that the bill was enacted. That of course assumes that it becomes a bill; it has every prospect of becoming a bill— 
David Bennett 
: An Act. 
SUE MORONEY 
: —sorry an Act; thank you. It has every prospect of becoming an Act because the Labour Party is supporting it. But in supporting it we want to make sure that we get the title right. I want to hear the member in the chair explain why “2010” is in the title. Maybe there is a very good explanation— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: A drafting error. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Perhaps it is. If it is as Mr Auchinvole thinks it may be then the Committee of the whole House is exactly where it ought to be picked up. 
I recognise that it does not appear that any Hamilton MP sat through any of the select committee process. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: You could have come along at any time. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I wonder whether due respect and regard was given to this very important bill from Hamilton to make sure that we got right not only the content but also the detail. Mr Auchinvole has kindly said that I could have come along at any time; I would have welcomed the opportunity. 
I really would have thought that the member in charge of the bill would be watching this bill very carefully indeed as it went through the Local Government and Environment Committee. If Mr Auchinvole is correct and this is a drafting error I would have thought that the select committee was the right place to pick up that error. However the Committee stage is also a good opportunity for that matter to be rectified if Mr Auchinvole is correct and it is a drafting error. I would like some clarification on the year that is named in the title. 
Irrespective of the title I also suggest that another— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It will be 2012 if you keep going. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The member is quite right: it could be 2012. Perhaps that is a challenge to members on this side of the Chamber and we may well rise to it. I point out that the very reason why we have the Committee stage is to make sure that we get these things right. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise and participate in the Committee stage on clause 1 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010. I suppose some of the confusion may arise because the year 2010 in the title is not in the heading of the bill. But the title clause shows 2010 in bold; it is beaming out at us from the page. I would not be as uncharitable as to suggest that maybe this is the Hamilton calendar that we are working to. I am sure that Hamilton MPs will not only put that right but may bring Palmerston North into the debate later on. One never knows; it could happen. I congratulate my colleague Sue Moroney on picking up on that very important point about the date. 
The title—Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill—superficially looks quite appropriate. The city council is seeking to secure the area commonly known as Parana Park to maintain it as a publicly owned asset for the people of Hamilton. The title seems quite appropriate but another title could be the “Hamilton City Council (Security of Public Assets) Bill” or the “Hamilton City Council (Working for its People) Bill”. This bill is quite a different approach from the approach we see from this Government. But this is not a Government bill; it is a local bill. If this were a Government bill coming from this National Government I suggest it would be the “Parana Park (Flog It Off for the Lowest Bid) Bill.” This is a public asset but this Government does not pay much heed to public assets. It is not particularly fond of public assets. It would want to try to flog it off to one of its mates or maybe to some foreign company for a nice sum so that the private individual could make the profit out of it. I have no doubt the asset would be horrendously devalued in the same way that the Government is trying to devalue our Crown pastoral land in the high country of the South Island and then some private operator would be able to make all the profit out of it. But no the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010 is all about securing this particular public asset for the people of Hamilton. I congratulate the city council on taking that approach and on bringing this local bill to its local member David Bennett to do so. 
In the second reading of the bill we discovered that the name Parana Park may not be completely without controversy. I am no scholar of Hamilton geography and I am prepared to admit that. My colleague Trevor Mallard a former representative of the people of Hamilton said that in his day the area was known as Putikitiki. I am a bit sketchy on the details but I believe that the name is associated with a stream or a river that runs nearby the land. In fact many people would refer to the area as Putikitiki rather than Parana Park. So an alternative name could be the “Hamilton City Council (Putikitiki) Land Vesting Bill” but that would be quite debatable. Some people might say that having Parana Park in the title of the bill is in a way alienating those people who call the area Putikitiki. The local members might have more knowledge on that than I do and might explain why the area is not being called Putikitiki in this legislation. 
Normally the titles of bills are not considered particularly contentious but this one might be a little bit contentious because of that alternative name by which Parana Park is known. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Mr Mallard was simply trying to fill up his time. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: He may have been but he raised an important point and it should be considered. The Committee stage is where those sorts of contentious matters can be dealt with by way of Supplementary Order Papers and the like. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I acknowledge the member in the chair David Bennett. I have sat in that chair and I will treat him as well as he treated me when I had my turn in that chair! I say to him: “Watch out!”. It will be very very interesting. In addressing clause 1 “Title” I congratulate the Hamilton City Council and join with my colleagues in saying thank goodness for councils like the Hamilton City Council. It was prepared to ensure that land that has been gifted by our forebears stays in public ownership as a recreational reserve for the use of the public and their families. As we have been hearing from other members if this land belonged to the National Government it would be up for sale before one could blink an eye. 
I am interested in a couple of things in the title clause. First of all I am not very familiar with Hamilton and I apologise to my Hamilton colleagues. I spend a lot of time driving through—[ 
Interruption 
] The sky always seems too low to me in Hamilton. I am interested in a couple of things. First of all I ask why Hamilton is called Hamilton. Why is Hamilton called Hamilton? 
Sue Moroney 
: Actually it is Kirikiriroa. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Oh is it? OK perhaps one of my colleagues or the member in the chair could enlighten me about that. “Kilikiliora”? 
Sue Moroney 
: Kirikiriroa. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: OK so where did “Hamilton” come from? Why is it in the title clause why was that not considered and why has the Hamilton City Council not changed its name? It is a very very important question. 
I am also interested in the name “Parana”. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway talked about the contribution from Trevor Mallard and I have to correct him because he said Parana was in Argentina and it is not. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Uruguay? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No it is in Brazil. It is Brazil. It is absolutely in Brazil. I am really interested to know where the name “Parana” came from. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: You looked that up didn’t you! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I did look it up actually; I had to think of something to say. But I am genuinely interested in the name “Parana” and where it came from. I suppose it could have come from the name “George Parr” but I am not sure. “Parr-ana”—I am not sure whether that is its history so perhaps the member in the chair can enlighten me about the name “Parana” and what its history is. I have had a quick look over the history—it is very interesting. Parana Park has a very interesting history but I could not find anything that explained why it is called Parana Park let alone anything on why Hamilton is called Hamilton. 
Having driven through as I said I have not been to Parana Park but I understand that it is on the other side of the river. 
Sue Moroney 
: Yes. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Across the river? 
Sue Moroney 
: Yes. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It is a wonderful recreation reserve that is used for a variety of purposes and when we get on to later stages of the bill I will talk about what some of the submissions said about the historic nature of Parana Park. 
There have been suggestions about other names for the title. I did wonder whether the member in the chair could explain why in a title like this brackets have been put around the words “Parana Park”. I ask whether this is a normal thing to do in legislation. Is this a design thing for legislation or could it just be there without the brackets and would it make any difference? I would be interested in hearing an answer to that question as well. 
As I said this is a very important bill and I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution on it. I am really pleased to be able to talk about something a little bit positive in the House. It has been a harrowing couple of weeks for members of this House and I acknowledge the colleagues who live in Christchurch and all the people who are suffering at the moment. Of course our thoughts are with them and we will work together to rebuild Christchurch; we are all in this together. It is quite good to be able to talk about something like Parana Park where children can go and play where there can be picnics and where there are from what I have seen in the pictures beautiful trees and—is it native trees as well and gardens? 
Hon Member 
: A bit of both. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: A bit of everything. I would also welcome an invitation from my colleagues in Hamilton to Parana Park. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 In the absence of my colleague the member for Hamilton East I had the great privilege of moving on his behalf the second reading of the Hamilton—[ 
Interruption 
] I beg the member’s pardon? The member can sit down. I am delighted to take this double act with Mr Shearer. I say to the member: “You hum it and I’ll play it.” 
David Shearer 
: For a moment there I thought you were going to sell it. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Absolutely not. I think I might actually get on. I was saying that I had the great privilege of moving on behalf of the member for Hamilton East the second reading of this most important Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill when he was absent on Government business. Some members opposite on that day indicated their support for the measure. In fact they were very fulsome in their praise of my speech. They even suggested that some of my insights suggested it might be the pinnacle of my career. Nevertheless I say that sadly for them that is not the case and I look forward to impressing them over and over again for many years to come during a long and industrious career as the MP for Hamilton West. 
Today I will take just a short call during this Committee stage to once again commend this measure to the Committee and commend the work of my Hamilton colleague David Bennett and our local council which has already been acknowledged in promoting it. 
Following my second reading speech one of my predecessors who represented Hamilton West nearly three decades ago the Hon Trevor Mallard asked me to explain how Parana Park—as it has long been known informally and will now be known officially—got its name. Having already spoken in the debate that day I had no right of reply but I am happy to do so now especially as Ms Fenton has just posed the same question although other Labour members who spoke before her have so far spent a fair amount of time unnecessarily prolonging this measure without saying anything remotely relevant about it. 
I am pleased to say that although the matter cannot be resolved with absolute certainty the best guide we have comes from a submitter to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill called Laura Kellaway who is a Waikato-based architect and heritage consultant. In her submission which was available to all members of the committee and therefore to Labour members had they—[ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely I say to Mr Auchinvole. Had they chosen to go along they would have known that she pointed out that the most likely derivation of the name “Parana” comes from combining as Ms Fenton has just correctly guessed the surname of George Parr who donated the land in his will in 1929 and the first name of Annie MacPherson a young child who had died a year earlier. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: So it’s not from Brazil? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: It is not from Brazil I say to Mr Lees-Galloway. The member may be but I am pleased to say that the name is not. 
George Parr was an important contributor to 19th and early 20th century Hamilton. Indeed his entire family although little is remembered of them now were certainly very prominent in their day. George and his brother Robert were by 1901 the General Shopkeepers of Hamilton who had acquired a New Zealand co-operative farmers association that had been established in 1882. They acquired it in 1884. Both brothers and their father who became a mayor of Hamilton were heavily involved in the early development of Hamilton and its community. 
The point is that although this matter is not absolutely able to be resolved it does seem likely as Ms Kellaway has pointed out that Parana Park was named by truncating the “Par” from George’s surname and the “Ann” from Annie MacPherson to form “Parana” Park. Annie MacPherson was the daughter of an early settler who had gifted the memorial bridge that crosses Gibbons Creek to the park. As I said earlier she died in 1928 and her plaque faces George Parr’s plaque on the bridge. The fact that the two face each other almost certainly explains the origin of the name. 
I am happy to enlighten the Committee and also to have been the first member this afternoon to say anything remotely relevant about the bill. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 It is a rare pleasure to take a call this afternoon in this debate on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. In commenting on the bill’s title clause I raise a question about the Hamilton City Council. We have seen all around New Zealand over the last year or two a great deal of concern. District councils and city councils around New Zealand have been rather worried about the prospect of a unified Auckland as was executed by the Hon Rodney Hide and we have seen a flurry of initiatives to amalgamate regions. The fear that has been stoked— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Title—we are on the title. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —around the use of the words “Hamilton City Council” in the title of this bill is that the region could very quickly end up being amalgamated and that we could see a different local government entity. 
We saw this situation recently with George Hawkins’ Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. It was passed in this House at its first reading and then very quickly with the creation of the new Auckland Council—otherwise known as the Auckland super-city—it had to be sent back to the Auckland Council. The council had to be asked whether it wanted to pick up the bill. What started out as a local bill sponsored by my colleague George Hawkins for the former Manukau City Council is now to become a local bill for the Auckland Council. I think that raises the question of whether the title of this bill for Hamilton City Council will have any sort of life or whether it should be changed. 
Property Council New Zealand just published a report called  
Initiatives for Hamilton 
. It is one of a flurry of initiatives all around the country looking at local government amalgamation. Property Council New Zealand has proposed for Hamilton an amalgamation of four territorial local authorities in the Waikato region. That amalgamation would probably necessitate a change in the title of the bill possibly even before the bill is passed. The bill would have to be referred back to the august Local Government and Environment Committee which is chaired by my colleague Christopher Auchinvole and it might have to be renamed the “Waikato Regional Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010” because the kind of initiative that Property Council New Zealand has proposed would see four local bodies in the Waikato being merged into one. 
It is quite interesting; Property New Zealand has also proposed the corporatisation of the assets and services of local councils in the Waikato and their amalgamation into a super-unitary authority. I think that raises the question of whether the title of the bill should be amended at this stage. Otherwise the bill may have to be referred back to the select committee before it is even passed. 
The “Land Vesting” aspect of the title is important. Perhaps the bill should be called the “Park Securing Bill” because we saw recently in the legislation for setting up the Auckland super-city a threat to the security of local ownership of the Waitakere Ranges. There was a great deal of concern in Auckland particularly in west Auckland amongst people who fought long and hard for the Waitakere Ranges parkland to be held in perpetuity by the people of Auckland. There was a great deal of concern that the bill that transferred those provisions in the existing legislation and that transferred the title of the parkland to the new Auckland Council actually weakened the protections and could open the door for Auckland Centennial Memorial Park in the Waitakeres to be transferred out of local ownership. There was some concern about that issue and a great deal of debate. I think some of those concerns were somewhat assuaged but not entirely. 
