Shearer David: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
Shearer David: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:672;Page:18361] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is a real pleasure to speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. We have had some very good moments in the House discussing this bill. People watching the proceedings of Parliament might be wondering why on earth we are spending so much time on a bill that is largely administrative and vests Parana Park in the people of Waikato and the people of Hamilton. Part of the explanation for that of course is that while the Committee stage was under way with other bills there were attempts to push large Supplementary Order Papers through this Chamber without giving Opposition members the ability to take a really good look at them and study them as is necessary to be able to make informed comment and an informed decision about them. Pages and pages of Supplementary Order Papers were put forward by the Government. As a result of that this side of the House decided to spend more time on legislation that is perhaps less important in terms of needing debate but is nevertheless important to the people of Hamilton. It is for that reason that we are still debating the third reading of this bill and pushing it through its third reading today. It should pass its third reading today without any problems because as we have made very very clear in the debates that have gone on Labour definitely supports this legislation. 
The bill as has been said by many members is a good piece of legislation. It gives the people of Hamilton more security about the parks and the land they have available to them. It enables informal play as we heard during the Committee stage—not formalised play such as football or soccer but informal activity like flying kites and playing with frisbees—for the people of Hamilton. So from that point of view it is extremely good and no doubt Mr Bennett who is just entering the House now will be able to trumpet this legislation as his major achievement for mankind when it comes to this year’s election. 
It is also I think fair to point out as my colleague Kris Faafoi just did that land is going to be taken in his electorate of Mana and to contrast the vesting of Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council with what is happening there and also in my electorate of Mt Albert where parks are being removed for the purpose of building motorways. Waterview and in particular Owairaka are less well off areas of my electorate. Yet as often happens the people there are people who are less able to fight the fight and to stop motorways; these sorts of public works are being pushed through and a number of the parks in Mt Albert will be removed. It is worth pointing out as I and others pointed out to the board of inquiry that met on this issue that it is the people of Mt Albert who will be disadvantaged by the motorway. But it is not only that. One would expect that the New Zealand Transport Agency might try to overcompensate these people for the loss of their parks and their sports grounds etc. but it has been rather stingy to be perfectly frank in doing that. 
So when we come to legislation like this I reflect on the situation in my own electorate and I contrast that with the visionary thinking of George Parr and his forethought in being able to put aside a piece of land in the centre of Hamilton near the banks of the Waikato River that can be used for Hamiltonians into the future. It is also worth noting that the Maori people of the Waikato the tribe of Tainui have supported this legislation as well. In many ways they have a real point in pointing out that this was part of the raupatu area the area that was confiscated from Tainui after the New Zealand Wars of the 19th century. Yet they see that the benefits for all New Zealanders living in that area Maori and non-Maori will be served by vesting this park in the Hamilton City Council. 
There was one frightening moment during the Committee stage when we thought we had lost 0.4 of a hectare or an acre of land. I have to say that when I looked at David Bennett’s face when he thought he had lost 0.4 of a hectare and that people might cast aspersions on him for perhaps concealing 0.4 of a hectare of extremely valuable land he did I have to say rise to the challenge. He went away researched the various lots that were under consideration and came back with an explanation of where that acre went. That was I guess the heart-thumping climax of this legislation. We were all on the edge of our seats wondering where 0.4 of a hectare had disappeared to. There was true drama and tension in this House. 
I also want to reflect that this vesting of land is happening in an area that has the Huntly power station and as we know from discussions in this House and outside this Government is thinking of selling many of the assets along the Waikato River that generate New Zealand’s power. These are the assets I have contributed to through my taxes and that my parents and my grandparents have contributed to. They are our assets yet we hear from this Government that it is about to sell those assets so that others—the mums and dads we keep talking about—can buy them. The mums and dads already own them but they can now own them again. We have looked at Contact Energy. What happened to the assets of that organisation? They ended up in foreign hands generating benefits and dividends for foreign interests particularly Australian interests. This Government wants to turn round and do exactly the same thing to our electricity assets our energy assets which belong most rightfully to the people of New Zealand. We oppose that sale. We have a similar vision perhaps to that of George Parr who looked to the future of Hamilton and we look to the future of New Zealand. We want to preserve the assets that belong to us for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It is absolute lunacy to sell those assets when they are generating returns of about 17 percent. It is economic lunacy to do that and we need only read the column by Brian Gaynor in last week’s paper about the disastrous economic history and what happened to New Zealand assets when they were sold to get an indication of where we believe this Government is going wrong. 
In conclusion I would like to close by saying that this is a good bill. It is good legislation and it is something sensible that we certainly can support and that we have supported right throughout these debates. We have perhaps given it more attention than we would have other legislation of a similar nature. That was for a reason but it is worth pointing out that we support this today.