Shearer David: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Shearer David: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:670;Page:17095] 
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.