Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:671;Page:17552] 
Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 9 March. 
Clause 8 Vesting of land not gift supply of services or disposition for certain purposes ( 
continued 
)  
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I distinctly recall that when I was last speaking on this clause everybody was on the edge of their seats waiting to hear what I was going to say further on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I have been so looking forward to this bill coming back to the Committee of the whole House today. 
I was talking about GST. I was saying that under this legislation in the transfer of this land no GST will apply unlike— 
Chris Tremain 
: That’s right. Now I remember. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: The senior whip remembers distinctly. He has thought about it for the last 2 weeks as this bill has gone from one members’ day to the next members’ day. Under this bill GST is not applied unlike the situation for everybody else in New Zealand who has to pay GST at the inflated rate of 15 percent. The rate of GST was increased by the National Government which went against its election promise in 2008. It promised not to put up GST. John Key specifically said that yet National put up GST from 12.5 percent to 15 percent and broke that promise. The promise has been broken again. We are seeing the same things emerge in regard to Working for Families and the various excuses that have come out as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. 
I am referring directly in this speech to clause 8(b) regarding the goods and services tax which does not apply in this case to Parana Park. Would it not be great if the goods and services tax did not apply not only to Parana Park but also to fresh fruit and vegetables? If the goods and services tax did not apply to fresh fruit and vegetables then they would be much cheaper for ordinary New Zealanders. Ordinary New Zealanders would not have to pay that tax and fruit and vegetables would be cheaper. We know from scientific studies that have been done throughout the country that the uptake and consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables would increase if they were cheaper. 
The bill in some ways is leading the way in terms of the goods and services tax not being levied. I would like to think that Parana Park and fresh fruit and vegetables go together in not having GST apply to them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think we need to come back to clause 8. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I come to a second point that we raised in the consideration of a couple of the other clauses in the bill. Clause 3 sets out the area known as Parana Park. The title of clause 8 states: “Vesting of land not gift supply of services or disposition for certain purposes”. If we are vesting land there we want to know pretty exactly what land we are in fact vesting. It is not clear and we brought up the matter in some of the earlier comments on the bill. I would appreciate clarification from David Bennett who brought the bill into Parliament. He has our support but I think he has to clarify the issue. Perhaps he has had the chance in the last 2 weeks—if he was in his electorate; I am sure he was—to check out where that 0.4 of a hectare which is nearly 1 acre has disappeared to. Perhaps he could clarify that in a response to the Committee and to all of us here who are supporting the bill. 
None of us has anything against the bill. We think it is visionary. We think George Parr was visionary. He was a man of vision and a person who had a plan for this area of the country. He was a man quite unlike the Prime Minister for example who does not seem to have a plan or vision for the country. But Mr George Parr had a vision. 
Perhaps the member could give us some indication as to where 0.4 of a hectare of Parana Park has disappeared to. It may have been converted into a dairy farm. I doubt it; I do not think 0.4 of a hectare would necessarily be good for a dairy farm in the middle of central Hamilton. I suspect that it includes the house that is currently occupied by the Hamilton City Council grounds staff. They occupy one corner of the park and use it to administer the park. Perhaps that is the answer but I do not wish to put words into the Min— 
David Bennett 
: Yeah. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: —into the member’s mouth. I nearly said “Minister” then. I would like to hear—and I am sure people on our side of the Chamber also want to hear—what has happened to the nearly 1 acre of land. 
I imagine 1 acre of land in the middle of Hamilton is very valuable. Let us face it: people could put apartments on it or subdivide it into eight or nine blocks and sell it all off. We would not want to see any inappropriate use of that land. We would like to see it being used in the way George Parr intended it to be used: for the children for historic value for recreation and for its reserve status in the middle of one of New Zealand’s urban centres. We would like to see it being used appropriately. I am sure the Tainui Maori Trust Board which spoke on the bill also has some concerns because that 0.4 of a hectare is close to the river. Thank you. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 For a moment there I thought the member in charge of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill might be rising to his feet but thank you Chairman Roy for giving me the call on clause 8 of the bill.  
Clause 8 is a very important clause. It was obviously an important factor that the council decided to include the clause for the sake of avoidance of doubt and for the sake of certainty I suppose. In fact all three subclauses of clause 8 refer to taxes and to duties that have come under some scrutiny and attention from the Government. There have been changes—or at least there have been announcements of intended changes—to each one of the subclauses so it was probably quite a good idea from the Hamilton City Council to include clause 8 in the bill in order to give it some certainty. 
I will start with clause 8(a). Clause 8 states: “To avoid doubt the vesting of the land by this Act is not—(a) a dutiable gift for the purposes of the Estate and Gift Duties Act 1968:”. People will know that as gift duty—the tax one pays if one gifts a large asset or a large amount of money which is I think in excess of $27000 in one financial year. Gift duty has to be paid on that asset. The Chair is shaking his head. I do not know; maybe I am not quite accurate but I know I am in the zone. I am getting to the general guts of what gift duty is about. Gift duty is all about ensuring that people who have considerable assets cannot hide or dispose of those assets in a way that allows them to avoid paying their fair share of tax. 
