DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
I move, That the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill be now read a third time. I am sure that members of the House have been looking forward to the third reading of the Parana Park bill.
We have indeed. This bill has now become famous in Hamilton for the time it has taken to get to this stage. Many members of this House have spent more time discussing the Parana Park bill than some other legislation that has gone through in the year that we have just had.
Underlining the significance of Hamilton, as my colleague from Hamilton West says.
The bill is important legislation because it is another case of the Government delivering for Hamilton. It shows that we are doing what the people of Hamilton want and have desired.
Chris TremainWe can campaign on this bill, as my colleague Chris Tremain from Napier says. Many members would be jealous that they cannot say they have put through legislation that is important for their cities, like this bill is for Hamilton.
When we look at the bill we see that it has become famous for the name “Parana Park”, which has no relation at all to the fierce fish one sees in South America. In fact, a play on names is the best explanation we have heard. George Parr was the original person to own this property. He vested it in the city council through legislation. He died in 1929. The 1958 Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act was enacted, which gave the city council more effective administration and management over the Parana Park area.
For those people who have not listened to this debate before but are in awe of what Parana Park is, I say that it is a very small section of land right beside Memorial Park in Hamilton. This land was originally vested in the council so that the council could use it as a children’s convalescent home, because there was a large house on the property. That did not eventuate as the best use of the property, so it basically became part of Memorial Park, which is just parkland but has a very significant purpose for our city: it is where our war memorial is situated. If one goes to Hamilton—
Hon Maurice Williamson—as many people do—one will see our war memorial and, beside that, Parana Park, which has been used as a park for children over the past many years.
There is. It is right beside the river, which is the natural asset that provides great entertainment to those visiting Hamilton and to Hamiltonians.
This bill, therefore, is a response to the city council looking at furthering its ability to use that property in the most efficient way for members of the community. The city council sees a need to have better control of that resource so that the council can manage it appropriately. Parliament today—and I am assuming that all parties will be supporting this bill—
I know that is a big assumption, I say to Mr Williamson. There will be unanimous support, I am sure, to do what the people of Hamilton require and desire: to see that Parana Park is further vested in the control of the city council so that the city council can use it appropriately as required.
During the debate on this bill we heard a very interesting fact, which was raised by one of the members of the Opposition, about the composition of land that would be involved in the Parana Park vesting. There is a slight issue. When this land was first put into the bill it was done under an older planning scheme. The planning that was used did not replicate the actual land area now. I think 0.02 hectares was the differential that the very fine Labour member David Shearer—
Was it 0.2 of an acre? That member read the bill and found that there was a difference. As was explained during the Committee stage, that difference was not a problem; it was merely an error in how the land had been subdivided in the past for land purposes under the registry. That was many years ago, so under more modern approaches the full and final land area was able to be put into the bill we now have before us. We do not have an issue about any land being lost in the process. Members can take full comfort from the fact that they are vesting the quite appropriate and right amount of land in the city council and not a smaller land area than was anticipated.
In essence, this bill is important in the sense of central government delivering for, and working with, local government. It is important in a symbolic way for the people of Hamilton, as well. The park land has a very important meaning, being right beside Memorial Park. Anzac Day was merely a week or so ago, and at that time thousands of Hamiltonians attended ceremonies in that very part of our city, at Dawn Parades and also at the official morning ceremony.
It is an important part of land that is used by the people of Hamilton. It is used in a manner in which the community finds great satisfaction and remembrance. I think George Parr would take a lot of pride in knowing that the land he gifted to the city is being used in a very constructive way for the enjoyment of all people of the city, and especially for young people of the city, who now turn out to those Anzac Day parades. This means the land has gone back to its original use in a different way: not as a convalescent home, which George Parr had probably expected, but certainly for the value and the enjoyment of young people and the remembrance of people who have gone by, who built the city of Hamilton to such a strong point. People like George Parr and his family were important ancestors and founders of the city.
