Twyford Phil: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
Twyford Phil: Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:670;Page:16843] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill which has been taxing the abilities of the Local Government and Environment Committee for some time now. It is a great pleasure for my fellow committee members I am sure to see this bill progress to the second reading debate. It is a relatively uncontroversial bill that we are happy to support. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I don’t know! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Well Mr Mallard questions whether in fact it is uncontroversial. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There was a good report to caucus on this. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Well I will have to see about that. It has been very pleasurable if a little soporific to hear the colleagues from Hamilton recounting good times past at Parana Park. It is clearly a great asset to the city and the citizens of Hamilton and it is good to see this legislation pass through the House. The bill tidies up the legislative basis for Hamilton City Council’s ownership and administration of the park. 
I make a comment about clause 5 which makes the Parana Park land no longer subject to the conditions of the will of the long-deceased George Parr. This is really an empowering provision that greatly simplifies the situation for Hamilton City Council. It repeals the existing legislation and vests the fee simple in Hamilton City Council. So this is really an empowering clause. I think that it is fair to observe that it stands in stark contrast to the general thrust of local government policy under this Government which is one would have to say disempowering of local government and local communities. Over the last couple of years we have seen many many examples of that. 
The tendency of this Government is to take power away from local communities and put it in the hands of its handpicked friends. We saw it in the Auckland super-city where the fundamental thrust of three very big complex pieces of law passed in this House was to take power away from the elected representatives of the community and vest it in handpicked corporate boards who in the case of Auckland will be responsible for managing some three-quarters of the city’s assets and resources. We saw it again in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill passed towards the end of last year. That legislation took power away from communities. It took away the right to be consulted on a number of important issues for the community. For instance services that had been delivered by councils could be contracted out to the private sector—something that many New Zealanders care about. It is an issue that is important to people. That law change took away the right of communities to be consulted. There are many other examples of that. 
However it is worth reflecting that the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill the simple uncontroversial bill we are debating today makes life easier for Hamilton City Council. The bill gives the elected representatives of the community of Hamilton more power to serve their citizens in managing this important community asset and that stands in contrast to the general thrust of local government policy under this Government. 
Clause 6 states that the council is to hold this land as a recreation reserve and provides that the land will be subject to the Reserves Act which is incredibly important legislation. It reflects a deeply held conviction by New Zealanders that parkland is somehow special that it is an asset that we hold in trust for future generations and that our communities cannot be liveable unless we have adequate recreation land available to people whether it is sporting reserves native bush or beaches the volcanic cones in Auckland or lakes and streams. 
Assets like Parana Park are vital for the well-being of our kids and our families and we hold them in trust for future generations. That belief that value runs very deep in the New Zealand community and that is why people are fundamentally suspicious of this Government’s agenda around the privatisation of publicly owned assets. 
We have seen it in Auckland. We have seen it in the intense public reaction against Rodney Hide taking away the right of Aucklanders to decide in a binding referendum whether the ports of Auckland should be privatised. He took away that right that existed in law for Aucklanders to decide in the referendum whether the ports of Auckland should be privatised. We saw it with water which is another asset that has a special sacred place. New Zealanders think that water is too important to be privately owned and driven by the profit motive and what did we see last year? We saw Rodney Hide open up the municipal water supply to private ownership and private control through public-private partnerships—legislation deliberately crafted to encourage private ownership. 
I contend that in the public mind parkland like Parana Park is accorded a special status. In the hearts of New Zealanders it is not just parkland that deserves that special status. There are many other assets that traditionally we own and manage in the public interest. This Government does not seem to understand that and is hell-bent on opening up those precious assets to privatisation and private control. 
Clause 9 is also very interesting. It deals with the powers of the Registrar-General of Land. The clause authorises the Registrar-General of Land to make such entries in the land transfer register as are necessary to give effect to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is a seemingly innocuous provision that delegates a very specific power to a public servant. It is perfectly normal that the Registrar-General of Land is empowered to administer and make the changes that are necessary to give effect to the bill. But that is very unlike many other changes and policies that this Government has implemented in local government that muddy the division between public servants and elected officials. 
It is one thing for this bill to empower the Registrar-General of Land to make these quite minor administrative changes but it is a whole different thing for this Government to give important political and decision-making powers to unelected officials which is exactly what has happened in Auckland with the creation of the Maori Statutory Board—it is quite a different thing. No one would object to the Registrar-General of Land being given those specific powers because that person is a public servant and it is a very minor thing that he or she is being asked to do. But that is quite different from the management of huge publicly owned assets and resources being handed to hand-picked corporate boards in Auckland by this Government. 
This Government does not seem to understand that there is a very important distinction to be made between the powers of elected officials who are accountable to the community and to the people who elected them which is why the community in Auckland wanted to see democratically elected Maori representation and the handing over of political power and wide-ranging powers to hand-picked corporate boards which seems to be a particular penchant shall we say— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Penchant! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Or “ponchont”; it depends which side of the tracks one went to school on. I think this bill highlights some very interesting issues about this Government’s discharge of its responsibilities in the whole area of local government. I am glad that we are able to stand up here today and support— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I remind members that we are debating a bill pertaining to Parana Park and that there are Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that limit the scope of what members can talk about in the second reading debate.