The Government has announced its intention to abolish gift duty. That will allow the Government’s mates who have massive assets—whether they be in land shares or any other form an asset can take even cash—to perhaps be able to gift those assets to a family member or to someone close to them which would assist them to avoid paying their fair share of tax. That seems just outrageous when the Government has increased taxes on middle and low income hard-working wage earners and salary earners who have to pay more taxes through GST. GST is also referred to in clause 8 and I will come back to that later on. People are paying more taxes and the Government has announced that it will allow people of significant wealth—people who can afford to pay their fair share and who can contribute to the community society and country to make sure we can get ourselves out of debt grow the economy and provide the services the Government ought to be providing to New Zealanders—to be able to hide their assets and avoid paying their fair share of tax. I do not think that is on. 
But it seems appropriate given that the bill is about vesting Parana Park—it is not a gift—that the Hamilton City Council sought to have that clarified in the bill. If the bill had taken a little bit longer to pass through the House—I know it has already taken a little longer than the member in charge of the bill thought it might—we might have found that the clause was obsolete and unnecessary because the Government is going ahead and abolishing gift duty for everybody. That will create that unfairness whereby people who can afford to pay tax will be able to avoid doing so while the Government increases tax on those people who can least afford it. 
That takes me to clause 8(b) which is about GST. GST will not be applied to the vesting of that land. That was a very good move a wise move on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. It would have paid a whole lot more GST because the Government increased GST. 
Although the Government is making more loopholes for wealthy people to hide their assets and reduce the tax they have to pay it has increased tax on ordinary hard-working Kiwi families who are spending most of what they earn at the supermarket. Those families who are simply getting by from one week to the next or from one fortnight to the next have to pay 15 percent GST but the Hamilton City Council will not have to pay 15 percent GST under clause 8(b). Hard-working ordinary Kiwi families who do not have massive assets who do not have large tracts of land from which to generate income who are living from one week to the next and who are trying just to put food on the table for their families and their children have to pay the full 15 percent GST that is excluded in clause 8(b). 
Clause 8(c) refers to the “sale disposition distribution or transfer of property or liability for the purposes of the Income Tax Act 2007.” That was another area where the Hamilton City Council obviously decided in advance that it would have to make sure it had some certainty and clarity on income tax because the Government had made a number of announcements on income tax. The National Government was all at sea at first. First it cut taxes as soon as it came into Government then it realised that was not affordable so it repealed them. Then it introduced some more tax cuts. It turns out that those were not affordable either. Now the Government’s coffers are in such a bad way that it has to borrow millions and millions of dollars every week to pay for income tax cuts that it provided to people who were on the very highest incomes. 
If there was income being derived from this land the Hamilton City Council would have received quite a significant tax cut because the income derived from this land would be quite significant. But if the Hamilton City Council were just a salary or wage earner who was earning at the lower end it would have received very very little. In fact it would have been very important even doubly important that clause 8(b) was included. It would have wanted to avoid paying GST because the increase in GST for salary and wage earners was much larger than what they received in the pitiful tax cuts they got if they were at the lower end of the income spectrum. 
I think clause 8 is a massively important clause in this bill because this bill is all about giving certainty to the nature of this land and to its status as a public asset. We have already discussed how the Hamilton City Council is doing such a wonderful job of ensuring that this land remains a public asset how it would be unreasonable to expect the Hamilton City Council to pay gift duty GST or income tax on what is simply a change or a re-establishment of the description of this land rather than a sale or change in title of this land. Those provisions are sensible and important for the Hamilton City Council. 
But would ordinary New Zealanders not like to have those provisions apply to them? Would ordinary New Zealanders not like to have to pay National’s 15 percent GST? Would ordinary New Zealanders not like to get the kinds of tax cuts that people at the top have been able to get which are reflected in the income tax cut that the Hamilton City Council gets from this clause? 
Clause 8 is very sensible. It is important that there is certainty for the Hamilton City Council. It is important that this land is retained as a public asset. It is great to see that the Hamilton City Council is not hocking it off to pay its bills. It obviously has much better fiscal management than this Government has. It is able to retain its assets; it does not have to sell them off to foreigners in the way that this Government is doing. 
From that point of view Labour is very very comfortable with clause 8 and we thoroughly support it. We think having those clarifications in this bill is very important for the Hamilton City Council. We hope this bill gives the Hamilton City Council the certainty it requires to retain Parana Park in its current state. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand in support of clause 8 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill which has been brought in in the name of the Hamilton City Council— 
Paul Quinn 
: What about those 16000 Playcentre kids being funded; 9000 kohanga reo kids? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I ask whether the member opposite is in the right debate as I am not sure. I can talk about early childhood education if the member would like me to but I was going to try to stick to the clause in this instance. It would be nice to have the opportunity to talk about passenger train services from Hamilton to Auckland as well but I will leave that aside for now. I was just responding to the interjection Mr Chair. 