I thank all members of this House for their contributions in passing this bill. I thank members from both the main parties and also the smaller parties for taking an active interest in the bill during the Committee stage. I look forward to its progression through the House and to this Parliament delivering once again for the people of Hamilton.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
It is my pleasure to rise and speak to the third reading—it seems like an awfully long time to get to the third reading—of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. First of all, I take the opportunity to congratulate the Hamilton City Council on its drafting of this legislation, and the member who sponsored the bill, David Bennett, on his shepherding of this bill through the House. It probably did not go through as quickly as he imagined, but none the less, here we are. We have arrived at the third reading and I congratulate that member on getting, I think, his first piece of legislation through Parliament. Am I correct in that?
OK, it is his first piece of legislation to go through the House I think, so my congratulations go to David Bennett on that. I just note that the Hamilton City Council will be very pleased at the passing of this bill. It has been uncontroversial, but it vests the land in the council as a recreation reserve, and it is an important piece of land for our city. I acknowledge that and will talk about it a little bit later on in my contribution.
Probably this would be the only legislation that the Hamilton City Council has seen come through the House in the term of this Government that it could actually say anything positive about, because the Hamilton City Council is really struggling at the moment and is looking at having to impose an 8 percent rates increase on ratepayers, basically because the economy has fallen so flat in Hamilton. It has fallen flat because that Government has had no plan to get economic growth happening in the regions up and down the country, and that has landed in Hamilton, as it has in many other places in this country. The Hamilton City Council is facing some very, very difficult decisions at this point in time, because one of the things that has become a really big financial issue for the Hamilton City Council is that it has had a huge drop-off in the development contributions coming forward that helped to fund that council’s operations. What is the reason for that? The reason is that economic growth has bottomed out so badly in Hamilton that there is just no building going on. There is no new—
Paul QuinnI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the relevance of the last minute or two of this speaker’s speech.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKERThank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am so pleased you are listening, because this is a very important issue for the Hamilton City Council, which has brought forward this bill to get flexibility around this piece of land. This is positive legislation for the city council, and thank goodness, as it is about the only bill that has come through this Parliament in the course of this Government’s term that has actually done something even slightly positive for Hamilton, because the economy has fallen flat. There is no development and new building going on in Hamilton. Therefore—
Mr Bennett should talk to Hamilton City Council, and he will find that the budget the council has for development levies it expected from new developments has completely fallen on its face. The reason for that is because—
It is true. If one reads the council papers, one will see that the development levies have been reduced by about 200 percent on what they were budgeted to be for this financial year. The council was budgeting as if it had a Labour Government in place, where economic growth would be fast and furious in Hamilton and there would be major building going on. There was major building going on in Hamilton under a Labour Government, but, of course, we knew how to plan for economic growth, and this Government does not. Therefore, we have got Hamilton City Council in exactly that situation where the ratepayers are going to have to foot an 8 percent increase in their rates because that Government has no plan for improving the economic performance in cities just like Hamilton.
What it has to do with the bill is that here we are with the Hamilton City Council trying to get something positive happening in its city, and it is succeeding. Unfortunately, though, the bill will not do anything to lift economic performance. The bill will not do a thing to lift economic performance, so I guess the council felt it could trust the honourable member David Bennett to bring through this legislation.
I will spend the remaining time of my speech paying homage to George Parr, who gifted this land to the Hamilton City Council. I think it was very honourable, because it shows a really strong contrast between George Parr and his intentions and the intentions of this Government. He took privately owned land, which was in fact confiscated land—it was confiscated from Tainui, it came into his hands, and he owned that land privately—and he gifted that land to the public. He gifted that private land to the public of New Zealand and made it available for everyone. That is in contrast to that Government and its plans to sell State assets out of public ownership and into private hands. How disappointed George Parr would be in today’s version of the National Party, to know that his benevolence, and the leadership he was trying to give to our city—and successfully gave to our city—is completely dismissed by this Government. It wants to do something quite different; it wants to do the opposite. George Parr, as a private individual, gifted to our city land that is enjoyed by everyone—small children, older people, right through the age groups. I know that many families have had many happy memories made in Parana Park. It was particularly poignant this year to go to the Anzac Day ceremonies in Memorial Park, just adjacent to Parana Park, given that we have had so much robust debate in this House about that parcel of land. I was very pleased to join members opposite at the Anzac Day ceremonies, both at the Dawn Parade and the civic ceremony—it felt like the middle of the day after getting up for the Dawn Parade, but it was in fact the middle of the morning—and to join thousands of other Hamiltonians in that, as well. That is the legacy of George Parr: to allow a piece of land to be developed to be used for the good of everyone in Hamilton, as he did. But, sadly, the Government opposite is doing the opposite when it comes to the public ownership of State assets.