The “Land Vesting” referred to in the title of this bill is incredibly important. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am happy to take a brief but I hope informative call on the title of this bill having heard the earlier contributions in the Committee stage. I firstly recognise the contribution of my colleague Phil Twyford. Everything is in a name as he rightly pointed out. In terms of the way in which land is vested it matters that we retain some linkage with regard to the purposes for vesting lands and reserves like this but we should also retain the history of how the land got its name. 
I was quietly interested to hear Tim Macindoe’s contribution clarifying how Parana Park got its name. In fact we had a small conversation about whether the word “Parana” could be partially “pa” and “rana”. Then I was asked by Darren Hughes whether I knew of a “Rana Pa” in Kirikiriroa and I told him that no I did not. However the discussion did urge me to set straight some of the record in terms of the history of this particular bit of land. 
This land was part of the lands of notable significance confiscated in 1863 as a result of the Land Wars in the Waikato region. Parana Park is situated opposite Rangiora a hill on which an Anglican church now stands. It was a significant pa site and a place for spiritual and cultural practices in the area. Parana Park is also to the left of Miropiko Pa which is somewhat down the road. By way of clarifying some of Parana Park’s pre-European history I think it is of note to mention that Parana Park has a history that precedes its being a park. It is in a very special place in that part of Hamilton. 
The other point I will comment on in so far as the title is concerned is that it is really important to ensure that the purposes of vesting lands is for reserve reasons—in this case a recreational reason. That is really important. If the prospect of an amalgamation such as the one Mr Twyford commented on is a very real prospect for the Waikato region a number of reserves across Hamilton City Council the Waikato District Council and Waipa District Council will need to retain their special significance which is why the councils are now managing those particular reserves. 
I commend the member David Bennett for bringing this bill into the House on behalf of the city council. I bet that when he introduced the bill he did not realise there would be a long and vociferous debate on every part of its purpose. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Hang in there David. You’re doing well. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Ha ha! But one thing we Hamiltonians can say is that we are proud of the reserves we have in the city which provide recreational opportunities for our families and children. For my part the small stream that links Parana Park and the memorial park together is a delight for the young kids who get their gumboots on now and then in summer mostly and have a little kick around in water that is probably no more than 3 or 4 centimetres deep. I know my son enjoys doing that when he is there. 
In so far as the title is concerned I want to further ensure that any future consideration of amalgamation of the city’s assets across the region retains the special nature on which lands have been vested and the purposes of the history of that vesting in any transfer of assets or amalgamation of those assets. The title is very brief. Anyone listening to this debate will know that Parana Park is but a small shareholding of the council’s managed reserves but it is a unique reserve and it is something very special in the lives of a lot of kids. A lot of early childhood centres use the park and visit it often—kohanga reo and people across the community. With that in mind I commend the title of the bill and register some of those future concerns I have with regard to the purpose and management of this bit of land. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Though Tim Macindoe is not here at the moment I thank him for his explanation of how the name of the park became Parana Park. I was sitting here talking to Nanaia Mahuta and asked her whether the name came from a Maori background. She said that no there is no such word as “Parana” in Maori. We thought perhaps it was named after George Parr who as we know vested this land. 
Darien Fenton 
: Who thought of it first? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Maybe it was Darien Fenton who thought of it first. I would like to give her credit for coming up with that without having read the submission that Tim Macindoe told us about before. It raises an interesting issue though of how the name of George Parr and the word “ana” which refers to the bridge were joined together. I accept Tim Macindoe’s version of events in terms of how Parana Park got its name and he might be able to enlighten us in terms of how “Parr” and “ana” came together in the name Parana Park and how people came to know that park in the heart of Hamilton as Parana Park. 
Tim Macindoe 
: She was a child and he wanted to do something for children. She had died the year before and he acknowledged her. The two plaques are there. They look at each other; they merge. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: That is a very touching explanation. I thank Mr Macindoe very much. 
Tim Macindoe 
: You asked; I’m happy to help. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Ha ha! I am pleased I asked. 
I want also to touch on the point Sue Moroney raised which was the 2010 issue. I think we could all benefit from the wisdom of officials etc. in terms of how 2010 comes into the equation when we are debating the bill in 2011. As Chris Auchinvole said to us before if this bill does not proceed as quickly as it should through the course of this year it could actually go into 2012 and we could be putting it through under a new Labour-led Government—which would provide the same support because Labour members are supplying support today to the bill—rather than a National-led Government. 
The third point I will touch on—and it was brought up by my colleague Phil Twyford—concerns the word “vesting”. There is an enormous amount of nervousness around the country at the moment about land and assets being sold off. I think the people of Hamilton are also worried about it. I do not think they are an exception. When the opinion polls say that between 65 and 70 percent of New Zealanders are opposed to the selling-off of our State assets then I imagine that the same thing applies to land inside Hamilton. This park is a piece of land that is well used. The Hamilton City Council wants it to be protected. The bill has been brought to the House by David Bennett—and I congratulate him on doing that—on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. The bill hopefully will ensure that this piece of land in the heart of Hamilton—which is being used as we have heard for kohanga reo for various early childhood centres and for a number of different uses—is preserved now and into the future. This park is an enormously important asset to the people of Hamilton and the people of Hamilton need to be absolutely and utterly assured that the intention of this House in using the word “vesting” is to ensure that the park stays with the people of Hamilton so that they can have the use of it both now and long into the future. It is as I say an asset that needs to be protected. 
I can understand why the people of Hamilton want to ensure that this legislation goes through—to guarantee that this land stays in trust for them for their children and for their grandchildren. At the moment there is an enormous amount of nervousness around the country about the selling off of assets and potentially of land that people feel they have already paid for. They have paid for this park as well. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to thank all members for their interest in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill tonight and especially the Labour members and National members who have said such lovely things about Hamilton. I am sure they will get to know the city even more over the course of the evening. 
I will address one point that has been raised by Sue Moroney with regard to the year of the bill being 2010. If the member refers to Standing Order 307 she will see that it provides a way for dealing with such issues. So we do not have a problem with the bill at all. Thank you. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I appreciate the solidarity that Mr Chairperson Tisch has shown as a former resident of the Piako area—and I am a former constituent of his as it so happens. Perhaps that is the reason why I felt moved to speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill and specifically on the bill’s title. 
I grew up in Morrinsville and I like to clarify that because often people think that that just means I grew up in Hamilton. But they are two very different things when one is from Morrinsville. However Hamilton was the nearest city so the recreation areas of Hamilton I think were still very important to us. Of course a trip to Hamilton was very special—so deprived was my upbringing. It was a significant move from the time I lived in Murupara when a trip to Rotorua for the groceries was the highlight of the calendar month. But the point I wanted to make was that upon hearing Darien Fenton’s contribution in which she delved into the history of both Parana Park and Hamilton I wanted to come to the Chamber and explore whether some options for naming existed within those questions that Darien asked. I believe that she asked whether we should be putting into the title perhaps the history of the word “Hamilton” itself and I am not sure whether that question has been answered yet. I have not been able to find the history behind “Hamilton” but of course Kirikiriroa the Maori name for Hamilton actually means “long stretch of gravel”. I decided that on that basis I would not suggest that we call the bill the “Long Stretch of Gravel Park Bill”. The name was not really synonymous with the idea of a park so I will not propose that. But I thought it was interesting that Morrinsville one of the nearest townships is a swamp so the combination of a long stretch of gravel with a swamp is almost a match made in roading heaven. 
I do not propose to rename the bill the “Long Stretch of Gravel (City Council) Parana Park Land Vesting Bill” so I explored some other options based on a Wikipedia entry. Members will be interested to know that some of Hamilton’s nicknames are included in the Wikipedia entry on Hamilton. On this occasion I have not turned to Wikipedia for policy advice as Bill English has done in the past but I thought that from a creative perspective it might help us with the naming the title of this bill. So some options include “Hamiltron” “the Tron”—I thank Sue Moroney— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: City of the Future? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: “City of the Future” is not named so we will not be using that as a potential title. There was “H-Town” “The Fountain City” which is obvious and “Cowtown”. That is not one I have heard before and I do not suggest to members that we adopt that lingo. Again I did not think that any of those did justice as a title so I will ignore those nicknames as well. 
I think that perhaps the best contribution for a potential title was from Nanaia Mahuta who explored the history of Parana Park and its surrounding area and I think she captured the significance of its placement and its space. When we look at the original history—because that was another area where I looked for a more fitting title for this bill—we find the idea that Parana Park was intended to be a children’s convalescent home and playground. I note that the commentary on the bill now mentions that “Parana Park is currently used for passive recreation”. I would quite like to know whether the member Mr Bennett could inform us of the criteria for passive recreation as opposed to active recreation. I would not like to explore necessarily the difference between passive and active recreation but I think it is important that we title the bill appropriately so that in future no one feels obliged to move into active recreation because that would obviously be outside Parliament’s intent for that park. If the member would clarify that I would be very grateful; that would assist with the title of this bill which is incredibly important to this Parliament. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very disappointed that National members are trying to shut down this very important part of the debate but I thank the member Tim Macindoe for his very informative comments on the derivation of the name Parana Park. But I say to him that he is not the member in the chair and I think that in order for that information to have credibility we need to hear it from the member in the chair David Bennett. That member is known for being all over the detail and is known for being all about facts. Mr Macindoe is an honourable member but until we hear that information from Mr Bennett about where the name Parana Park came from it is very difficult to take Mr Macindoe at his word. 
The name is particularly important. There is a story about Hamilton that is very very relevant to this legislation. When I was in Hamilton for a Labour Party regional conference I went for a lovely walk along the riverside and came across Lunar Park—Lunar Park in Hamilton. But to my horror and dismay Lunar Park has nothing in it at all that justifies its carrying the name Lunar Park. There is nothing about space travel there is nothing about “Hamiltron” “City of the Future” in Lunar Park. I worry that the name Parana Park may also not be relevant to the particular area. 
Sue Moroney 
: With due respect— 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Sue Moroney tries to convince me that at some point there was a slide shaped like a rocket ship. 
Sue Moroney 
: There was! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I believe her but I have to say that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s what they told you! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I thank Mr Mallard. I always welcome his contributions particularly during my speeches—they are particularly helpful. I just want to know from the member in the chair David Bennett in particular that the name Parana Park is relevant to the piece of land that we are discussing unlike Lunar Park which to this day remains a gross misrepresentation of that particular piece of land in Hamilton and is a huge disappointment to those of us in the science and innovation area who went there expecting to see the living embodiment of “Hamiltron” “City of the Future” and found nothing—just an old slide and a couple of swings. Nothing! That was pretty much it. I am interested to hear from the member in the chair an absolute assurance that the name Parana Park is absolutely relevant to that area. 
I want to pick up on a very important point raised by my colleague Jacinda Ardern when she was cut off by the bell. It is the idea of “passive recreation”. I was also very interested to read that this part of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill—[ 
Interruption 
] Trevor should shut up. I was interested to read that this legislation is for the provision of land for “passive recreation”. I think we need a definition from the member in the chair of what actually constitutes— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: No you don’t. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I notice that Mr Auchinvole is telling me not to open that particular door but— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: We discussed this at the select committee in closed session. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well I say then to the member who is interjecting that he was the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Why did he put “passive recreation” in the report back to the House if he is not prepared now to tell us what it is and assure us that the title Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is appropriate for the provision of passive recreation? As my colleague Jacinda Ardern quite rightly pointed out if people were to move into the area of active recreation—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Mallard to be quiet. They could then be outside the intent of the legislation as Parliament had intended. I wonder whether Mr Auchinvole could possibly take a call and explain why as chair of the select committee he decided that the intent of this legislation was the provision of an area to be vested for “passive recreation” but did not provide Parliament with a definition of “passive recreation”. I think that is a fair point. Maybe Mr Bennett might feel compelled to take a call on the definition of “passive recreation”. 
I have to say that whenever we see Government legislation with the words “land vesting” in the title we automatically take notice and we want to know the detail. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s not a Government bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It may not be a Government bill but this may be the way of getting things through in another way. We do trust the Hamilton City Council but of course we are going through some very interesting debates in the House at the moment around the vesting of particular areas of land where the Government has been less than forthcoming on its intentions. I want to know that when I see the words “land vesting” in a title we are not talking about the kind of land vesting that Parliament is about to push through. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I apologise if I repeat some points that colleagues have made because I have been held up in meetings. But as David Bennett the member in charge of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill and his colleague from Hamilton West know Parana Park is an area that I do know relatively well. 
As a number of us know the park is the base for Anzac Day services and memorials. One of the interesting things I did as a first-time MP was participate in a march. I had been to the services before but I had never been part of the march and on the way to Parana Park people had to break their step in order not all to be bang bang banging on the bridge at the same time and causing it damage. It is fair to say that I was slightly concerned about that. When we were seeing 45-tonne trucks going over the bridge the idea that a few old soldiers could break it as they went across was something that concerned me but that was the practice. It might have been a habit that had developed from Bailey bridges or other bridges that engineers had built and people had used in times of war. 
I will go to the question of the bill’s title and particularly to the name “Parana Park”. I have two substantive questions for the member in the chair David Bennett. The first is by way of confirmation that “Parana” is in fact the name of a South American river that one of the founders of Hamilton visited on the way to Hamilton. 