Coming back to clause 8 which deals with the vesting of land I am particularly pleased to stand in support of this part of the bill because I think that in the time since the Hamilton City Council drafted this legislation the clause has become even more pertinent. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway pointed out it ensures that the Hamilton City Council does not incur any further cost than is necessary in having Parliament take over and vest this land once this bill passes. We would not want the council to incur any further cost because since it drafted this bill the council has found that its costs have been a real problem. It was reported just last week that because of the recession—which is National’s recession now because it has double-dipped and that must be because of what the National Government has not done—the council now faces a very precarious financial situation. It was reported just last week in the  
Waikato Times 
 that as a result of there being no growth in the economy in Hamilton the council is facing— 
David Bennett 
: It’s not true. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The member in the chair David Bennett who is in charge of this bill said that that is not true but it was there in black and white that the council has lost $4 million in the development contributions that it had budgeted for in this financial year and that is for Hamilton City Council alone. That tells us that economic growth has dropped so badly in Hamilton that there is just no development going on there. Although the Hamilton City Council had budgeted knowing about the global recession that was taking place it put forward a budget of X amount of dollars which has fallen short by $4 million just on the development contribution alone. The council has also identified that as a result of there being no extra money available for families to spend in Hamilton what had been budgeted for to be brought in through gate sales for the Waikato Stadium has fallen by $780000 in just 1 financial year. That tells us a story about ordinary families not being able to spare $20 or $25 to go to the rugby match because things are so stretched on that front. It is really important because of those circumstances that this Parliament supports this part of the bill where we make sure or the drafters of the bill have made sure that no further cost is incurred. 
I must congratulate those who drafted the bill as they have done a very good job on it—I tell Mr Bennett that I am referring to the officials but if the member has actually put pen to paper and drafted the bill himself then I would apologise withdraw that comment and would want to congratulate the member; however I suspect that it was the officials—because little in this bill has become controversial. I think that is the result of good drafting. 
However we need to support this clause because of the terrible financial situation that the Hamilton City Council has found itself in due to the lack of economic growth in our region and our city. I think that it has to come back to an absolute lack of a plan from the current Government that we have families who are really stretched and who cannot afford to go to rugby matches and the funding has fallen. Therefore it is so important that we make sure there are no additional and unnecessary costs for the Hamilton City Council to try to cover off in its budget this year. We know that if gift duties were to be paid on this land and if GST were to be paid it would come back on the ratepayer. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Bill. Those of us in the Chamber 2 weeks ago will remember that we had a lengthy debate about this bill because we felt that it was very important to the people of Waikato. It was also a great example to other territorial authorities around the country of honouring the intent of land gifted to councils. I come from Rotorua. I acknowledge the good people of Ngati Whakaue who have endowed amazing stretches of land to our city to be used as recreational reserves for the benefit of the many and not just the few. This bill is a reflection of the way city councils and regional authorities around the country are taking seriously their responsibility for managing assets under their purview. 
Clause 8 is a short clause but I think it is very significant. I too congratulate the drafters because clause 8 makes very clear what the vesting of the land is not. It covers off the dutiable gift so there will be no incurring of gift duties on the transfer of this land. Clause 8(b) states: “a supply of goods and services for the purposes of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985:” and I think that makes things very clear for the Hamilton City Council to go ahead. I congratulate them. 
I hope that the member in the chair David Bennett who is supporting the bill has done his homework. We were very concerned about the footprint of the land and the missing 0.4 hectares. The good member in the chair has had time over the last 2 weeks to go away and find out what happened to that land and whether the missing land was due to an anomaly between the historical archive reserves of the Hamilton City Council and land registered on the land base of that region of the Waikato. We do want to find out about that. It may have been sold off. If it was sold off it has been lost to the people of Waikato. 
This legislation shows that regional authorities around the country do have a plan as opposed to the Government at the moment which clearly does not have a plan. When we have an asset like Parana Park which is a beautiful park and is certainly not for sale we need a plan. But we in the Opposition are very concerned about what assets are for sale as the Government tries to get on top of the double-dip National-constructed recession. Before the Canterbury earthquake hit we were facing a double-dip recession. This Government needs to make sure that it is not looking at selling assets as a way of getting out of this constructed double-dip recession which is part of National’s mismanagement of the economy. The Hamilton City Council on the other hand is making sure it is looking after assets. I think it is great that there will be no incurring of GST as clause 8(b) states. 
I congratulate Waikato and the Hamilton City Council. This is something for ordinary Kiwis who cannot afford to travel now because of the costs of travel the costs of petrol and cost of living pressures. Those costs mean they cannot get out of the Waikato. Families there are rather trapped but they can go to Parana Park. They can go to Parana Park and play in the paddling pool. That is wonderful for the many and not just for those at the top who got a tax cut and who can afford to get on an Air New Zealand flight from Waikato and get around the country. This will be a wonderful asset for families facing incredible cost of living pressures. They can get out on Saturday and look at and enjoy this recreational reserve. I think these provisions called “Miscellaneous provisions” are incredibly important for stipulating in law what this vesting of land is not all about for the good people of Waikato. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 8 agreed to. 
