Lees-Galloway Iain: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16850] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill and to congratulate— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: We passed a Palmerston North one for you remember. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes I was going to come to that and I probably will at some point in time during this speech. I am very congratulatory towards David Bennett. Members will know that I am a big fan of David Bennett. 
Grant Robertson 
: He’s given you some of your best lines. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: He has given me some of my best lines. I do not know what he is doing for Hamilton but certainly in the House he is very articulate about what the Government’s agenda is and he did a much better job than the Prime Minister in articulating that last week. 
I say: “Well done!” to David Bennett for bringing this local bill to the House. I also congratulate Tim Macindoe on his speech today. It was a fine contribution even though Parana Park is not in his electorate. It is a stone’s throw away as I learned from his speech—and that was excellent to know as well. 
We may have discovered a slip-up with the issue of Putikitiki which I certainly was not aware of earlier and I am pleased Mr Mallard has raised it. We may find that a Supplementary Order Paper comes to the House and is discussed during the Committee stage—[ 
Interruption 
]—and obviously Mr Auchinvole’s contribution on that would be useful. The Local Government and Environment Committee has done a lot of hard work on this bill and I see that it has made a number of amendments and it is very possible that I could examine those very closely later in this speech. 
I am happy to admit that I have not spent an awfully large amount of time in Hamilton. I think my most recent visit to Hamilton was with my colleague Sue Moroney and we spent a good day there. We visited one of the private hospitals and we held a public meeting about alcohol issues as that was before the Alcohol Reform Bill was brought to the House. It was a great day and we had lunch by the lake. What was the name of that lake? 
Sue Moroney 
: Rotoroa. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Lake Rotoroa—not to be confused with Rotorua. It was a very pleasant day. To be fair I think that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It used to be called Hamilton Lake when I was there. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: You see this issue of how we name things is important. Indeed if that name had been put in legislation it might have been a very controversial decision to make and Mr Mallard might have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper on that one as well. But Hamilton is a fine city. Most of the time I have spent in Hamilton has been spent in trying to navigate my way through it on the way to Auckland. 
Grant Robertson 
: Just like the slogan: even the river runs through it. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is right. In a lot of ways the citizens of Palmerston North see—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I was going to say that the citizens of Palmerston North see the citizens of Hamilton as kindred spirits. Hamilton is an inland city with a river running through it a university and a major— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We didn’t use to look at it that way. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well obviously Palmerston North people are a little more charitable than Hamilton residents and former Hamilton MPs but we have a lot in common with the city of Hamilton. 
Sue Moroney 
: Much maligned. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well Ms Moroney says we are much maligned but let us not dwell on that too much. We know what we have going for us and both cities are fine regional hubs and the residents of both cities are proud to live there. From that point of view I am very happy to speak on this bill. 
What I like about this particular bill is that it clarifies and reinforces public property rights and the concept of the importance of property rights. In this case it covers council land but it also raises the issue of how we view property rights on Crown land and other publicly held land. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: The spectre! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Mr Auchinvole has used an interesting word. I want to clarify the word that he used: the spectre of publicly held land. Was that the word the member used? Crown land does seem to be thought a bit of a spectre by this Government. I compare this bill with another current Government order of the day which we will come back to tomorrow the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill which undermines the property rights of the Crown and the concept of public property rights. 
Colin King 
: Stop being dopey! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I am looking forward to Mr King finishing his contribution. I was listening very closely to his speech. 
Colin King 
: This is a very important subject and it shouldn’t be trivialised. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It is not being trivialised at all; it is a very important subject. I am comparing this bill which reinforces public property rights with another bill we are debating this week which completely undermines Crown ownership of land and the value of Crown land and that is the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill. That bill ensures a transfer of wealth from the public the Crown to private landholders which is the exact opposite of this bill which ensures the property rights of the public. 
When we think of what George Parr did in terms of vesting this land in the public interest we see it was to transfer the wealthy ownership of that land from a private individual to the public notwithstanding of course the fact that earlier in this particular piece of land’s history it had been confiscated and taken from a group Tainui gifted to an individual landowner then onsold at a profit no doubt between landowners before it was returned to the public. 
That occurred much in the same way that we are now seeing publicly owned land almost given away by the Crown for a very reduced rate to landowners—who may be New Zealanders but may also be foreigners—who then onsell that land at a massive profit with those windfall profits going to a small number of wealthy landowners rather than to New Zealanders at large. Again it is a transfer of wealth away from the many to the very very few. It is no surprise that this bill is not a Government bill because that is not the way this Government operates. It does not operate in the interests of the broader public; it operates in the interests of a small number of very wealthy people many of whom are from overseas. 
But this particular bill the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill reinforces and reassures the public ownership of that property. Of course this is not a Government bill. It has come from the Hamilton City Council because the council obviously has a much greater interest in protecting public property rights than this Government. The council is obviously working for its people—the residents of Hamilton—in a way that as is very obvious this Government is not working for New Zealanders at large. 
This is an important bill because it tidies up a number of matters—and these things happen over time. We saw a similar situation with assets and money that were vested in Christ’s College. The use of those assets had changed over time and this is a case where the use of a particular public asset has changed over time. 
Originally Mr Parr’s vision was that it would be used as a children’s park with a paddling pool and an open-air theatre. Importantly the building that was there was used for a children’s convalescence home but of course in the 1950s it became obvious that the building was no longer suitable for that use so the legislation was updated at that point and this bill is a natural progression from that change that was made in the 1950s. The Labour Party is very keen to see this sort of tidying-up happen and we are very keen to support this bill.