Grant Robertson 
: It turns out not to be that but carry on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It turns out not to be the case? It is fair to say that during a previous debate I spent quite a bit of time researching the name “Parana” to try to work out where it was what the links were and where that came from. I have not heard the explanation yet. 
Grant Robertson 
: We did earlier but carry on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh well I apologise for that. 
Grant Robertson 
: It wasn’t from the member in the chair though. 
Sue Moroney 
: And that’s what Moana raised. It wasn’t from the member in the chair—one of us raised that point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh well it is OK if the Committee has heard an explanation. Was it believable and acceptable? [ 
Interruption 
] That is fine. 
I will go on to my second point which I will address to my colleague from the Maori Party who is currently in the Chamber Rahui Katene and that is whether she and for that matter the Associate Minister of Maori Affairs are happy with the way that the Geographic Board process has been bypassed in order to remove a traditional Maori name not from the whole park but from the section of the park at the south end—the brewery end of the park if you like. I say that setting up names by way of legislation that overrides other Acts as this bill will do—because as we know the specific overrides the general in these matters—means that a name that has traditionally been used for the southern section— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: The brewery end. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I am just indicating that the brewery is on the other side of the river. But it is on the south—well it is not actually because we go over the bridge and turn left. But I am right; it is the southern end. It is I think the other bit of the park. I think the member in charge of the bill understands the section of the park I am talking about which has traditionally had a Maori name ascribed to it. It has certainly been referred to in that way. I do not know about recent times but roughly 20 years ago when I was a member in Hamilton—well slightly more than 20 years ago—it was certainly referred to in that way. I am just wondering what Tainui think of the decision to override their traditional name and not use the process of the Geographic Board which is the normal process. I would say that the Geographic Board has traditionally tended to leave options open in terms of using either imported names or Maori names. In this case that right has been taken away from the Maori of Hamilton. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand Labour 41; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We are considering the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. We are just about to commence debate on clause 2 the commencement—a very narrow debate. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Yes this debate is on the commencement clause—clause 2 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. The commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent.” It seems pretty straightforward but we have already heard quite a bit of debate on the title clause in terms of what year this legislation is coming into effect. Is it 2010 or is it 2011? I can well imagine when we talk about the commencement that surely the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent would be in 2011— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: We’ve already talked about this. This is repetitious. 
SUE MORONEY 
: —although Mr Auchinvole offered the view before that it might be 2012. He offered the view that it may well be 2012 before we get to the commencement of this particular bill. 
I think it is important that we get to the commencement of the bill. This bill is about a luxury we have in Hamilton. I will depart from what has been at times a jocular debate this evening to say that at least in Hamilton we have the privilege to talk about this land and do not have to think about its destruction or about the things that people in Canterbury now have to think about very seriously. Every single piece of public— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Commencement date! 
SUE MORONEY 
: I am sorry that the junior Government whip does not allow me the opportunity as it is one of the first times that I have been on my feet since the Christchurch earthquake to offer my condolences to the people of Canterbury and Christchurch for what has occurred. I am sorry that she finds that offensive but I take the opportunity to say that to the people of Christchurch. 
We are talking about the commencement date of something that is fairly minor in fact for our city. I know that in a jocular way I said before that this bill must be the pinnacle of David Bennett’s career and perhaps of Tim Macindoe’s. It is great for the Hamilton City Council to bring this bill forward but in the grand scheme of things compared with what this Parliament ought to be dealing with and the things that the Government has ahead of it at the moment this bill is very very minor. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Why are you dragging it out? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Why am I dragging it out? 
Simon Bridges 
: She’s not in drag Tim. 
SUE MORONEY 
: If the two members have stopped their interjection with each other I will continue. 
I say to Mr Macindoe that this is the Committee stage on this legislation; the select committee overlooked the fact that it had the wrong date in the title clause. If we were not giving proper scrutiny to every single clause of this bill—as the Opposition at least is prepared to do—then that would have not been picked up. That is the role of this Parliament: to give decent scrutiny to legislation like this. 
That is unlike what the Government is prepared to do with another piece of legislation that talks about vesting land. It is rushing it through a select committee process and rushing it through its processes in the House. Yet the Government is complaining because the Opposition dares to give this legislation the proper scrutiny that it is supposed to have in the Committee stage! I do not apologise for that at all I say to Mr Macindoe because that is actually the job of parliamentarians: to give proper scrutiny to legislation as it goes through. 
Simon Bridges 
: So righteous. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Mr Bridges has just said: “So righteous.” 
Simon Bridges 
: If it wasn’t for you where would democracy be Sue? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Good question. A great question from Mr Bridges. Where would democracy be in this House quite frankly if it was not for the Labour Opposition calling for democracy and proper process? I think Mr Bridges asks an absolutely appropriate question. 
Simon Bridges 
: This is the bill to stake democracy on! 
SUE MORONEY 
: It has to start somewhere I say to Mr Bridges because it certainly is not happening much in the legislation that this Government is putting through when it comes to talking about vesting land and who owns the interest in land around this country. I think it is quite useful that we are giving proper scrutiny to this bill because it certainly is not happening with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take this call on the commencement clause of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is in fact my first call on the bill. I wanted to take a call on the commencement clause which is a very specific clause because I think commencement clauses in legislation are vastly underrated and are not debated enough. Members fail to understand the significance of a commencement clause and the complexity of the issues behind a commencement clause. Although they may seem simple on the surface there is actually a huge amount of complexity involved. I will talk members through some of that complexity. 
This commencement clause clause 2 states: “This Act comes into force on the date after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” That may seem very simple in writing; it is nice and clear in black and white. But what does “the day after … it receives the Royal assent” actually mean? In New Zealand it means effectively the day after it is signed by the Governor-General. The Governor-General in New Zealand has some reserve powers; the Governor-General could refuse to sign this bill. This bill could be passed by Parliament and the Governor-General could say he does not like it and is not going to sign it. The New Zealand Governor-General has that ability on behalf of the Queen as it is at the moment to refuse to assent to legislation. 
Tim Macindoe 
: You’re making a mockery of Parliament Chris. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Tim Macindoe says that I am making a mockery of Parliament by talking about the constitutional significance of the Governor-General signing legislation. I do not think that that is making a mockery of Parliament at all. 
Coming back to the issue of whether the Governor-General signs legislation it is not the House that recommends to the Governor-General whether legislation should be signed; it is normally the Prime Minister or often the Attorney-General or it could be any other Minister. Usually a Minister of the Crown makes that recommendation to the Governor-General. 
Tim Macindoe 
: How does this relate to the bill? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It has everything to do with this bill because it will determine when this bill actually becomes law. Parliament could pass this bill and the Prime Minister could recommend to the Governor-General that it be signed into law. When that happens the Prime Minister may do so very swiftly as Prime Ministers normally do or he may not. The Prime Minister may not report it very swiftly to the Governor-General for signature and the Governor-General as I have said is under no obligation to sign it. There is a constitutional convention that Governors-General will sign all the legislation presented to them on behalf of the Parliament by the Prime Minister but they do not need to and they have a reserve power to refuse to do so. 
In fact there have been instances in the past when the Governor-General has been petitioned not to sign legislation. I think there was some legislation in the 1970s regarding the SIS. The Governor-General at the time Keith Holyoake a former National Prime Minister had the opportunity should he have chosen to not sign that legislation. It would not have become the law. He decided not to go with the people who petitioned him but to go with the then Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon. He signed that legislation and it became law. I think that that was the constitutionally proper thing for him to do—to sign the legislation so that it became law. Parliament ultimately has that supremacy in New Zealand. The laws of the land are made by this Parliament and it is incumbent on our unelected head of State to sign those laws on behalf of the people who are elected. 
There is a remaining technicality in here which is that this bill does not give a specific date on which it should come into force. That is quite welcome. As a member of the Regulations Review Committee I am aware of issues around allowing any flexibility around the dates for example. This bill is very specific: the Governor-General signs it and it becomes the law. It does not contain what is called a “Henry VIII” clause which gives the Government of the day the choice to introduce this law whenever it feels like it. It does not say that this bill will come into force on the day that a Minister determines or the day that the Hamilton City Council determines. It is very clear: it comes into force on the day after the Governor-General signs it. The democratic process is actually being respected by the commencement clause as it is worded providing the Governor-General does his part and does not decide to utilise his reserve powers and refuse to sign the legislation which under our current constitutional arrangements he could do. 
As I said the commencement clause in legislation is I think vastly underrated. It is a very important part of the parliamentary process and one that from time to time we probably should spend a little time talking about so that those who pass the laws actually understand them and those who follow the proceedings of Parliament at home—and there are many of them—understand what we are doing. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 The commencement clause contained in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” That seems quite appropriate to me because it is about as fast as a bill can come into force. We certainly would not want to delay this bill unnecessarily because it is a good bill. The member in the chair is signalling to me that he would like me to sit down. I suggest to the member in the chair that he— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I was referring to the member in the chair David Bennett— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: OK. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —the member in whose name this bill stands who was signalling that he would like me to take my seat. He might want to reflect on why the Opposition has taken so much interest in this bill and in fact is taking so much interest in all the bills before the House this week. He might want to reflect on that tonight in particular and this week as well. 
I come back to the commencement clause. The member would not want to put off this bill any more than is necessary because it is a bill that ensures that a public asset stays in the public domain—remains in public ownership. We have seen many other attempts by this Government to dispose of public assets so a commencement date whereby this bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent—the fastest possible way for it to come into power—is excellent and entirely appropriate. This bill is not a Government bill. It is a Hamilton City Council local bill. The council is working on behalf of its people and making sure that this legislation comes into force quickly because it ensures the public ownership of a public asset at a time when we have so many attempts going on around us to have public assets shifted into private ownership. 
The other thing the bill does is bring certainty to the people of Hamilton in relation to the ownership of a public asset and we need to see that happen quickly as well. There is so much uncertainty for people at the moment with costs going up GST going up the unfortunate effects of the earthquake in Christchurch and the fact that so much uncertainty has been generated around what that means for the public at large. Certainty around this legislation brings some certainty to the people of Hamilton as to exactly what the future is for Parana Park. That is a very important aspect of the commencement clause and the commencement date which of course will occur in 2011 which is unusual for a bill whose title clause states: “This Act is the Hamilton city Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010.” I accept the submission from the member in the chair that that date should be reasonably easy to amend. 
Sue Moroney 
: A Supplementary Order Paper would do it. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: We would gladly debate a Supplementary Order Paper from the member in the chair to tidy up that little anomaly in the title and that would sort out any question marks around the commencement date because it will look a little odd if an Act that has “2010” in its title comes into force in 2011. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s very muddled. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It does seem muddled but this is a muddled Government and I think it is just part of its programme to be a little confused and a little muddled. We really want to see this commencement date tidied. We do not want any questions marks over it so that when it does receive the Royal assent it can be quickly actioned and the people of Hamilton can have certainty in relation to what this bill means for them and for the piece of land in Hamilton known as Parana Park. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am going to call Darien Fenton but before I do that I have a little clarification about terminology. Mr Bennett is the member in charge of the bill. The words “the member in the chair” would by most interpretations be regarded as referring to the Chairperson. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for that clarification Mr Chairperson. We will certainly be careful about our contributions in the next little while. I am happy to take a call on clause 2 “Commencement” of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010 which states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” We have had a very interesting dissertation from my colleague Chris Hipkins about how this works. What we are really talking about here is the Governor-General who is the representative of the Queen in New Zealand. Right now we are going into a transition so it could be either the current Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand who has been an excellent Governor-General and has done a wonderful job as everybody in this Chamber agrees or it could be the newly announced Governor-General Jerry Mateparae who is also a wonderful choice. There is cross-party support for that choice and there are a lot of things to recommend that appointment. I want to recall quickly if I may— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member should come back on track. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: If I could just recall quickly in relation to commencement dates that my first year in Parliament was when we welcomed the then new Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand and I am now looking forward to welcoming the next Governor-General. 
If we are talking about the commencement date I agree with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway that we want to see this come through as quickly as we can. 
Tim Macindoe 
: So why are you doing this? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: A lot of important dates for our country are ahead of us. The member has talked about those dates in relation to Parana Park. In this debate we have heard about what Parana Park delivers and what it is used for in Hamilton. Parana Park is used for things like a very important memorial service on Anzac Day. This year we have a very interesting situation around the commencement date and whether it will occur before Anzac Day. This year we have a coinciding situation with Anzac Day and Easter Monday and that is an issue. While I am talking about holidays may I say that I believe that the commencement date will come after the memorial service next Friday and the Opposition will support a public holiday for that. Other things are coming up too and whether they will come up before the commencement date is another question. 
Workers Memorial Day is 28 April. Opposition members may not have heard of this day but it is a very important day in New Zealand’s history and on the New Zealand calendar. It is when we recognise all the workers who have been killed or injured in their jobs. I suggest that 28 April this year will be a significant day not only in Christchurch and at Pike River but right across the country. I understand that there has been a request from unions in Hamilton to have a space across the river for Workers Memorial Day. I suggest that before the commencement date of this bill that might be something that could be considered so that we show our respect for the people who when going about their business—their jobs—are killed and injured. Unfortunately those numbers are increasing every year. As I said this year will be significant and I think members opposite should show their respect because 28 April this year will be a significant day. It will be a significant day in Hamilton Auckland Christchurch and on the West Coast. Right throughout the country there will be recognition— 
Simon Bridges 
: What’s that got to do with Parana Park? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It has an awful lot to do with the commencement date. 