The other thing about George Parr I would really like to make sure is mentioned in this third reading debate is that he was a rail enthusiast. What a visionary man of his time! Even back then George Parr wanted to get a train service up and running between Kāwhia and Hamilton. I think that shows great vision.
I can tell the member opposite who has just asked me what I am advocating for that I welcome the opportunity to explain that I am advocating for and supporting a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland—between the largest city in New Zealand and the fourth-largest city in New Zealand. There is 121 kilometres of straight railway line track between Hamilton and Auckland. We own the tracks, we own the trains, and that Government is too miserable to establish a passenger train service between Auckland and Hamilton. That is what I would call a no-brainer, and it is what I would venture to think George Parr would call a no-brainer, as well. Even back in the 1920s George Parr got it. He understood that train transport and public transport was the way of the future, not just continuing only to build more and more roads, but actually giving people a choice of transport options and options that work for the future.
In closing, I congratulate the Hamilton City Council once again. I pledge my party’s support, and my personal support also, for the passing of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) Link to this
I rise with the other speakers—nicely, I am pleased to note, from both sides of the House—in support of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is great to have arrived at the third reading; it really is. First of all, I pay tribute to the excellent speeches that have come from members on both sides of the House in a remarkable, intensive level of debate that I am sure the original authors of the bill never quite anticipated. They may have, but they should rest assured that this bill has been thoroughly, thoroughly debated. I pay tribute to the excellent work of my colleague David Bennett, who has been my bench mate for 5½ long years in this Parliament. For 5½ years we have sat together on the benches, over there in Opposition and over here in Government, and the close association has not made any difference to either of us, I am sure—not to either of us.
I would also like to acknowledge those members who sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee as we considered this bill. It is always really interesting to have a local bill go through a select committee because it brings out the best in select committee procedure. I also acknowledge those organisations and members of the public who took the time to make submissions on the bill.
This has not been a controversial bill. Today I would like to reflect on the man whose legacy we are considering, the man who gave Parana Park to Hamilton. I do not personally know a great deal about him, but I understand that George Parr was a local Hamilton farmer. I will talk a little further on Hamilton’s contribution to agriculture shortly. George Parr left a lasting legacy when he gifted to the city of Hamilton the area of land now known as Parana Park, to be used as a site for a convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital and a playground for children. I think the phrase was “for passive recreation”, and we will have more on that later.
We will have more on that later. I do not want to start the debate all over again. Apparently it was later realised that the building was unsuitable for that purpose and the area became a park managed by the council. I recall an MP from the other side of the House saying that George Parr was involved in Liberal Party politics at the time. Was it the Liberal Party?
The Liberal Party was, of course, the precursor of the National Party. Our origins go all the way back to Richard Seddon. When I consider that, it is not at all surprising that this man was so concerned about the welfare of children and the welfare and well-being of the people of Hamilton generally.
As I said, I was surprised—in fact, I was astonished—at just how long the bill took to reach its third reading, especially through the Committee stage. Again, I commend the MP responsible for the bill, David Bennett, my benchmate for 5½ years, for the way in which he has shepherded this bill through the House. The previous speaker talked about the way in which he has shepherded the bill.
No, it was shepherded. We are talking about Hamilton, which arguably is the Mecca of agriculture in the North Island—note the qualification of the North Island. It is the Mecca. I remember attending one of the first Fieldays in Hamilton in 1972. It was a great event to go to every year and talk to the farmers. It has become more and more sophisticated, until it has become a world-class event—it really has.