Clause 9 Powers of Registrar-General of Land 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I hoped that Mr Macindoe would make a full contribution on a bill that is important to our city The Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill but perhaps he will have something to say on clause 9. I certainly hope he does have something to contribute in that regard. Clause 9 essentially gives powers to the Registrar-General of Land to make the computer documentation of the transfer of Parana Park into the hands of the Hamilton City Council. I would like to be able to say “Parana Park of X number of hectares” but of course that is in some dispute. I really want to stand up and support this clause because I think it makes sense and it is very sensible. However there is the issue of the outstanding problem of not knowing exactly how much land will be registered by the Registrar-General of Land. I do not know whether people following this debate can remember 2 weeks ago but in changing the drafting of one of the earlier clauses defining this piece of land my colleague David Shearer did a bit of maths and worked out that the new descriptor of how large the piece of land was did not match the previous description of the land which went through a number of blocks of land that made up Parana Park. What we discovered— 
Tim Macindoe 
: He took 10 minutes to tell us all about it again today. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well I say to Mr Macindoe that that would be because we still have not had an answer from the member sponsoring this bill David Bennett. He has had 2 weeks now—he has had 2 weeks. I know that David Shearer asked the question about whether David Bennett had been in the electorate during that period of time and I can say that I know that David Bennett has been in the electorate during that course of time. It would have been great if he had got out because we had great sunny weather for the whole of those 2 weeks. He could have got out with his tape. He could have gone around and measured the circumference of Parana Park and done some real work for this bill. I do not know—maybe he did put pen to paper and draft this bill but my guess is that he probably did not. 
Grant Robertson 
: I’m thinking not. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Possibly he did not but it would have been good to see him do some background research over the course of those 2 weeks to find out what the area of that land is. Because we have a dispute between the two definitions. It is of concern when we look at clause 9 because now clause 9 is giving the power to the Registrar-General of Land to transfer this land on to the computer database yet there is still some uncertainty about how large that piece of land is and what the definition should be about describing that piece of land. 
On clause 8 which we have just finished debating I must say that we were all in support of it because it did not put unnecessary costs on the Hamilton City Council. As I described in my previous contribution it is a city council—and I am sure it is not alone in this—that is struggling because of a lack of economic growth in the area to contain the cost to ratepayers. Let us face it: any cost that is put on the Hamilton City Council by the passing of this bill will be passed on to its ratepayers. Those ratepayers have already faced an increase in GST on everything they purchase they are facing increasing petrol costs and some of them are facing increased early childhood education fees as well. So we do not want to pass on any more costs by passing this bill to the Hamilton City Council which would therefore be picked up by Hamilton ratepayers. 
It concerns me that the select committee made a change to clause 9. We previously looked at a bill that was drafted to state: “The Registrar must without fee (a) issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land …”. That has now changed. The bill states: “The Registrar-General must on application”. That means the Hamilton City Council—and I am assuming it will be the Hamilton City Council—will be responsible for paying a fee for the computer transfer to occur. I think that is really unfortunate. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Before I get on to my contribution on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill I would like to clarify some statements I made during the debate on clause 8. I have been advised by a learned colleague of mine in the Chamber that gift duties within the family apply to those gifts over $27000 a year which is a number I referred to. I believe that outside of the family if there is no family link they apply to gifts over $10000 in 1 year. I would not want to be accused of misleading the Committee so I wanted to clarify that at the outset. 
I will go back to clause 9 which I am sure the Chair is concerned that I do. Clause 9 is about the Registrar-General of Land who is authorised and directed to make entries in the registers under the Land Transfer Act 1952. Section 4 of the Land Transfer Act 1952 states: “There must be a Registrar-General of Land appointed under the State Sector Act 1988.” and that person must be a barrister and solicitor of the High Court which is important. This is a particularly important part that I would like to discuss. The Registrar-General of Land in exercising or performing the powers and duties of the registrar must have regard to the following objectives: ensuring an efficient and effective system for registering dealings in land; managing the risk of fraud or improper dealings; ensuring public confidence in the land title system; and ensuring the integrity of the register and the right to claim compensation under Part 11 of the Land Transfer Act. 
There is some concern—and my colleague Sue Moroney raised some of these points—that if we have not got a proper description of the land and it appears that there may be 0.4 of a hectare missing from the description of the land in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010 then that potentially undermines public confidence in the land title system and it may in fact undermine the maintenance of the integrity of the register. We may find the need to claim compensation under Part 11 of the Land Transfer Act. I think we have approached with some jocularity the question of this missing parcel of land. But in terms of the duties of the Registrar-General of Land I think it is very important that we do get to the bottom of this. We need some clarity. We would not want to put a public servant in a difficult position or in a more difficult position than he or she already finds themselves under the current Government. I think that it is important that the member in charge of this bill does give us some clarity on that anomaly between the description of the land before it went to the Local Government and Environment Committee and the description of the land after it came back from that committee so that the Registrar-General of Land is able to properly fulfil his or her duties as set out in the Land Transfer Act 1952. 