David Shearer 
: It’s celebrated in Parana Park. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes that is right. 
Of course other things could happen either before or after the commencement date. There is the Rugby World Cup. Forgive me but I am not sure whether— 
Sue Moroney 
: It won’t be at Parana Park. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It will not be at Parana Park but there must be something in Hamilton surely so people who are enjoying the Rugby World Cup will be able to take their children along to Parana Park and enjoy its wonderful— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask for some clarification from you about just how narrow you wanted the debate on the commencement date to be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Quite a bit narrower than it currently is. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Of course there are other important dates. As we are talking about the commencement date we have the election date on 26 November this year. That is a very very important date. Will the commencement date be before or after the election? No one knows because of that clause. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 77 Noes 43. 
Clause 3 Interpretation 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Clause 3 is the interpretation clause and there are just two phrases that it seeks to clarify. One of those is the meaning of the word “council” as it is used in this bill. Clause 3 states: “Council means the Hamilton City Council”. I reflect on a comment made earlier by my colleague Phil Twyford who made a very good point about whether we are giving enough flexibility in naming the Hamilton City Council. Sorry I should wind back and let members of the public know that the clause states that the word “council” when it is used in this bill means the Hamilton City Council. 
Mr Twyford raised the question of why we would bind ourselves to that definition when the current Government seems to have a penchant for forcing amalgamations amongst various councils thereby changing their names and making bills like this irrelevant. Under this bill even if there was a forced amalgamation or an agreed amalgamation between Hamilton City Council and another authority— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Or a unitary authority. 
SUE MORONEY 
: —or a unitary authority—we would have a bill that no longer made sense. It would state that every time we read the word “council” in this bill which will become an Act it would mean Hamilton City Council. 
I for one am not in favour of forced amalgamations in my region at all and I have been really clear on that. In fact the Labour Party has made a public pronouncement that it is not in favour of forced amalgamations in the Waikato region—or anywhere. I specifically recall making that statement on behalf of Labour for the Waikato area. I am certainly not proposing that Labour would want to see that changed. 
Shane Ardern 
: The member should study Labour’s history. What happened in 1989? 
SUE MORONEY 
: No forced amalgamations. The point I am raising is that we may be about to sign off a bill— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Take a call Mr Ardern. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Maybe Mr Ardern would like to take a call because he has rather a lot to say. We are binding ourselves to an interpretation where the word “council” always means Hamilton City Council. In years to come that may not be the name of the council. It might change because a Government might force amalgamations on other councils with the Hamilton City Council or it might change because Hamilton City Council chooses to amalgamate with other local bodies. It might change because as I think somebody else said in the debate on clause 1 the Hamilton City Council might decide to call itself the Kirikiriroa City Council in days to come. Who knows? But here we are saying that every time we read the word “council” under the interpretation clause it will mean Hamilton City Council. I certainly do not want to be responsible for coming back at a later date and wasting parliamentary time to amend this bill to reflect a new name for that council. I wonder about the wisdom of using that interpretation whereby every time we use the word “council” in the context of this bill it means Hamilton City Council. 
The other thing the interpretation clause clarifies is that when the phrase “the land” is used it means “the land commonly known as Parana Park”. We have already had some discussion about the fact that it might only be a section of the community who commonly know it as Parana Park and there is another section of the community who know that piece of land by a Maori name. Never mind this interpretation clause states: “the land means the land commonly known as Parana Park”. Then it goes on to describe that the park comprises an area “more or less 1.2141 hectares; and (b) described in computer freehold register SA128/41.” 
I notice that before the Local Government and Environment Committee made its amendments there was a much more thorough description of that piece of land in the interpretation clause and I wonder why it has been shortened to become I would imagine a good legal description but significantly less than what the original bill contained in terms of describing where the land is. I would hate to see any dispute on this issue in the future. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on clause 3 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill which aims to give more certainty to the people of Hamilton on the ownership and use of what they know as Parana Park. I was deprived of the opportunity to speak on clause 2 on the commencement of this bill. I understand that on the commencement of this bill the land defined in clause 3 as “(a) comprising more or less 1.2141 hectares; and (b) described in computer freehold register SA128/41.” will be officially put into the realm of the Hamilton City Council so that the good people of Hamilton and those who visit Hamilton can enjoy Parana Park. I also understand that this land can be described as “Lots 1 2 and 3 on Deposited Plan 3401”. Under the commencement clause I would say that on that day the land would officially have gone into the realm of the Hamilton City Council. Being a Wellington member I do not think I have ever visited Parana Park. 
Sue Moroney 
: I will take you. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: My good friend and colleague Sue Moroney will take me there. I believe that this bill will also give more certainty to the Hamilton City Council about the way it administers Parana Park. 
It is important to look at the history of the land and of the Hamilton City Council. I understand that the land was gifted to the people of Hamilton in 1929 by George Parr. Am I correct I ask Sue Moroney? 
Sue Moroney 
: Correct. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: I think I am correct. It was originally gifted to the people of Hamilton. The original purpose was for a playground and convalescent home but it came to be that it was not suitable for a convalescent home so the good people of Hamilton started using it for passive recreation and that is what is set down in the bill. I understand that the Hamilton City Council uses it for Anzac Day ceremonies to pay respect to our fallen soldiers and for other festivals. 
As I was thinking about how Hamilton City Council administers Parana Park I wondered about what kind of activity it would try to encourage there. I am sure the council would be thinking of family activities and picnics when families mums dads aunties grandparents colleagues and friends might get together to enjoy what the Hamilton City Council provides for them and what we here tonight are supplying for them. Then I was thinking about what conversations would be going on tonight. If people were having a picnic tonight at Parana Park which is administered by the Hamilton City Council I think they might be talking about the price of petrol and the fact that it has gone up so much and looks like it might go up another 5c. They would also be talking about such issues as the cost of living because they would be enjoying the outdoor area of Parana Park—as soon as this bill is commenced and the Hamilton City Council is be able to administer it. There would be increasing talk at Parana Park about what is going on with the Government of the member who is sponsoring this bill and that under National things seem to be going backwards in Hamilton. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Interpretation. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: OK. Clause 3 “Interpretation” defines the land itself and the council Hamilton City Council which will have administrative authority over this park. As I said before I was pulled up we were wondering what kind of activity would happen at Parana Park. The people of Hamilton want to be assured that they can do that kind of thing at the park—have open free political conversation. As people enjoy Parana Park they could also talk about whether the member for Hamilton East’s Government is delivering a brighter future and whether they would leave Hamilton and the beauty of Parana Park for Australia maybe as the wage gap between jobs in Australia and Hamilton seems to grow. As they sit there in the Hamilton City Council - administered Parana Park they could also talk about how they ran into Sue Moroney at Parana Park and how Labour has a plan for their future. 
Sue Moroney 
: Yes they will be talking about that. They will be. 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: That is right. 
I will also talk about the certainty that this bill gives the people of Hamilton. Although it is an uncontentious bill we on this side of the House think it is worth further investigation clause by clause. It is such an important bill for the people of Hamilton that we think that the interpretation especially should be looked at very closely. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the interpretation clause clause 3. Before I do so as it is my first opportunity to speak in the Chamber since the events of last week in Christchurch I will reflect on them for a moment. 
The pain felt by people in Christchurch has really reverberated through all our homes in a very personal kind of way. The days afterwards—and continuing from then—have been quite a lesson in how a country comes together to grieve and to respond to such a catastrophe. I will reflect on that response but first I will reflect on the dignity of the House and how it conducted itself on Tuesday and Wednesday the week before last when we were here and then throughout the period following the earthquake. May that approach continue for as long as the House has to respond to Christchurch in a particular way. 
As an immigrant New Zealander I certainly felt very proud about our response as a nation to Christchurch. I live in Auckland and I reflect particularly on how Auckland has responded. It has been a great delight for me personally to see the ethnic communities of Auckland coming together—the ethnic radio stations and newspapers etc. They address Christchurch’s needs and respond to them in a very human and very personal way. 
I acknowledge those in Auckland who have made a solid contribution and who continue to do so by opening their homes making accommodation available and collecting money and sending it down. My colleague Raymond Huo and the Chinese community have made a tremendous contribution today. 
I will also reflect on the plight of the refugees who now have to leave Christchurch and find a place away from— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member has taken half his call on an issue. I am quite tolerant because of the drama that has unfolded in Christchurch but we are now on clause 3 and I ask the member to speak on it. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. May I just finish what is a serious reflection on Christchurch during my first opportunity to speak in the Chamber since then? Are you denying me that opportunity? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member has had 2½ minutes and has not once spoken on clause 3. I understand the sensitivities around Christchurch but this is not an opportunity to pad out a debate in the Committee which is what I am determining the member is doing. The member is welcome to take a call on clause 3. I have given him ample time to make an expression. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Clause 3 is a good improvement. The bill has been returned from the Local Government and Environment Committee with a clause 3 that is improved from the old clause 3. The old clauses 3(a) (b) and (c) were redundant really in trying to look at the three part allotments and record them separately. It has been a good move to be economical about the calculation of the land by adding up all the amounts and referring to the size of the acreage as well as to the computer freehold register. Clause 3 is an improvement on what went to the select committee. It is an economic way of reflecting the actual parcel of land that is now being referred to. Thank you. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on clause 3 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I will reflect on members opposite tonight who look very agitated about the fact that Labour members are taking this bill seriously and debating it in the Chamber clause by clause. I think they should feel very privileged that we are paying Hamilton the respect that it deserves. 
I heard about the history of this land in the debate on clauses 1 and 2. I think we jumped a little bit of history to 1929 and George Parr. We forgot the original owners of this land. I am sure that my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell will be really interested in this. This bit of land I say to Mr Flavell was confiscated from Tainui. It is quite interesting that we are now calling it Parana Park rather than the name Kirikiriroa given to it by Tainui. I think that issue should have been better considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. However we have the bill back before us. 
Part of the reason why we are concerned about the bill—and we like the clarity in it about the park being vested in the Hamilton City Council—is that we are really concerned that assets that have been built up by past generations should always be protected and never sold off so that Kiwis can own their own future. 
I think this bill particularly the vesting of the park in the Hamilton City Council at least fits our principle that we protect our assets although there is some contention about the role of the Tainui Maori Trust Board and Tainui iwi and in the naming of this land as Parana Park because that is what they called it in 1929. That is rather unfortunate. 
This bit of confiscated land was ultimately freeholded sold for generations and then turned back into council land by George Parr. The bill protects the future of the land for its original purpose which is covered in other parts of the bill. Clause 5 talks really about the tribute to George Parr and what he left for future generations of families in Hamilton to enjoy. So we are really pleased about the park being vested in the Hamilton City Council. 
I think there should have been more caution at the select committee. My colleague Sue Moroney talked about forced mergers and unitary authorities. We know that when the next Government comes in Rodney Hide with his controlling mechanism of mergers around the country will disappear. 
That will give certainty to the next Government about whether Hamilton City Council actually has a secure future or whether we will face another bill like the Auckland super-city bill for Hamilton which means we will have to go back and address this legislation all over again. I congratulate the member in the chair for sitting patiently. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Me? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Not you no Mr Chair—the member in charge of the bill David Bennett. He should have a little chat to Tim Macindoe who is not showing quite the same tolerance about the need for good debate about the bill. 
We have learnt about the history of this law. We must correct in  
Hansard  
that Parana Park was confiscated Tainui land taken by the Crown in the 1860s. That is the reason we are debating this bill. We have been denied the ability to look at a Supplementary Order Paper on other bills that attempt to address mistakes of the past like the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. We are absolutely fed up that the Minister tabled a Supplementary Order Paper yesterday on that bill that denies community access and public submissions. We will fight it over the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill and we will keep it going so the people of Hamilton know that we do not trifle with democracy on this side of the Chamber. We take things seriously. 
We think the select committee did a fine job but they did not look into the future with regard to the bill. We will debate the bill with fulsome debate right through every clause because we believe in democracy. We know that people are listening out there. They know and the people listening in the Chamber tonight know that democracy was denied by the Government over the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on clause 3 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I want to look at the interpretation clause which is what we are debating. There are effectively three issues around the interpretation clause. Sue Moroney addressed the Hamilton City Council aspect of it. My colleague Steve Chadwick did the same in terms of addressing the risk of our changing the name of Parana Park and whether it is the most appropriate name for this park in Hamilton although I concede that it is well known in Hamilton as Parana Park. 
The other matter that I want to speak on is the amount of land that is part of Parana Park. It is very interesting to look at the interpretation clause and see the changes that have taken place from the 1950 Act to the bill today. Currently Parana Park is the land “(a) comprising more or less 1.2141 hectares; and (b) described in computer freehold register SA128/41.” 