But in spite of modern technology, when people think of agriculture—and every Kiwi thinks of agriculture—they think of the agricultural programmes on radio and television, which are remarkably popular. Agriculture runs through the veins of every Kiwi, and where is that more pronounced than in dog trials? When I saw David Bennett shepherding this bill I was reminded a little of a heeling dog, as he snapped at heels and tried to drive the bill forward. And what happened? Members on the other side, notably the Hon Trevor Mallard before his recent injuries, from which I trust he is recovering well, acted as a heading dog, snapping at the head, turning the bill sideways when dealing with complex issues such as definitions of what “passive recreation” is, as opposed, I suppose, to “active recreation”. That was a puzzling thing that occupied the minds of members from both sides of the House for a long time. Many were the suggestions that were made, and many were the cautious looks from the Chairperson at the time. There was also debate on the name of the park, the origin of the park, whether it was sustainable, whether it was correct, and whether it had another hidden name that should be referred to. I could not believe the level of consideration given to these items.
I come back to the actual intention of the bill. I thank the Hamilton City Council for bringing this bill forward. We heard five submissions on the bill from people who were really serious about it. One question that came up was whether the official status of the park should be that of an historic reserve or a recreation reserve. I make special note of the very thorough and interesting submissions that outlined the historical significance of the park. From those submissions I certainly saw that Parana Park has a history that Hamilton can be proud of. It is a history that deserves protection. I can say, in spite of the criticisms from the other side of the House, that Hamilton has a tremendous amount going for it. It is a great place.
The Hamilton City Council has given consideration to the issue and it wanted to have a recreational reserve option as that is the best fit for the park. To quote from the council’s submission: “The historic reserve classification may result in unintended consequences that could impact on the continued enjoyment of the park as a children’s playground.” After we considered submissions on this matter the select committee was satisfied that the recreation reserve classification would properly provide for this and other recreational uses, while still requiring the council to recognise and manage its obligations under the Historic Places Act 1993. Therefore, we concurred with the view put forward by the council.
This bill, in spite of the heading dog approach taken by members on the other side, which I think had more to do with subsequent legislation than this piece, is not particularly controversial. It is small and it is basically an administrative change. However, it is significant for the people of Hamilton and their council, who want their beautiful public spaces well managed for both recreational and historic value. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this
I am happy to speak on the third reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I am sure that when David Bennett introduced the bill to the House, he did not think it would have such a long gestation in the House. I was pleased to hear the contributions of a number of members across Parliament who have said such nice things about Hamilton. Like some other members of this House, I grew up in and have spent most of my life in the city of Hamilton. We are very proud of our city. It is a beautiful city. We are one of the few cities that has the luxury of a beautiful river flowing through it, albeit that the river needs to be cleaned up. We have a number of recreational facilities where Hamilton families can enjoy what Hamilton has to offer freely, and also good open spaces where we can take our kids, and that is the basis on which I make my contribution on the bill.
I have spoken previously in the House about Parana Park. When I was growing up, I experienced times when we went to the park to have a picnic. There were shared moments as we gathered there as a family to enjoy each other’s company. More recently, I have also taken my own son to Parana Park, where there is a small playground and a little paddling pool. In summer when the weather is nice, from about 10 o’clock in the morning or in the afternoon a lot of mums take their kids to Parana Park, and they have a little chat while their kids are enjoying the small paddling pool there.
Parana Park is used frequently. It is used for the Anzac Day celebrations on an annual basis. Over the last 8 years we have noticed the growing number of people who attend the early Dawn Service. As we are not long past Anzac Day it is worth mentioning what we have seen, which is that more young people are turning up to the Dawn Service at Memorial Park, which is adjacent to Parana Park, and more people are taking an interest in their local history and local landmarks, of which Parana Park is certainly one.