I think there is a problem in ensuring confidence in land title systems. I think it is important that to retain public confidence in the land title system we make sure that when public land is transferred from one form of ownership to another or is vested in the way it is in this bill that the land is properly accounted for and is properly valued. We have a problem with a piece of legislation that is going through the House at the moment making amendments to the Crown Pastoral Land Act and that is in reference to pastoral leases in the South Island High Country where by devaluing the rent that the Crown charges on that land the National Government is devaluing that Crown-owned land—in fact devaluing a State asset. Given that for that particular State asset we do have a process by which it is privatised we need to ensure public confidence in the land title system and we need to make sure that the public can have confidence that the Crown is actually valuing that land appropriately so that when that land is privatised the Crown can realise the true value of that land. That land belongs to 4.4 million New Zealanders. 
Those 4.4 million New Zealanders ought to receive the true benefit of the value of that land. But what we have seen for a long time now—and I am prepared to accept that the situation at the moment is bad enough as it is but this Government is making it even worse—is a massive transfer of wealth from the many to the few. I believe that something like 28 landowners who have received land under tenure review have sold on small portions of that land for massive profits. Those profits have gone to those landowners not to the Crown. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Can we get back to clause 9? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: The reason why I bring that up Mr Chairperson is that the powers of the Registrar-General of Land referred to in clause 9 require the Registrar-General to ensure that there is public confidence in the land title system and to ensure the maintenance of the integrity of the register. This particular legislation I think is excellent. 
The member in the chair David Bennett is nodding his head and looking rather pleased with himself. He has got a bit of a Cheshire cat grin on his face but let us be honest—this is not a Government bill. This is a local bill. If this were a Government bill this would be called the “Parana Park (Sell it Off to the Lowest Bidder so They Can Make the Money Out of It) Bill”. That is what would be going on. Thank goodness the Hamilton City Council has brought this bill to the House! The member is doing a fine job of representing his local electorate and bringing this bill to the House on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. This legislation ensures that a public asset remains in public hands. I think it does an excellent job of ensuring public confidence in the lands title system and it ensures the maintenance of the integrity of the register. I have no doubt that there will be no claim to compensation as long as we figure out where that 0.4 of a hectare has got to. It is very important that we find that. 
Clause 9(2) states that the Registrar-General must: “(a) issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land; and (b) enter on the computer register the words Recreation reserve subject to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010”. Before this bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee it had the words “without fee” but now “without fee” has been struck out and it states “on application”. In fact even in the commentary on the bill the select committee has said that to align the bill with the Land Transfer Act 1952 it believes that the issuing of computer registers must be undertaken on an application basis and accompanied by the relevant fee. This will of course mean an increase in costs for the Hamilton City Council and we all know what happens when councils have to increase their costs. They pass those costs on to the ratepayers. Who are the ratepayers? They are ordinary hard-working Kiwis who already have to face massive increases to their costs of living whether they are at the supermarket at the doctors at after-hours care or at the petrol pump. In all manners of life we are seeing massive increases in the cost of living under this National Government and this will be just one more thing that will push rates up even further. 
I know that ratepayers all across the country have to scrounge around looking in their bank accounts to see whether they have the money to pay those rates bills every quarter. The change that the select committee has made to clause 9 will increase costs for the Hamilton City Council and those costs will be passed on to ratepayers in Hamilton City. I bet that they will be coming to their local member and asking: “Why did you allow an increase in costs to the Hamilton City Council and why did you allow that cost to be passed on to us your constituents and the ratepayers in your electorate? Our costs are high enough already.” That is what they will be saying to David Bennett. Ratepayers will be saying to him that when they go to the supermarket their costs have increased when they go to the petrol pump their costs have increased and when they visit the doctor their costs have increased. Now because of this bill they have one more cost to deal with. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a short call on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I was hopeful that the member in the chair David Bennett would rise to speak. This is becoming quite a serious matter. This is the second week that we have been debating this bill and we are very anxious to get it through its stages as I know the good people of Hamilton are. 
I see some clarification is being given to the member in the chair and I think this will be helpful but I am concerned that under clause 9(2)(b) there will be an entry on the computer register of the recreational reserve subject to the passing of this bill after its third reading. We have a dispute—it is not a bitter dispute; it is an anomaly—with the footprint size of the Parana Park reserve. There is 0.4 hectares missing. That is worrying if we are to finesse the bill this evening. I can see the member in the chair now has clarification. We cannot have this registered as a recreational reserve by the Hamilton City Council as is able to happen under clause 9(2)(b) if we do not know the actual size of the footprint of this park. We are not prepared to go further with this bill until that is clarified in the Committee. 
This matter is becoming quite serious. We are quite prepared to give a call to the member in the chair. I thought he would sort this out—[ 
Interruption 
] He has had 2 weeks. Labour members were accused of filibustering last time we debated this bill. We were concerned that the actual size of this park is incorrect. As lawmakers we cannot deal seriously with legislation before us without it being seen as a bit of a mockery if we are talking about the wrong size of the park. 