Shane Ardern 
: How many acres is that? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: It is not about acres. I will refer to the words in the clause that have been crossed out. This is quite a substantive point and it is a question; I am not trifling with the Committee. Paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) have been crossed out. If I add the square metreage of land in paragraph (a) which is “2832m2 more or less being Lot 1 DPS 3401 (formerly Part Allotment 219 Kirikiriroa Parish …” to the land in paragraph (b) which is “8700m2 more or less being Lot 2 DPS 3401 (formerly Part Allotment 219 Kirikiriroa Parish …” and to the land in paragraph (c) which is “4856m2 more or less being Lot 3 DPS 3401 (formerly Part Allotment 219 Kirikiriroa Parish …” my addition comes to 16388m2 which gives us 1.6388 hectares. I do not quite understand the difference between what was the land called Parana Park which comprised 1.6388 hectares and the current area of 1.2141 hectares that we will be voting on today. This is a pretty important point. Somewhere along the line from one bill to another we have lost approximately 0.4 hectares. That is about an acre I tell Shane Ardern. It is a considerable amount of land. 
This is a serious point. I read through the submissions very closely trying to find out where the 0.4 of a hectare might be. I went through the Hamilton City Council submission which I thought might have addressed where the 0.4 of a hectare had disappeared to but I could not find any reference to it. The conspiracy theorists out there might say that the Government sold it off but I tell David Bennett that I would not say that. I think what we have here is a mistake. It could simply be that something has been changed around. But I would have thought there would be an explanation either in the commentary on the bill or in Hamilton City Council’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I would like to ask the members of the select committee—particularly David Bennett who is sitting in a chair alongside the Chair—what the discrepancy might be. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Clause 4 Purpose 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Clause 4 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is the purpose clause. It is probably one of the two most substantive clauses of the bill so I expect to hear some very good contributions on it. I know that the Labour team is certainly very keen to make contributions on this important bill. The Labour members really have rallied to the call. I am very impressed with the caucus because its members certainly have rallied to my call to see Hamilton as being a really important feature of New Zealand. That is evidenced by the Labour team’s contribution to the debate so far which will continue. 
The bill states that “The purpose of this Act”—presuming it becomes an Act—“is to … repeal the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958;”. Why is that? It is because the Hamilton City Council has determined that that particular Act of 1958 does not have the sort of flexibility that the council needs in order to administer the park under today’s conditions. We have heard that today’s conditions include the interesting concept of passive recreation which we still have not really quite got to the bottom of. We are surprised that it was not in the interpretation clause. But never mind; that has gone by the by. We have missed the opportunity to have clarification and a definition of the actual meaning of “passive recreation”. 
The bill is about enabling Parana Park to be not only vested in the Hamilton City Council—and we will debate that more fully when we get to clause 6—but used for passive recreation. I move around those areas quite frequently and I would like to know what passive recreation is so I can make sure that I do not have recreation that is not passive enough or that is too passive. I would like to know exactly what is required these days when one is in Parana Park. In fact I will be there on Anzac Day this year because as we have heard the memorial park adjacent to it is a really important part of the ceremony on that day in Hamilton. 
I too am concerned about the point that my colleague David Shearer just raised about the 0.4 hectares that seem to have gone missing in terms of the way the land has been described. I ask the member in charge of the bill David Bennett what he has done with the 0.4 hectares. Where has that gone? All joking aside I really want to make sure that we have the description right. We are describing for the first time in legislation now quite specifically that this land will be known as Parana Park and then we are saying what the land is. I want to make sure that we have the right description of the land. My colleague told us that there was a very full explanation in three different parts when this bill went before the Local Government and Environment Committee and that it set out exactly the legal description of this land. In that legal description the land added up to 0.4 hectares more than the resulting replacement clause that has come out of the select committee. 
I know that the Labour team will want to know the answer to that before we support the clauses further along in the debate. We will want to make sure there is not an inadvertent further confiscation of land going on. I am sure that would be an unintended consequence from the Government benches. It would absolutely be an unintended consequence from the Opposition benches. We are supporting this bill so I sincerely ask the member in charge of the bill to respond to that issue in order that we can all be assured in supporting the further clauses of this bill that we are not supporting something that has an unintended consequence. As I understand it the purpose is to make sure that the Hamilton City Council has certainty that the legislation fits its needs. I congratulate the city council on bringing this bill forward. I should have said: “drafting the bill for the member to bring forward”. David Bennett was quite right to frown at me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the next speaker Iain Lees-Galloway who has been trying hard to get the call I wish to bring to the Committee’s attention a miscalculation in the votes on the closure motion to clause 2. The correct number is Ayes 76 Noes 43. It does not change the outcome. I seek leave for the record to be amended. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. It will be amended. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is good to get those votes tidied up but where is that 0.4 hectare? I wonder whether there would be room on that 0.4 hectare to form “Bennett Park”. That is what I want to know and I wonder whether that is where it has gone; it is possible. It could be a place for passive recreation or it could be more of an active recreation spot; we do not know. 
Clause 4 “Purpose” is the guts of what this bill is all about. The clause states that the bill vests the land in the Hamilton City Council as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and repeals the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. I happen to have the Act in my hand. The original 1958 Act was used mainly to change the use of the dwelling house which had been handed over to the council for use as a children’s convalescent home but as far back as 1958 that purpose was no longer suitable. 
The purpose of the original Act was laid out as follows in the preamble: “Whereas George Parr of Hamilton farmer deceased who died on or about the twenty-sixth day of February nineteen hundred and twenty-nine did by his last will probate whereof was granted to the Public Trustee give and devise his freehold property being Number 3 River Road Hamilton and being part Allotment 219 of the Parish of Kirikiriroa as the same is more particularly delineated on a plan deposited in the Land Registry Office at Auckland under Number S 3401 and thereon subdivided into Lots 1 2 and 3 (hereinafter called Parana Park) unto the Mayor Councillors and Burgesses of the Borough of Hamilton to be used as follows:”. I will not go into the exact uses as we have covered those quite well. 
That description is quite close to the description we saw in the original clause 3 of the bill as introduced. The purpose is to repeal the original Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958 which describes the piece of land in the terms used in the original interpretation. It was amended by the Local Government and Environment Committee probably for very useful reasons but reasons that have not really been particularly well clarified in the House. The Department of Internal Affairs report to the select committee on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill recommended no amendments to clause 3. I should imagine that is because it fitted the purpose of this bill so closely but that is a matter that we have moved on from now although unfortunately it has not really been canvassed all that well during the debate tonight. It might be useful if the member in charge of this bill or the chairman of the select committee were able to clarify that matter. I think it would tidy up a few things. 
The purpose of the legislation is to repeal the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act and then to vest the land in the council as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. I note that the majority of submitters disagreed with clause 4(a) as it stands at present and recommended that the land should be vested in the council as a historic reserve. It appears again that the select committee did not consider that was an appropriate action to take. The officials’ comment on this is that the clause gives effect to the advertised object of the bill to vest Parana Park in the council as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and that the proposed amendment by the submitters would be outside the scope of that advertised object. But that does not really describe why that was considered to be an inappropriate course of action. It would be useful to the Committee if either the member in charge of the bill or the chair of the select committee could give members some explanation about that. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I will pick up from where my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway left off in raising the question of why the choice has been made to make the subject of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill a recreation reserve and not a historic reserve. There were among the submissions received at the Local Government and Environment Committee— 
Simon Bridges 
: You should be talking about Gloria Park. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: The member for Tauranga has a lot to say and he thinks he is a bit of an expert on local government. But in 6 weeks of select committee hearings on the Auckland super-city legislation the only thing that member asked about after we had just sat through a long submission from the chief executive of the Museum of Transport and Technology was the cost to get into that museum these days. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member knows why I am on my feet. It is about content; the member will focus on clause 4. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Thank you Mr Chairman for refocusing this debate away from irrelevancies like the member for Tauranga. 
The question at hand is why this legislation classifies Parana Park as a recreation reserve and not a historic reserve. That is the question and it is highly relevant to the purpose section of this bill. The committee received a very interesting submission from the Waikato Tree Trust and this was the main point that the trust made to the committee. It argued that clause 4(a) should be amended to vest the land in the council as a historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. It made the argument that that would fit much better with the historic character of the area. 
The trust also made the point that what really distinguishes Parana Park right next to the Waikato River is a fantastic stand of mature trees. The trust presented evidence to the committee that identified 27 historic trees in this reserve including five English oaks that are more than 100 years old and that were planted originally by George Parr as part of his settlement of the area. These trees are over 100 years old and were planted by George Parr himself. There is also an elm a red oak and London plane trees—all over 80 years old—that were also planted by George Parr. That really is the major reason for Parana Park to be considered a very special piece of the Hamilton landscape. To make it a historic reserve in this law would better recognise that. 
The Waikato Tree Trust felt that the Hamilton City Council has not adequately recognised the importance of these trees. It proposed that in the schedule of trees the council go and register and protect those trees because as this Committee will know the National Government has taken away the right of city councils and territorial authorities to protect trees of special significance by using group protection orders. So if councils want to protect our bush anywhere in their territories now they have to individually list every single tree and that is precisely what the Waikato Tree Trust hoped to achieve in this submission. It felt that by making Parana Park a historic reserve instead of a recreational reserve that would strengthen the protection of these mature trees. The trust noted that under the Reserves Act historic reserves “are established primarily to protect and preserve in perpetuity places objects and natural features of historic archaeological cultural and other special interest.” I think that it is arguable that that is a much more significant feature of Parana Park than the so-called passive recreation that we have spent some time discussing today in the Committee. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I want to pick up on what my colleague Phil Twyford was speaking about in relation to the purpose of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill which is set out in clause 4. I will address the issue he has just brought up. He mentioned the aspect of the value of Parana Park being historic as well as recreational. We have covered that issue quite a bit particularly in respect of whatever passive recreation constitutes for the park. I imagine that passive recreation constitutes something along the lines of non-organised sport—something like people going to the park for a picnic and playing with a frisbee rather than playing a full-scale rugby game or soccer game or whatever else. But there is an important point here which was subject to some debate and certainly a division emerged amongst the submitters on the bill. 
The Hamilton City Council favoured having a recreational reserve over a historic reserve. I will just touch on the council’s thinking because I think it is important. The council’s submission looked at the various classifications of the park. It looked at the possibility that the park should be classified as a historic reserve and thought that it had some merit for it to be classified as such but on further investigation the council believed that the powers under the Reserves Act 1977 for a park to be a historic reserve focus on the historic values of the reserve and the council felt that that did not adequately address the park’s recreational role. Therefore the Hamilton City Council submitted that the recreational reserve option was strongly favoured and I guess from its perspective we can see its point. 
However I think some of the submitters disagreed. Phil Twyford touched on the tree issue and on the number of very old and historic trees in the park some of which as he mentioned could have been planted by George Parr himself— 
Phil Twyford 
: They were—definitely were. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: They were definitely planted by George Parr back in the 1860s. If we look at the park in relation to history the park is on the banks of the Waikato River and for the people of Tainui it has extraordinarily special significance in terms of its position and location by the river. It is right beside the Rangiriri area as well which is also of huge importance. 
I will touch particularly on two submissions that were presented by Laura Kellaway during the course of the Local Government and Environment Committee hearings on this bill. She stated that “Historic parks”—and she made the differentiation between historic and recreational—“are special places that by capturing features relating to the community’s past give insight into how the community was formed. This land now known as Parana Park can do that on many different levels” and she went on to specify a number of them. 
I mentioned the issue of the special significance of the park to Tainui but right throughout history from George Parr onwards we see that Parana Park has special significance. The debate on the purpose of the bill clause 4 that took place in the select committee as to whether the park should be a recreational reserve or a historic reserve is very very significant. It is certainly significant to those people who submitted on the bill. I wanted to get on to this issue because Laura Kellaway said: “In essence Parana Park is a historic place as described in broad terms under the Historic Reserves Section 18(1) of the Reserves Act and under terms of the Historic Places Act 1993.” 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We are struggling for relevancy here. I will give the call to the Hon Steve Chadwick with a caution to make it relevant. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair I will be relevant to Parana Park that is for sure and relevant to the Local Government and Environment Committee members who considered this bill as part of the due process of examining any law that comes before the select committee. 
I will talk about clause 4 the purpose clause of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. My colleagues speaking previously have touched on whether the park should be a historic reserve or a recreation reserve. As the spokesperson for heritage on this side of the House I say Labour values the historical aspects of telling our stories as New Zealanders. I agree with what the Waikato Tree Trust and those from the Historic Places Trust told the select committee—on the day this bill was debated I was subbed on to the select committee. 
I think that when we are looking to the future how we look back on our past is of incredible significance. I think it is an opportunity lost that we are now calling this area a recreation reserve. I do not know what a passive recreation reserve is—it sounds like a legacy from the now-closed convalescent home that was on Parana Park. There is an incredible history to this piece of land going back to its confiscation from Tainui. That event is not commemorated in any way on this piece of land and I think that is something the people of Tainui will go to the council over. It would have been even better if the council had reserved seats for Maori members as the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001 allows. Tainui will say that part of their history as Tainui needs to be recorded on this land. We have lost an opportunity here. 
