Chauvel Charles: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4820. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Well here we go: a spiteful comment from the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage setting the tone for the debate as he has done in respect of this matter ever since it began. The reality of this entire issue is that had that member not held such a spiteful hatred for Helen Clark which he repeats ad nauseam at every opportunity this legislation the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill would not be necessary. We would not be taking up Parliament’s time with it at the moment because the reality is that when Labour left office this park was ready to go. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: No it wasn’t. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Everything was ready—everything was ready—and that member because of his petty spiteful nasty bitchy little hatred of Helen Clark could not stand the idea that this project would proceed as planned. So what did he do? Never mind our proud traditions of bipartisanship around commemorating our fallen and never mind the need to expedite the commemoration of Gallipoli; that member stopped the project in its tracks. 
That is why we are here tonight having to pass special legislation in its first reading—legislation that on its face is objectionable because it suspends the Resource Management Act and it suspends the planning process. It is now a matter where Grant Robertson and Annette King have had to go to Gerry Brownlee—not to that worthless Minister Chris Finlayson because that Minister would not have any power or authority to grant these guarantees—and Gerry Brownlee very properly in the spirit of bipartisanship has said: “Yes. This isn’t an ideal situation. We will grant you some concessions around process to make sure that our suspension of the ordinary rules”—our suspension of the ordinary rules forced on us by the spiteful Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who just cannot stand the idea of Helen Clark having credit for anything—“actually proceeds.” 
 That is the position we are in tonight. The position that we on this side of the House are in is that we are having to support this legislation because we are patriots. We do want to see this park completed in good order and in time for the Gallipoli commemorations. We do not like the fact that it has to be forced through this House without Resource Management Act approvals without the ordinary processes that would normally apply to it and that would have applied had the Minister sponsoring this bill not allowed his spite to interfere with his judgment—his hatred of the idea of Helen Clark having a legacy—and introduced this legislation as he has done years late in order to expedite this project. That is the problem that we face tonight. 
Contrary to what the earlier speaker said we are hardly giving this legislation accolades. We are saying well we are where we are. The anniversary is important it is a couple of years away. This job should have been completed by now but because of the incompetence of the Minister we are where we are and we are having to contemplate special empowering legislation in the great Muldoonist traditions of the National Party in order to get this legislation through. That is the political reality. 
Let me talk about the concessions that our deputy leader and our former deputy leader have negotiated as I understand it with the Minister of Transport. First of all there is going to be a review panel. That will be established in the legislation and its role will be widened to include oversight of the consents that are granted. Given the range of the consents and the overriding of the appeal rights that would normally exist we think it will give some measure of public confidence to the process if the review panel has this role. The review panel will report on a regular basis to a select committee—perhaps the Regulations Review Committee or another committee—so that there is proper parliamentary oversight. And there will be prior consultation procedures with interested stakeholders before Orders in Council are proposed. We also would like to see a role in law for the community forum which is proposed so that it is required to be consulted on the final design of the park. 
This is not an ideal situation. We will be proud to see the memorial erected. It should have been in place by now and it would be had the events that I have described not transpired. But as I say we are where we are. With the guarantees as to process that Labour has negotiated we will be supporting this legislation to select committee and we hope that those guarantees will survive.