This park is being gifted to the people of Hamilton and we in Labour say that we will protect the assets built up by past generations so that Kiwis can own their own future. This is all part of an asset that belongs to Kiwis; it belongs to all New Zealanders. I have been to Parana Park with my children and I will go back there. But this recreational reserve cannot be registered until we know what we are registering. We know it is Parana Park but for goodness’ sake around the edges there is 0.4 hectares missing. Mr Chairperson Roy you are a farmer and you know what 0.4 hectares is; I am not very sure myself. It may seem inconsequential and trivial but it is not inconsequential and trivial to lawmakers to make sure that we are talking about the right thing. 
I can see that the member sponsoring the bill on behalf of Hamilton City Council now has some clarification from the survey maps. I am sure the Registrar-General of Land who is authorised and directed under this very provision in clause 9 will want to make sure that this issue never comes back to the Committee. We do not want it to come back to the Committee in the future. We do not want to debate it again as a local bill because we need to correct the record. It is as simple as that. 
We have got to a bit of a breakdown here. We want to make sure before we support this bill—because it is a wonderful bill for Hamilton—that we are protecting the assets that George Parr donated. Labour believes they ought to be protected and never hocked off. We will not allow that. We want the children of future generations to enjoy Parana Park in its fullness. 
We seek clarification on that clause. I do not think we can proceed to debate on clause 10 in the interests of trying to get through this Committee stage until we have clarification. I do not think I take it so seriously as to want to recall the Speaker. It is not a breakdown but we need some clarification. We are simply entreating the member in the chair who is getting his head around the previous land records with the Registrar-General of Land—perhaps we could call the Registrar-General of Land and not the Speaker to the Chair. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a quick call on clause 9 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Although we have treated with jocularity this whole issue of where the 0.4 of a hectare disappeared to there have been such incidences. There was a very recent incident up north where a faulty survey was done on a parcel of land—on land that was meant to be a reserve—similar to Parana Park. Surveyors did not locate the correct peg and as a result quite a bit of land was shaved off the reserve. Since then houses have been built on that land so where a peg should have indicated a boundary of this reserve up north at Otito Bay in Matapouri in Northland there is now someone’s lounge sitting right where that survey peg should be. 
We make jocular remarks about this issue but that is a case where land just as with Parana Park has been lost for good. I suspect that was also what happened at Parana Park—that there had been some sort of surveying error and as a result the boundary changed. Some of the land that George Parr gifted in its totality back in the 1920s was shaved off and quite possibly although I do not know the area myself someone else’s lounge is sitting where a survey peg should be and those people are watching TV right where the boundary is. 
That is quite serious because the incident up north has involved millions of dollars the case has gone to the High Court and it is being appealed. There are issues with the land that was inadvertently taken. There has been quite a legal and bureaucratic process to get the whole issue sorted out. It still has not been sorted out and we will probably see people at the Court of Appeal before the year is out trying to sort out this whole issue. It is a shame and we would hate this to happen to Parana Park as well. 
The point is that shonky surveys happen. They then get registered under the powers of the Registrar-General of Land. Those people are not infallible; they do make mistakes. Unfortunately a loss of land is the result. As I have said it appears that that was the case with Parana Park. As has been said George Parr decided back in the 1920s to gift this land in its totality. I must say that Putikitiki is its real name; we must get that in. Putikitiki was gifted but unfortunately not all of it has been enjoyed by the good people of Hamilton at this stage. 
That was my short contribution but I think it is a serious issue. We do not want to see other parcels of land accidentally having bits cut off particularly in this case where there is a reserve and people are not able to enjoy it to its fullest extent. Kia ora. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take a short call to resolve some of the issues that have vexed the Committee over the last few days in regard to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. But first of all I thank everyone for their great interest in Parana Park Hamilton. I take great offence to all those comments about Hamilton not being a growing city and I reiterate the strength of our city and the beautiful place that Parana Park is. I challenge all parliamentarians to go and be part of Parana Park at some point. 
I think Kelvin Davis explained very well both the history of what we are dealing with and the issue that was raised by David Shearer. He hit the nail on the head in his explanation of what could have happened. Essentially in preparing this bill we sought advice from the Hamilton City Council about what the correct title would be. The council sent an email describing in three bullet points the total quantum that Mr Shearer so diligently worked out as he was the one spending most of the time in this Chamber 2 weeks ago looking at the information. 
However that description is an old description based on the original title and the legislation has been amended as members will see in clause 3 in the inserted text to reflect the computer-generated title which is the most accurate title that is available and the title that readers would see generated if they went into the computer freehold register under the Land Transfer Act 1952. Effectively there is a change in land area under that entry and it was wrongly described in the first instance through the original certificate of title. The more modern title which is computer-generated in the register reflects what is now in the bill. So the bill represents what we have as the best record for that title. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thank the member for his explanation but I wonder whether he could table the documentation that supports that information so that other members of Parliament may have access to it. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I seek leave to table first of all the email from Alex Kay Leeanne O’Brien and Kemble Pudney from the Hamilton City Council regarding the definition and also the entry in the computer freehold register under the Land Transfer Act 1952 which shows both the computer-generated version and the older version. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I guess I will just wrap up—well maybe not wrap up—the debate; there might be more calls to come. Who knows? But I thank the member who has drafted—the member responsible for this bill. I cannot get that phrase right. The member responsible for this bill—I think I probably have difficulty using “responsible” and “the member” in one sentence. Look I am trying to describe why I have been constantly tripping over referring to David Bennett as the member responsible for the bill but of course he is responsible and I will try to make sure I get that right from here on. I thank him for that explanation because I think it is really important that we get it right. 