We have lost an opportunity to have this land designated as a historic reserve—as a reserve that would have commemorated the great history of the past. Actually the opportunity foregone by Hamilton City Council is really interesting because George Parr himself was the son of a Mayor of Hamilton. It sounds like he was a great fellow in the past life of Hamilton as a member of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. This guy George Parr advocated for issues that are still being advocated today. The sponsor in the chair David Bennett needs to pick up on that. George Parr was looking to connect the Waikato River with Waiuku by means of a canal. That is a great idea for an electorate MP and I am sure that my colleague Sue Moroney will pick up that bit of legacy that bit of history that should have been commemorated in this land being designated a historic reserve in clause 4. What a pity that that has not happened! The other issue George Parr was a great advocate for—and let us remember our history here and tell our stories for goodness’ sake—was for a train service from Kawhia and Raglan to Hamilton. I think a visionary like Sue Moroney who has advocated for the rail link with Auckland will certainly pick up what needs to be done about rail links in the greater Waikato in memory of George Parr. 
There are all sorts of pockets of history related to this bit of land from the confiscation onwards. Another rather charming piece of history that could be lost is a little stone bridge there that spans Gibbons Creek. It connects Parana Park with the memorial park. That bridge was built at the expense of Annie MacPherson who died in 1928. 
How beautiful it would have been if this bill had designated this land as a historic reserve rather than a recreation reserve under clause 4. Historic reserve status would not have precluded passive recreation—that would have been an enabling component—but would have been a great way for the people of the Waikato and of Hamilton City to tell their history which is a history that has been built with the people of Tainui. So I think it is an opportunity lost. I understand that the purpose clause repeals the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act and vests it— 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 76 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Clause 5 Land freed of trusts etc and vested in Council 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Clause 5 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is a very important clause. It is the clause that makes effectively null and void the last will and testament of George Parr who gifted the land to the people of Hamilton. On the day after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent the land is entirely vested in the ownership if you like of the Hamilton City Council. So it is actually a very— 
Simon Bridges 
: Give us a families perspective. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The legislation is very significant actually. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What about a Maori perspective? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I do not know why Government members want to heckle in the debate on this bill particularly this part. But I invite Tau Henare to take a call— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Mr Chairman— 
SUE MORONEY 
: Are you taking a call Mr Henare? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Want to sit down? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Are you taking a call? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is disorderly for members to have a conversation across the Chamber. Contributions are to be addressed to the Chair and the Chair alone. A member may ask another member to yield and that member will yield if that is what the member wishes. We will not have a conversation. Contributions are to be addressed to the Chair and I am ready willing and interested to hear what the member has to say. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I am pleased that the Chair is ready and interested in what I have to say as opposed to the members opposite who just seem to want to heckle their way through this debate. But I look forward to their contribution. They will have a chance soon. 
With regard to the vesting of the land in the council this legislation is really an important matter. I want to make sure—and I would like someone from the Local Government and Environment Committee to give me this assurance—that an attempt was made to find any surviving relatives of George Parr because this clause is effectively putting to rest his last will and testament. I do not want to do that lightly or without ensuring that any surviving relatives have had the opportunity to comment on this particular part of the bill. I would like to hear from someone on the select committee about that issue because we are now laying to rest the Parr family’s official legal involvement with this very important piece of land which as we have already heard is so important to the history of Hamilton. 
George Parr whose last will and testament we are about to part from in this clause was an old and highly respected resident of Hamilton. He was 60 years of age when he gifted this land to Hamilton and though he was 60 he obviously wrote into his last will and testament what he wanted this land to be used for. He wanted the land to be used for children. [ 
Interruption 
] It was actually for children. I know that members opposite cannot understand why someone would be so interested in looking after children first and foremost. Those Government members over there have shown their colours—they have shown their lack of interest in children. 
Simon Bridges 
: Next she’ll start to sing “We Are the World”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: She’s going to sing the “Red Flag”. 
SUE MORONEY 
: They continue to do that by their interjections during my contribution on this bill. They do not want to hear about George Parr. They do not want to know about this man who put children at the heart of what he was doing. 
I will tell the Committee the other reason why those members do not want to hear about George Parr. George Parr was a visionary. He showed the sort of leadership that National could never imagine showing. When he was alive he was an enthusiast and an advocate for passenger train services in the Waikato. He was a visionary. I want to pick up that mantle because I am the only Hamilton-based MP who is prepared to go out and advocate for a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland. Tim Macindoe is not interested in advocating for it and David Bennett is on the worst end of the spectrum—he actively opposes a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland. 
I think that George Parr would wonder what on earth had become of representation and leadership in Hamilton because the two local MPs are nowhere to be seen in terms of getting passenger train services established between Hamilton and Auckland. You know for the people of Hamilton it is an absolute no-brainer. We have a track—about 121 kilometres—between Hamilton and Auckland. We own the train service—well at the moment we own it; we may not if this Government gets another term—but those members will not support it. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to take a call but I have to say I am surprised I did not see any of the Government members on their feet seeking to take a call particularly the Hon Tau Henare who has made such a lot of noise from the other side of the Chamber. He has wanted to hear all of the different perspectives. He wanted to hear the Maori perspective. He could have got up on his feet and given us his perspective but he preferred not to—I will take that glass of water if the member wants to bring it over. He has nothing to say but he will bring me a glass of water; he is a gentleman and I thank him very much. 
Clause 5 as my colleague Sue Moroney has said is somewhat like the purpose clause: it really gets to the heart of what the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is about. It puts to rest once and for all the last will and testament of George Parr. But that is not to say by any stretch of the imagination that this legislation would in any way upset Mr Parr or annoy Mr Parr because it is a continuation of his legacy. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How can you upset him? How’s that possible? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Mr Tau Henare has asked how that is possible. I said that it would not. If George Parr were still with us today he would not be upset by this legislation because he unlike this Government—unlike those members on that side of the Chamber who are making so much noise— 
Hon Members 
: Had a plan. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is exactly right; George Parr had a plan. He wanted to see New Zealand going forward. He had a plan for the economy in New Zealand and he had a plan for New Zealand society as well because he was a visionary. Economically he wanted to see passenger rail services between Hamilton and Auckland. I would love to know when he was advocating for that but I bet it was around the turn of the 20th century. Here we are in the 21st century and the National Government still does not want to see that plan go ahead because it has no plan for the economy in New Zealand. 
Mr Parr also wanted to see the water from the Waikato River being linked to Waiuku. Waiuku actually is the town where I grew up. It would have been very useful if Waiuku had had that link for a water supply from the Waikato River back when George Parr was advocating for it. There was a man with a plan. There was some vision—the kind of vision that sadly is absolutely lacking from the members opposite who are barracking and making so much noise on the Government benches tonight. 
George Parr did not just have a plan for the economy; he had a plan for his society as well. He wanted to give back to his community. He was a man who was interested in his community which is why he gave the land in Parana Park back to the community—so that it was a public asset that the public would be able to enjoy. It was not to be hocked off to some foreign investment company; it was there for the public of Hamilton to enjoy. 
Not only was that the case but George Parr had an interest in children’s health and well-being because he set up a children’s convalescent home at Parana Park. There was a man who wanted to see good things happening in his community. He did not want to see front-line health services cut. No he did not. He wanted to put a children’s convalescent home in the park. Mr Bennett is indicating that I need to get back to the legislation but I tell him that this has everything to do with the bill because this is what George Parr wanted to see happen. We are changing the use of the land that George Parr gave back to the community so we need to talk about what George Parr wanted to see happen. He was a man who wanted to see good-quality front-line health services for his community. 
George Parr was not out of touch with ordinary Kiwis in the way that this Government is. This Government is completely out of touch. He wanted to support ordinary Kiwis who were struggling to make ends meet and he did that by providing an asset that everybody was able to use. Would this Government do that? No way—no way! That is not the way this Government operates. Its members would not have touched that with a bargepole because this Government is not working for us. It is not working for normal New Zealanders; it is working for its mates and foreign interests—the people it would have sold this land to if it had had the chance. That is what this Government is about and George Parr would not have wanted to touch that with a bargepole. He would not have had a bar of it. 
George Parr was a man who wanted to see his success as a Waikato farmer shared with the community and that is why he vested this land in his community and handed it over to the Hamilton City Council. This legislation solidifies that. It makes sure that George Parr’s legacy will be respected and honoured by the people of Hamilton. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway made some excellent points in his speech. I will pick up on the relevance of the great legacy of George Parr the man who built a children’s convalescent home on the very piece of land we are discussing here tonight. It is obvious to everybody listening to this debate that this National-led Government would have closed down the children’s convalescent home if it had had the decision-making power over this important resource for the people of Hamilton. 
We are debating clause 5 which comes under the heading “Vesting of land in Council and related matters” and it is a very very significant clause in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Because of this clause the land is freed of trusts and vested in the council. The land is no longer subject to trusts or to the last will and testament of George Parr. I think that change is very relevant because we have seen a track record of this National-led Government interfering in—tampering with—the trust New Zealanders place in their elected officials to manage govern and steward the resources of this nation the assets that generations of New Zealanders have invested in. 
We saw a very very good example of that interference that is highly relevant to clause 5. Only a few months ago we saw this National Government repealing provisions in the local government legislation that guaranteed to New Zealanders the right to be consulted before a local territorial authority could dispose of alter or change the terms under which land had been given bequeathed or donated by people like George Parr. Under the local government legislation provisions that this Government repealed the people of Hamilton and the descendants of George Parr would have had to be consulted before the designation of this land was changed. But because of Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government and the way in which he has run the local government portfolio for the last 2 years the people of Hamilton no longer have the right to be consulted about the future use governance and management of Parana Park. That democratic right has been taken away from them. I reckon it is worth reflecting on that as we debate clause 5 which is precisely about the vesting of this land in the council—the fee simple estate in this land being given to the council. It is no longer subject to the last will and testament or any trusts related to the legacy of George Parr. 
That is an important principle. The key word is trust and trust is something that the people of New Zealand are rapidly losing. They are losing trust in this National Government. Te Ururoa Flavell who has been here during this debate brought a bill to the House only a few months ago to look at the Public Works Act having been used to take property away from New Zealanders over generations. It is often the case that the land is then used for other purposes. 
Once this bill is passed the fee simple estate will pass into the hands of the Hamilton City Council. The descendants of George Parr and the trusts associated with the legacy of the land will no longer have any relevance and the Hamilton City Council will be free to do whatever it wants with the land within the terms of this bill. I think that is worth reflecting on. 
This Government has developed a habit of riding roughshod over the interests of communities and the desire of New Zealanders for special assets such as Parana Park to be managed in trust for the people of New Zealand. This Government has no interest in that concept. If it was up to this Government it would probably corporatise Parana Park and hand it over to a hand-picked board of directors made up of the mates of Rodney Hide and David Bennett to manage it and make a profit. 
Hon Member 
: Turn it into a dairy farm. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: They would! They would probably turn it over to a dairy farm with the effluent running into the Waikato River. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on clause 5 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill which is David Bennett’s proudest accomplishment in his tenure as the member of Parliament for Hamilton East—his final months as the member of Parliament for Hamilton East. He wants this bill to be passed before the election so that he can go out there and say to the people of Hamilton East that he has actually achieved something in the—what is it—5 years that he has been a member of Parliament. He has to have something to talk about so he wants this legislation to be passed. 
Clause 5 deals with the land freed of the trusts of the last will and testament of the late George Parr and freed of the conditions imposed by that will. I have been very interested to read the biography of Mr Parr and some of the facts in it but I have also been interested to read some of the history of the land itself of course. It is interesting that there has been no contribution on this bill from the Maori Party or from Tau Henare Ms Parata or Simon Bridges—because on reading through this information I have discovered that the land is confiscated land. It was Tainui land and it was confiscated land so I am surprised that the Maori members on the opposite side of the Chamber have absolutely nothing to say about it at the moment—they have absolutely nothing to say about it at all. 
The land is confiscated land. It changed ownership several times before it was bought by Mr George Parr who of course later put it into a trust for the benefit of all the people of Hamilton. I am surprised by Mr Henare. He has been barracking and shouting a lot but he could have taken a call rather than moving a closure motion. He seems to have an awful lot that he wants to say and he is getting himself very worked up over there. I am surprised that he is not keen to take a call and actually have a say on the bill. 
I think that Parliament needs to be very cautious when we pass any legislation that potentially overrides somebody’s last will and testament. This is the second time I think in the time I have been in Parliament that I have been involved in a debate on legislation that does that. The first was a bill about Christ’s College and freeing up money that was in trusts. This is the second piece of legislation. I think we really need to be careful about that. When people leave money assets land or anything else behind we need to be very careful that we do not override their last wishes about vesting that land and giving that land or placing it in trust. This land was placed in trust. We need to be very careful that what we do in this legislation is totally consistent with the objectives that Mr George Parr had when he set this land aside. 
I sat through some of Local Government and Environment Committee proceedings on this legislation—not all of them but some of them—and I wanted to be satisfied that Mr George Parr’s last wishes were being respected. 