On that basis, as has been noted by members who have spoken earlier, I point out that this is an administrative bill. The bill means that we will continue to see Parana Park being used as a recreational reserve accessible to all families in Hamilton and to those visiting our great city. Parana Park has a specific history in relation to George Parr, which my colleague Sue Moroney spoke about, and it had a pre-colonial history, which I spoke about in previous contributions to the House. But, most important, I note for the record that adjacent to Parana Park, across the river, is Rangiora, which is a very important site of significance to the local people. It is a place of deep spiritual importance, overlooking this particular area.
Many people have talked about whether the name of “Parana Park” has any Māori significance. It could have been pronounced “Paarana”, but I do not think the name has any Māori significance. The origin of the name still eludes me, but I can confirm that to my knowledge, having asked a number of people who are expert in the history of Kirikiriroa particularly, that “Parana” is not a Māori word. [Interruption] “Pa-rana”—I thank the member for that contribution. I had thought about that, too.
Lastly, I am pleased that the small house still stands on that particular site. It was originally intended as a convalescent home. It is still on the site and is well maintained. There is a beautiful rose garden next to it. I think, if nothing else, it is a part of retaining the history and connection to George Parr on that site. I hope that the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the site, and of the playground and the small paddling pool in particular, is something that the city council will continue to be committed to, so that more of our young people and young families in Hamilton can enjoy the special nature of this park. I am happy to support the third reading, and I commend the bill to the House.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker; ka nui te mihi ki a koe. Hei whaiwhai haere i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero, kai te tautoko ake i tēnei pire kia whai atu i tōna huarahi ki tōna mutunga. Me mihi rā ki a George Parr, hei whaiwhai haere i te kōrero o te mema nā, a Nanaia Mahuta. Me mihi ki a ia me tōna whakaaro nui nei mō te āhuatanga o te tāone nui o Kirikiriroa, ā, me tana koha i tēnei whenua ki ngā iwi e noho mai rā ki reira. Kai te tika tā ētahi, e ai ki ngā kōrero, ko te oati a George Parr i te tau 1929 he tuku i tētahi whare ki tēnei wāhi hei kāinga whakaora i ngā mea i puta i te hōhipera o Waikato i tērā wā, ka mutu, he wāhi tākaro anō rā mō ngā tamariki; he mea hākinakina tonu. Ka mutu, ki tāku titiro ko te waihotanga mai o te tangata nei a George Parr e whakaaro nui nei mō ngā tamariki me te hunga e rongo nei i te ngau o mamae. Nō reira, me mihi ki a ia ka tika. Ko tōna oati he painga mō ngā tamariki me te tūmanako ia, ka whai te kaunihera o Kirikiriroa i tēnā o ngā oati kia hāngai tēnei kaupapa ki ngā tamariki. Kei roto i ngā ringaringa o te kaunihera o Kirikiriroa tēnei kaupapa hei whakatinana ki tā George Parr i wawata mai ai i ngā tau kua hipa.
Ka rua, ka huri atu ki te āhuatanga o te Ao Māori e kōrerohia mai nā e tērā o ngā honore mema a Nanaia Mahuta. Ko tā mātou i te nuinga o te wā ka hoki ki te tirohanga ki te iwi Māori e noho mai rā ki reira i tēnei wā; i whai atu i te whakaaro o Te Kauhanganui o Waikato-Tainui ki te kimi whakaaro. Ki tāku e mōhio nei, ēhara i te mea he take nui ki a rātou. I āhua pai tonu te huarahi, e ai ki tā rātou, ki te whakatinana i te oati o te George Parr nei. Nō reira, tērā tērā.