I will be interested in looking at the documents that have been tabled because I want to make sure that we have not somehow lost some land in cyberspace somewhere in the process of the land going from having a paper description to having a computer-generated description. I want to make sure that that has not occurred. But I guess the member is saying that these days we perhaps have more accurate techniques of making sure we get the land area correct. 
It is important to have had clause 9 clarified. It is very timely because as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway pointed out clause 9(2)(a) gives the power to the Registrar-General of Land once this bill has become an Act to “issue a new computer register in the name of Hamilton City Council for the land;”. We on this side of the Chamber wanted to be assured that the description of the land was accurate before that took place so I thank the member for taking time to brief the Committee. We could see that Mr Bennett was making very good use of information from the officials to make sure that he was correctly briefed during the debate to avoid giving us a guess or just having a go at answering our queries. He actually collected the information before him and I think that it is fantastic that he could do that in a very timely— 
Grant Robertson 
: Responsible. 
SUE MORONEY 
: —and responsible manner. We on this side of the Chamber can now fully support—well I can certainly speak on behalf of Labour members but not the entire side of the Chamber—the clause and say that we are now satisfied. We can proceed to vote in favour of clause 9 knowing that we are not telling the Registrar-General—he or she; I am not sure whether it is a male or a female at the moment—through legislation to create a new computer register for this piece of land and not undermining the integrity of the register by having the wrong description for that piece of land. David Shearer who is just joining the debate again for this evening will be really pleased to know that. He first picked up the discrepancy in the previous clause on this issue and I know that he has been deeply concerned about it because he has raised it with me constantly over the past 2 weeks. He has said: “Sue where is that land? Make sure that we find it!”. I am very pleased to be able to report to David Shearer—and I am sure he has been following the debate closely anyway—that we have now been assured of that and that we can go ahead and vote for this clause. It will be on the basis however that the drafting error—the Act is called the “Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010”—is corrected before we come to the third reading which I know we are all looking forward to. We want to make sure that the date of 2011 is inserted in clause 9 and other clauses that by a pure drafting mistake refer to 2010. 
Without further ado I am happy to say that Labour can now support clause 9. Our questions have been answered and we look forward to the rest of the debate on this very important bill. 
Clause 9 agreed to. 
Clause 10 Repeal of Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Well this is it. It looks as if we will be wrapping up the Committee stage of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I could not let clause 10 go without coming back to the main purpose which is the repeal of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. I guess this clause really comes back to the main issue.  
In repealing that Act it is quite sad really that it will now be the last legislative record of the link between Parana Park and George Parr. I understand—I understand entirely—that that Act needs to be repealed so that this more modernised and flexible bill can become law in its place. It will give Hamilton City Council the certainty it needs in moving forward and managing this piece of land. I think that is very important and I do not want to take away from that at all.  
But I reflect on the fact that sometimes when we repeal Acts of Parliament we pose the problem of taking away part of the history of what has gone before—in particular the gifting of this piece of land. I think that in the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958 which is being repealed by clause 10 of this bill there was reference to the last will and testament of George Parr. An earlier clause actually removes from this legislation the requirement that the land be subject to his last will and testament. I can understand the reasons for that but it with some sadness I think that we remove the Parr family name for ever from legislation in relation to this piece of land.  
Of course that does not mean that the Parr name will be removed for ever; nor is it only in the information about Parana Park. I am sure that in the Hamilton City Council library the entire story of Parana Park and its history will remain. I know that the Parliamentary Library now has quite a lot of information on the history of Parana Park and its gifting and in particular on George Parr and what he brought to the city of Hamilton. So I know that the history will not be lost in writing but certainly that link between George Parr and this piece of land will no longer exist in a legislative sense.  
I feel that that is a little bit sad because George Parr as we know was a man of great vision. He had the vision and the kindness to set aside this land for the children of our city. It was a great thing that George Parr did. By gifting this land to the city he has created a place Parana Park where many thousands—hundreds of thousands—of people over the course of time have gathered precious family memories because of his generosity. 
If that land had stayed in private hands that would have never taken place. All of those memories that members of Parliament themselves have been able to offer in this debate which have been memories precious to their own families would never have been created on that land right beside the Waikato River if it was still in private hands. I would like Government members to reflect on how important public access to those pieces of land is. They make a difference to our families and they make a difference to our history. George Parr was a person who understood that. He privately owned that land. It was land that had been confiscated but I am not even sure whether he was aware of that history because he was not the first owner of that land post the confiscation from Tainui. So he may not have realised that what he was doing was returning to the people land that had come from the people. It is quite a remarkable thing that he did. 