Simon Bridges 
: Whatever! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well this is a very serious matter I say to Mr Bridges and I care about making sure that people’s last wills and testaments are respected. I sat through the proceedings and I was ultimately satisfied that his last will and his last wishes were being adequately dealt with by this legislation. That is one of the reasons why I will support it. I think it is important that we take the time to consider what those wishes were and to consider what his motivations were in setting this land aside because that will be particularly relevant when we come to the next clause of this bill which is about the sort of reserve it should be. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You mean there’s another one? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: We will debate that under clause 6—there are still four more clauses to go after this one I say to that member. He can just knuckle down and look forward to it I am sure. 
George Parr was a very active member of the community a very active— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He used to be! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I said “was”. He was a very active member of the community. From what I can see from the biography he was from a very active family within the community. He was clearly very community focused— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Did you know him? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: No I did not know him but I am sure given Mr Henare’s his advanced years that the member went to school with him. George Parr was clearly very community focused and active in the community. I am sure that would have been part of his consideration when he vested this land in his trust so that all Hamiltonians could enjoy it and benefit from it. We need to make sure that we are being—[ 
Interruption 
] He was a Rotarian in Hamilton and I have a lot of respect for Rotarians. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. Tu ake ana ahau i runga i te inoi a tera o toku whanaunga a Tau Henare i te mea hiahia ana ia kia rangona i nga whakaaro Maori e pa ana ki tenei tautohetohetanga. Engari titiro atu ahau ki tera taha o te Whare kite ahau tokotahi tokorua tokotoru tokowha me te hawhe nga Maori kei tera taha e mahara ake ana ahau he aha ai i horekau ratou e tutu mai ana ki te whakaputa i o ratou whakaaro e pa ana ki tenei kaupapa. Mihi atu ki a ratou engari mehemea e hiahia ana a Tau Henare kia rangona i te taha Maori no tenei taha maku e tu ake hei whakaputa i oku whakaaro i roto i te reo Maori kia mohio whanui ai tatou katoa i nga whakaaro Maori e pa ana ki tenei. 
Tautoko kaha ana ahau i nga korero a te hoa nei a Chris Hipkins me wona korero mo te ohaki o tenei tangata a Hori Parr; me te patai he aha ai te ohaki o nga kupu mutunga o tenei tangata e whakakorengia. Kua ngaro te mana i te mea e huri ana te mana o tenei wahi whenua ki te kaunihera o Kirikiriroa ara ko Hamilton City Council. I oku nei whakaaro mehemea ko te ohaki o o matou tupuna ka mau tuturu rawa. Horekau matou o Te Tai Tokerau e whakakorengia i nga ohaki o o matou tupuna penei i te ohaki o tenei tangata a Hori Parr. 
I rongo hoki ano i te whakaaro no hea tenei ingoa a “Parana Park”. Ki toku nei whakaaro ehara tena he ingoa Maori engari mahara ake ana ahau tera pea he whakaroatanga ake o te ingoa “Parr”. Ka whakaroangia kia “Parana”. Toku mahara tenei. He inoi ki te mema nana nei i kawe mai tenei pire ki te Whare he aha tenei ingoa i Parana ai? No hea tenei ingoa i te mea mohio ana matou ko taua whenua kei roto i te takiwa o Tainui. Mahara ake ana ahau he aha ai i horekau he ingoa no Tainui mo taua wahi whenua? Na reira wenei wetahi patai e hiahia ana ahau kia rangona i nga whakautu o te mema nana nei i kawe mai tenei pire ki te Whare. 
He patai hoki taku na nga tautohetohe nga whakawhitiwhitinga whakaaro i puta mai i te po nei mo taua kotahi eka kua ngaro. Me te tautoko tera pea ko te hiahia o David Bennett kia whakatu tona pamu tona whare miraka kau i runga i taua wahi whenua me te whakatupu i tona kahui kau i runga i tera pito whenua. Me te awangawanga hoki tera pea tetahi rangi ka pahure ahau i tera wahi whenua ka kite ahau he whakapakokotia tino nui o te mema ra e tu ake ana ki tetahi kokonga o taua wahi whenua. 
Na reira wenei nga whakaaro i puta mai i tenei te wahanga tuarima o tenei pire me te mohio e rima nga wahanga kei te toe tonu me to matou tino hiahia kia haere tonu nga whakawhitiwhitinga nga whakaaro e pa ki tenei wahi whenua; me te mohio hoki he whakamanamana ana matou o te Ropu Reipa i tenei tangata a Hori Parr me wana whakaaro nui ona whakaaro rangatira mo nga tangata e noho ana kei roto Kirikiriroa; wana whakaaro rangatira kia ohakina tenei wahi whenua mo nga tangata katoa o Kirikiriroa; kia haerengia kia whakata kia whakaokioki ai i nga ra. Na reira mihi kau ana ki tera tangata me wana mahi hoki atu e pa ana ki nga tereina me tana hiahia kia hangaia he huarahi tereina mai i Tamaki-makau-rau tae noa ki Kirikiriroa. He tangata tino whai whakaaro rangatira ia i aua ra. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Chairman. I rise because of the plea by that one of my relatives Tau Henare that he wanted to hear Maori views relating to this debate. However when I look at that side of the Chamber I see one two three 4½ Maori and wonder why they have not made a contribution and why they have not sought the call to express their views. That aside I acknowledge them. If the Hon Tau Henare wants to hear the Maori perspective from this side then I will oblige him by expressing my thoughts in the Maori language so that we will all have a broader understanding of how Maori view this. 
I strongly support the sentiments advanced by fellow member Chris Hipkins his comments about the legacy gifted by this gentleman George Parr and the question of why the word of this man at his death was repealed. The legacy is no more because the land is now vested in the Hamilton City Council. To me if our ancestors made that testament on their deathbed it would remain for ever. We of Northland would never break a testament like the one made by George Parr.  
I heard the question too about where this name “Parana Park” came from. In my view it is not a Maori name but I speculate whether it is actually an extension of the name “Parr” to become “Parana”. Anyway that is my take on this. To the member who brought this bill before the Parliament I ask why the name became Parana. Where is it from? We know that land is in the Tainui region. I wonder why the Tainui name for that place was not picked. These are questions that I welcome answers to from the member who brought this bill before Parliament.  
As a consequence of the points debated and commented on this evening I have a further question as well about that single acre that is lost somewhere. Maybe David Bennett has plans to build his milking shed on that part of land or raise his herd of cows on it. I have a concern as well that one day I might go past that acre of land and see a very imposing statue of that member standing on a corner of it.  
These then are just some of the views that emerged in clause 5 of this bill and there are five left. We really want the exchange of views in regard to this piece of land to continue. I know too just how proud we in the Labour Party are of this gentleman George Parr and his great intentions for the people living in Hamilton in bequeathing this piece of land to them to stroll about and relax on in future years. So I really acknowledge that man and all he has done. He had a significant interest in trains and a desire to establish a railway line all the way out to Hamilton from Auckland. He was a person of great foresight and a leader of his time 
.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have not heard from Kris Faafoi. I look forward to an enlightened speech. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Taloha ni. Malo to the Hon Hekia Parata who requested that I speak a bit of Tokelauan before I address clause 5 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I would speak entirely in Tokelauan if we had a Tokelauan interpreter in the Chamber—at least I would give it a good go—but unfortunately members will have to listen to me speak in English. 
Clause 5 is the fifth clause of 10 in this bill so we are halfway. We are only halfway. We are looking in great detail into some of the very important implications of this bill. There are three subclauses in this clause and I want to address first especially for Mr Tau Henare’s benefit subclause (1) which states: “The land is no longer subject to the trusts of the last will and testament of George Parr.” It basically takes away the influence of George Parr who gave the land to the Hamilton City Council in 1929. As we have talked about many times tonight he was a visionary a man who cared about how children would be looked after especially in Hamilton. His intention was that the land was to be used as a playground for children and for over 80 years that is what it has been used as. I am sure that David Bennett has enjoyed Parana Park himself with his children and perhaps with his parents and it is because of the vision of George Parr that many generations of Hamiltonians and visitors to Hamilton have enjoyed Parana Park. 
We also know that the house left by George Parr who passed away at 60 years of age—a few years too early—was supposed to be used as a convalescent home for children but over the years it has not been able to be used as that. So the Hamilton City Council for some time and thanks to the local member who is sponsoring this bill has allowed— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s his name? 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: The Hon—no sorry. He is sitting in the Minister’s chair—David Bennett. I will take away the “Hon”! 
This bill allows the Hamilton City Council to use the land in the spirit in which the council and the people of Hamilton want to use it and not necessarily specifically for the purposes set out by George Parr. Sue Moroney said before that during the investigation of this bill the Hamilton City Council exhaustively tried to find the descendants of Mr Parr. I believe that that has not been possible. Clause 5(1) allows us to move on and allows the city council to take complete ownership and control of Parana Park for its own purposes. 
Clause 5(2) is very simple. It states: “The land is no longer subject to the provisions of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958.” My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway referred to that much earlier on so I will not touch on it. But I will touch on clause 5(3) which states: “The fee simple estate in the land is vested in the Council.” That basically gives the council full ownership of this land. 
I want to bring up a point that my colleague David Shearer mentioned before on the mystery around the missing acre. It could be a simple mistake but I hope that the member responsible for the bill will investigate that. Maybe he could call on the resources of the council. It may need the services of a simple calculator or it may need quite a lot of resources to find out where this missing acre is. I would like to congratulate David Shearer on pointing it out. It is interesting that this bill got as far as the Committee stage and no one realised that a complete acre of land that is meant to be gifted to the Hamilton City Council at this stage seems to be in no man’s land. 
Clause 5(3) states that the fee simple estate in this land is vested in the council. We have talked about George Parr and the fact that he was a visionary who gifted this land at his passing. We know that he was very interested in making sure that this land stayed in public ownership. This subclause makes sure that it stays in public ownership as it vests it in the Hamilton City Council. I guess that that is something a little bit foreign to National at the moment because National is quite happy to sell off or mine some of our most beautiful parks and assets. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 77 
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C Harawira. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 5 agreed to. 
Clause 6 Council to hold land as recreation reserve 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak to clause 6 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. This is an interesting clause because it not only declares the land to be a recreational reserve rather than a historical reserve—and I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee debated that at some length by the looks of the report from the committee—but also recognises in legislation for the first time the park as being named Parana Park and officially calls it Parana Park. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Wow! 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well Tau Henare does not seem to understand the significance of this. It is completely obvious that National members have no interest whatsoever in what happens in Hamilton. They have absolutely demonstrated tonight that they do not take any interest whatsoever in what happens in Hamilton. It just shows the lack of influence that the local members have when their own caucus members will not even get up and support them in respect of this bill going through the House. They are not prepared to get up and support them at all. 
I am very proud of the Labour caucus members who have supported Nanaia Mahuta and me by getting up and showing at every occasion just how important Hamilton is to them. I am really appreciative of that and I thank my colleagues. I probably should have warned them a little earlier though that I am an administrator of a Facebook page called “Don’t bag Hamilton”. A few of those members were coming perilously close to being reported on that website but they have pulled back from the brink now and have become very very supportive of this bill on behalf of the Hamilton people. 
I want to come back to the issue of the name of the park because I think it is really important. It came to my attention at the second reading when my colleague Trevor Mallard pointed out that officially changing the name to Parana Park may not be as uncontroversial as it sounds. Although for a section of the community it has been known for many decades now as Parana Park for other sections of the community that is not the case. Trevor Mallard said that Putikitiki is the name that the Maori community know Parana Park by. 
Hon Hekia Parata 
: Really? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I know that that is news to Hekia Parata. She does not know that. She has not heard of that before. But here we are legislating to officially change the name to Parana Park yet as Trevor Mallard pointed out earlier we have not gone through the normal process of naming that we would do for every other piece of land. There is an Act of Parliament that governs how that is to be done through the Geographic Board. That is normally how it is done. Yet for some reason that has yet to be explained to me we are departing from the process dictated by that legislation and we are instead officially recognising a name for a piece of land that has not gone through the Geographic Board process. I think we need to— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Whoop-de-doo. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Tau Henare says: “Whoop-de-doo.” I wonder what most Maori in New Zealand think of Tau Henare’s response: “It doesn’t matter if there is a Maori name. Let us just use our Pakeha institution to change the name to whatever we think it should be.” Obviously Tau Henare thinks there is no issue in being really careful in this Parliament about what we name important pieces of land with historical significance. Maybe that does not matter to Tau Henare but I can inform the Committee that most serious members of Parliament who take this job seriously recognise that there is a point to a process particularly when it comes to naming pieces of land that are important to us. We must take that very seriously. We cannot decide on a whim to call it anything we like. Would Tau Henare be happy if we decided to call this Smith Park? Would he be happy with that? Oh well maybe Government members do have plans for the 0.4 of a hectare that has gone missing in the calculations. We still have not discovered what has happened to that by the way. But perhaps we could call this Putikitiki which is what Trevor Mallard understands it is being called. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take a call on clause 6 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It would be lovely also if Government members would take a call. They seem to be venting a lot of frustration about the fact that we are paying a lot of attention to this bill clause by clause tonight. There are two issues that I want to cover. 