Clause 10 repeals the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958 which is the last piece of legislation that will record George Parr’s generosity and make reference to his last will and testament. That is a little sad. I understand the reasons but I take the opportunity in debating clause 10 to make sure that the contribution of the Parr family and in particular George Parr to our city is not forgotten. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Clause 10 refers to the repeal of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. My colleague Sue Moroney was absolutely right in saying it is with some sadness that a line is being drawn legislatively under the connection with George Parr and the Parr family. It has to be said that through the debate we have had on this bill the Labour members who have been taking part have grown quite a huge respect for George Parr because he was man who was politically active he had a vision for Hamilton and he was engaged with his community. 
George Parr worked alongside his community. He wanted to make New Zealand a better place especially for children. That was particularly shown by the fact that a children’s convalescent home was included in the Parana Park space. George Parr was a man who really wanted to share his wealth. I suppose that he wanted to pay his fair share towards and be part of society especially for the benefit of children. Parana Park was a space for children to play but it was also a space where children’s health was taken care of and their well-being was looked after. Members on this side of the Chamber feel a particular affinity towards that. Labour members are absolutely committed to working alongside our community and making New Zealand a better place especially for our children. 
In Parana Park we have an asset that has been built up by past generations. It was built up when it was in private hands by George Parr and his family and then it was handed over to the public. The Hamilton City Council has maintained that asset and built it up so that it is part of the Hamilton community and will be part of the community’s future. On this side of the Chamber we also believe in protecting our assets—protecting those assets that have been built up by past generations—so that Kiwis can own their future because that is such an important part of building a strong community and a strong economy in New Zealand. 
George Parr wanted to make sure that the New Zealand economy worked for everybody. He had a vision. He had a vision for a number of things. As chairman of the chamber of commerce in Hamilton he was working hard to build the economy in Hamilton. But he had also some projects that would have contributed massively to the economy in the upper North Island. One of those projects was a rail service between Hamilton and Auckland. 
Sue Moroney 
: Kawhia and Raglan. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It was from Kawhia and Raglan to Hamilton. The other project he was particularly interested in was a pipeline to get fresh water from the Waikato River over to Waiuku. Neither of those projects has actually happened but there was a man with a plan and a vision to make the economy work for everybody. It was a plan to create jobs and opportunities not just for people back at the turn of the 20th century in Hamilton and New Zealand but also for their children and their grandchildren. 
That is what Labour is all about as well. We want to be able to go out to New Zealanders and say that the economy works for them and that the Government is able to create jobs and opportunities for them their children and their grandchildren. We want to make sure that everybody gets a fair go and just like George Parr we want to make sure that everybody pays their fair share. George Parr wanted to make sure that New Zealand was going forward. He would be dismayed at the pace at which New Zealand is going backwards at the moment under this National Government. 
George Parr was a man of vision a man with a plan and the man who gave Parana Park to Hamilton City Council. He is the man whose legacy we are in a way drawing a line under with clause 10 which repeals the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act. That is the last legislative reference to George Parr a man who wanted to make sure that the economy was going forward and who had a plan to get the economy going. That approach is quite different it has to be said from the approach of the current Government. 
In vesting the Parana Park in Hamilton City Council and handing over the children’s convalescent home to the people of Hamilton George Parr was a man who was so in touch with his community’s needs. He was completely in touch with ordinary Kiwis. I bet that many of the families who needed to send their children to the convalescent home would have been struggling to make ends meet in just the same way that ordinary Kiwis today are struggling to make ends meet because of the rising cost of living when they go to the supermarket when they go to the doctor when they want after-hours care and when they fill up the car at the petrol pump. They are seeing costs going up and they are struggling to make ends meet in the same way that the parents who sent their children to the convalescent home that George Parr donated to the city of Hamilton would have been struggling back then. 
George Parr was a man who was working for the people of Hamilton as well as for the people of New Zealand. He was working for them and their families and he was working for their future. He could have handed over that land to his mates he could have sold it or he could have kept it in his family—kept it for the few. But no he handed it over so that it was an asset for the many. He was not a man who was interested in just looking after his mates which is what this Government is all about; he was a man who was interested in the people of Hamilton. 
Although legislatively clause 10 of this bill brings to an end that association with George Parr and his family it actually continues his legacy. It reassures the people of Hamilton that they have a publicly owned asset one in which their children can play and one that will be available for everybody. Everybody will have access to it and nobody will be barred from going on to the Parana Park land and this legislation although it removes the reference to George Parr and repeals the 1958 Act continues that legacy. 
That is why Labour members have so enthusiastically endorsed this legislation. We want to see this Parliament get alongside ordinary New Zealanders. We are really pleased to support a bill that actually does that because they are just so few and far between in this term of Parliament. We have seen so many bills that have transferred wealth from the many to the few which has seen people on lower incomes marginalised but this bill is for the people. That is why Labour members are so pleased to support it and endorse it. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 10 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.