I am a bit disturbed at hearing from the banter across the Chamber tonight that Government members do not seem to care about the naming of this park; it is just preserving the status quo by calling it Parana Park in the new bill. I think my colleague Sue Moroney brought up a very good issue tonight. She said that the Geographic Board would have been the more appropriate place to put the naming of this park to. I am glad to see Pita Sharples look wisely across the Chamber over his glasses at me. As Minister of Maori Affairs I think he will be concerned now that he has heard that the Waikato District Council just decided that tonight in clause 6 we will enshrine the name Parana Park. I have seen the Minister of Maori Affairs go: “My golly. Here’s a lost opportunity. My golly I think I will get the Geographic Board to have a look at this. My golly it could have been called Putikitiki. It could have been called Kirikiriroa.” There are many names. 
An opportunity has been lost by this Government as its members are demonstrating tonight. They are saying to push this through. They want to get on to the next item of business on the Order Paper. Well Opposition members do not. We want to give this bill due concern and due consideration. I am pleased that I am receiving very good vibes from the Minister of Maori Affairs. He might just go to the Geographic Board. That board came up with “Whanganui” which we think was a wonderful decision. In fact when I was Minister of Conservation I too thought that a lot could be done about giving several areas in New Zealand their proper names—their names before Pakeha confiscation. That would have settled a lot of wrongs. But this Government is determined that we are going to look at huge Supplementary Order Papers we are not going to get legal advice we are not going to refer the marine and coastal bill back to select committee we are just going to ram it through—that is why we are debating this bill tonight. I think that during the debate tonight we have brought up some wonderful points. I have seen Pita Sharples writing on his BlackBerry. 
Let us have a look at this Parana Park bill. It is called the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill and I would like to see the Minister take up the opportunity to put a referral to the Geographic Board to say: “How the heck can some of these bills just include a roll-over name like Parana Park?” which is what clause 6 does. I think that is a pity. The park was called Parana Park. Parana Park had its time and place. I say to Pita Sharples that this very park was on confiscated land for goodness’ sake! It was ultimately freeholded and that is how it got into George Parr’s ownership. He made a very generous and benevolent gift to Waikato but this bill causes another opportunity to redress a wrong of the past. I think the naming as enshrined in clause 6 will cause some concern in the future. Tainui will look at it. This is not necessarily an uncontroversial bill and I think that is why we want to debate it very vigorously. 
Clause 6 also talks about the recreation reserve. It enshrines the recreation reserve. I think that has been rather charmingly done. I want to congratulate the Hamilton Beautifying Society—[ 
Interruption 
]—if I can I say to Mr Henare. It is nice to say thank you to those who have contributed positively. The society has done a lot of good voluntary work in Parana Park. It has built a children’s paddling pool. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Good on them! 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I would not demean the society. 
Tim Macindoe 
: It’s been there all your lifetime. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is what the Hamilton Beautifying Society did. Then it put a lovely picnic shelter where the stables were and then a brick fireplace was built by the Rotary Club of Hamilton and presented to the Hamilton Girl Guides. Bless them. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take yet another call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. We are now considering clause 6 but in looking at clause 6 I realise that clause 7 of the bar 1 bill has been incorporated into clause 6 of the bar 2 bill. I ask whether there will be a renumbering of the bill as it stands at the moment in order that we do not jump from clause 6 to clause 8. I am fairly new to Parliament but I would have thought that would be corrected when the final draft comes through. It is possible that the deleted clause 7 remains in the bar 2 bill just to show that it was originally there. Nevertheless I wanted to bring that to the Committee’s attention as I start to talk about clause 6. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: There are some people whom I really like to listen to and this guy’s not one of them. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I was just about to compliment you on your wonderful right arm over the wicket bowling action. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Chairperson—[ 
Interruption 
]. I say to members that this is a debate and the debate is addressed to the Chairperson. Private conversations are for the Ayes lobby the Noes lobby or Copperfields. This is a debating chamber. Debates will be through the Chairperson and I do not have a fine overarm action. I invite the member to continue with his presentation on clause 6 which is the subject of members’ discussion. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Of course I do not believe that you have a strong overarm action and hopefully not underarm either. The second issue I want to talk about in this clause comes back to the nearly half-hectare that disappeared as a result of this legislation coming through. One acre has disappeared from Parana Park. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: White man’s magic! 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Well I would like to ask David Bennett whether he could investigate that and find out where that 1 acre has disappeared to. 
I was reading through some of the history that has been supplied to us and some of the submissions that were given to us and I was particularly looking at the submission by Laura Kellaway. It was an excellent submission and it is relevant to this park. I note that she mentioned the property that George Parr gifted included the house. She stated that the house probably dates from 1906 to 1910 and has been fenced off for many years and has been used by the council park staff. That is interesting in itself but it would have been nice to know whether the house as well is part of Parana Park. 
The questions I am posing to the member in charge of the bill are firstly what has happened to the 0.4 hectares and secondly what is happening to the house. It occurred to me as I was looking at that material that perhaps the area around the house might be the 1 acre that we have lost somewhere in the course of this debate. I do think it is an important point. We understand that the house is being used by the council staff themselves. It might be useful to know. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of all descendants of Hoturoa the chief of the  
Tainui  
waka to address the travesty of justice that is being perpetuated in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill by it calling this park Parana Park. We do not know where that name came from. We descendants of the  
Tainui 
 waka know that this sacred tupuna ancestral land has been known for mai rano since time immemorial as Putikitiki not Parana Park. We do not know where the name Parana Park came from. Someone named it that back in 1920-something when old George Parr passed away. Although I was born and bred in Ngapuhi and am from way up north I also draw on my Tainui links and I stand here on behalf of Tainui and say that I think Tainui should have had a say in the name of this park. This bill will vest this piece of land otherwise known as “David Bennett’s Farm” in the Hamilton City Council and it will be known as Parana Park. It is a travesty of justice that we do not recognise its ancestral name of Putikitiki. 
I heard Tau Henare opposite my whanaunga with his northern dialect say that he thought the name was “Putikotiko”. Well I tell you what that means something totally different so I want to make clear that the proper pronunciation is “Putikitiki”. Parana Park can be pronounced Parana Park or Parana Park. I was a bit scared they might call it “Panana Park” which means “Banana Park”. If we can call it just anything such as Parana Park why do we not call it “Panana Park” “Pa Park” “Bennett Park” the “Bennett Farm” or the “Bennett Homestead”? After all it is a memorial to David Bennett. As has already been mentioned in the Chamber tonight this bill is his greatest achievement in 5 years. He is even reputed to say that this beats his passing School Certificate back in 1982. 
We need to address this issue. Putikitiki is the ancestral name of Parana Park but because of this bill it will be known as Parana Park. I think it is right that we acknowledge the ancestral name the true name of that piece of land. The bill has probably progressed too far now to change that but let us at least acknowledge it. We did kick up a big stink over the whole Whanganui/Wanganui debate and how we as Maori were really particular about the “h” in the name. Our whanaunga opposite Tau Henare says who cares that it is not named Putikitiki and that it will be known instead as Parana Park. That is a bit of a laugh because we went to all those lengths to make sure Whanganui had the “h” put into it and was not spelt Wanganui. I remember the debate about Michael Laws when he got stuck into those kids from Otaki School who dared to challenge him on the whole adding the “h” thing. We stood up and defended those kids and their belief that their ancestral names and the correct names should be used. Here we have Tau Henare my whanaunga from up north saying who cares about Putikitiki—let us call it Parana. We know that Tau Henare wants to get home tonight and he wants this debate to end. He is tired; he is jaded. We have been sitting for a good day and a half this week and he is feeling a bit jaded from all the work. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: He’s trying to bulldoze the House. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: My colleague Steve Chadwick is right. But I have to admit that we in Labour do enjoy his interjections because they makes us feel lively and really want to keep going. They make us really want to get into this debate and to continue on. There are four more clauses to this bill that we are happy to debate. 
I think it is important that we recognise that Parana Park does have a Maori name a name from way back and it is Putikitiki not Putekoteko not Parana or Panana or anything else. The name Putikitiki is the name that the ancestors of the Tainui people bestowed upon this piece of land. I will not carry on too much longer. I just wanted that point to be well and truly made. Kia ora. 
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. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1; Independent: Harawira. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 6 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to clause 7—sorry clause 8. Clause 7 no longer exists; I think it is with the half-hectare of land. 
Clause 8 Vesting of land not gift supply of services or disposition for certain purposes 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair. You have reminded us that we still have not found that missing 0.4 hectares which I believe probably add up to about an acre. Before the end of play tonight it would be really great to find out what has happened to the 0.4 hectares if the member in charge of the bill would please enlighten us. It is obvious from the contributions of Labour members that it is of concern to the Labour Opposition. We are supporting the bill so we want to make sure that our votes are being cast in good faith. We are placing some trust in the member on this issue but to be fair we would like to know before the close of play tonight the situation with regard to the missing land. 
Clause 8 is interesting in that the Hamilton City Council is ensuring that it does not have any unforeseen financial liabilities as a result of having this land vested in it. It is interesting that Hamilton City Council had some real foresight in drafting this particular provision. Did it ever see this National Government coming! The council really worked out what this Government would be up to. The first thing the council has said is that it wants to make sure that the land by being gifted to and now vested in the council does not draw gift duty. We know that the National Government announced some time ago that it would get rid of gift duty. We have not yet seen any legislation come back before the House that I recall. 
David Bennett 
: Yes. 
SUE MORONEY 
: We have? Has it had its first reading? 
David Bennett 
: It’s before its second reading. 
SUE MORONEY 
: No I am sorry; I do not recall it. I am relying on the member in charge of the bill David Bennett. I remember that the Hon Peter Dunne made some grand announcements about getting rid of gift duty but I do not recall having seen a bill be introduced to do that yet. Labour has made its position on gift duty clear. We do not believe that it should be abolished and here we are with the council saying it does not want it. The council wants to make sure that it does not get landed with gift duty from the vesting of the land in the council. 
Subclause (b) of clause 8 is even more interesting as it is about making sure that the vesting of the land is not subject to GST and to the Goods and Services Tax Act. Did the council ever see what the National Government would get up to! I am sure that when the council drafted the bill most of New Zealand still believed that when John Key promised he would not put up GST he would not. Most of New Zealand still believed that to be the case when the council drafted the bill. But the council has it worked out here that it could not trust what John Key said at election time. The council knew then that it could not trust him. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Visionary. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It was absolutely visionary. The council has absolutely made sure that it would not be subject to the increased GST that the National Government landed upon everyone in this country from 1 October last year. 
I imagine that the council was probably drafting this bill before the 2008 election. For the bill to have reached this stage it must have been drafted before this Government came into office. In this bill the council was making absolutely sure that it would not be subject to any increased GST rate from an incoming National Government even though at the time when it was drafting this bill it would have been hearing the then Leader of the Opposition John Key saying that if he was elected as Prime Minister there would be no increase in GST. The city council probably would have heard those words. Clearly it heard what John Key was saying but it did not trust him. It did not trust him at his word because when the council was drafting this bill it made doubly sure that it would not be pinged with National’s increased GST by having this land vested in it. 
If only the rest of New Zealand had had the wisdom to see what the Hamilton City Council saw then. If other people had been able to look into the eyes of John Key when he promised not to increase GST and had had the wisdom to think that he did not mean that then families would not be facing the increased costs that they face today with every single thing that they buy having an increased rate of GST on it—petrol prices food prices you name it. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 We are coming towards the end of the debate on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill but I wanted to take a quick call on clause 8. As we pointed out before clause 7 has quietly disappeared into the miscellaneous provisions. 
Clause 8 refers to the vesting of land and explicitly states: “Vesting of land not gift supply of services or disposition for certain purposes”. The “vesting of land” is referring to the trusts of the last will and testament of George Parr. Clause 5 refers back to that trust and I was wondering what sort of trust it might be. I can almost guarantee that it would not be a blind trust he was able to dip into every now and then for whatever he wanted. This would have been one of those trusts that he set up as an honourable man as a man with vision as a man with real compassion for his community and as a man who saw the need for example for a rail link to Auckland. This was a man whom we could easily vote in as Prime Minister for example. This was a man who had a legal trust and had vision. He probably had a plan as well. 
This bill vests this land to ensure that it is vested in the council for the people of Waikato and in particular the people of Hamilton. 
I touch on clause 8(b) which states that the vesting of land will not be subject to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985. This clause makes the land—as I read it anyway—one of the few exceptions in this country where people will not have to pay GST on something. Everybody else in the Hamilton area is paying GST on fuel prices and on their groceries which they are barely able to afford. In this bill we see an exception being made. It is a correct exception but nevertheless an exception that does not apply to the rest of the people of New Zealand. The rest of the people of New Zealand are paying their GST and being promised that they will be recompensed by a reduction in income tax but they realise they are being cheated in that regard and that the people at the other end of the scale—the rich people in this country and I include the Prime Minister in that group—are earning $1000 more a week as a result of that tax cut. 
The third point I raise is the fact that the vesting of this land has the agreement of Waikato-Tainui. We talked about the fact that this land is descended from the raupatu in 1863. This land is actually historically taken land. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.