Ki tāku titiro anō hoki, ēhara i te mea ko te pāka i tōna kotahi te kaupapa nui ēngari, me titiro anō rā ki te āhuatanga o te ora o te awa o Waikato. Anā, ko te awa o Waikato tīmata mai ai i te Tāheke Hukahuka o Taupō, ā, tae atu ki te Pūaha-o-Waikato. Kua rongo nei tātou i roto i tēnei Whare, ko te awa o Waikato ēhara i te mea ko te wai anake ēngari, ko ngā tahataha, ko te papa whenua i raro i te wai, ko ngā wai ka puta, ka tae atu ki te awa o Waikato, ka mutu, ko ngā ika, ko ngā puna ō-raro. Koinā te tirohanga o ngā iwi e noho mai rā i Tainui-Waikato. Koia rā te āhuatanga o te awa. Hāunga te āhuatanga o te kōrero mō te pāka nei, kei wareware i a tātou, ko te āhuatanga o te wai o Waikato me te tūmanako ia, ka puta tētahi huarahi hei whakapaipai ake, hei whakatikatika ake i te oranga tonutanga o te awa o Waikato mō ngā tamariki mokopuna, pēnei tā te George Parr i te wā i a ia, ā, ko te tūmanako ia ka pērā anō hoki i tēnei wā. Nō reira, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, he paku whakaaro noa ake hei whaiwhai haere i te kōrero a ētahi. Ko tā te Pāti Māori he tautoko i tēnei o ngā pire.
[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker; I cannot thank you enough. To follow up on the trend of the speeches, I support this Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill in the final stage of its journey. Following on from the address of that member, Nanaia Mahuta, I must acknowledge George Parr, and thank him for his huge consideration for the city of Hamilton, and this land he has gifted to the people living there. It is correct what some have said: that according to accounts, in George Parr’s oath of 1929 he gifted a building on this land as a recovery home for patients discharged from the Waikato Hospital at that time, and furthermore a playground, a recreational place solely for children. Furthermore, the legacy of this man, George Parr, in my view is his tremendous consideration for children and for those in poor health. Therefore, acknowledging him is the right thing to do. His promise is a benefit for children, and, hopefully, this is one pledge that the Hamilton City Council will ensure that children will benefit directly from. It is in the hands of the Hamilton City Council to implement what George Parr wanted in years past.
Secondly, I turn now to the aspect relating to Māoridom, which the honourable member Nanaia Mahuta mentioned. Most times we go back to the viewpoint of local Māori who are living there currently, or seek advice from the Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui. I understand that it is not a big issue for them. According to them, they find the process to implement the pledge of George Parr quite favourable. So that is that.
From my point of view, as well, the park on its own is not the big issue, but rather the need to look at what relates to the well-being of the Waikato River. The Waikato River starts at the Huka Falls of Taupō, and eventually reaches Port Waikato. We have heard in this House that the Waikato River is not just the water alone, but the banks, the riverbed under the water, the water from the tributaries that flow into the Waikato River, and, furthermore, the fish and the subterranean pools. That is the view of the tribes living in Waikato-Tainui. That is the aspect relating to the river. Regardless of what has been said about this park, we must never forget what relates to the water in the Waikato River, with the hope that in due time a way is found to improve and restore the well-being of the Waikato river for ever, for the sake of the children and grandchildren, just as it was in George Parr’s time. Hopefully, it will be like that today. So throughout our House, that is a little thought to consider as a follow-up to what other members have contributed. The Māori Party supports this bill .]
Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this
It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Philanthropy is the performance of charitable or benevolent acts. Like the quality of mercy, it blesses those who give and those who receive. It was very common in Victorian times and, as we know, some of the world’s richest men, such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, are actively promoting the idea of philanthropy globally around the world today.
Acts of philanthropy have played a significant role in the development of New Zealand’s communities, and I am thinking of a number of them as I stand here. Atiu Creek Farm, for instance, just to the west of Wellsford, has a large waterfront frontage and beautiful standing trees and wetlands. It was given to the people of New Zealand by Pierre and Jackie Chatelanat, and became Auckland’s 23rd regional park in 2006. This was a very, very generous gift, because its value at the time was some $10 million.
Rotoroa Island, of 82 hectares and just to the east of Waiheke Island, is a beautiful island. It was closed to the public for about a hundred years, and was owned and used by the Salvation Army in a bid to treat alcoholics and help them on the road to recovery. It has been opened up to the people of New Zealand by the generous involvement of a couple who have bought the lease from the Salvation Army, and who have allowed the land to be opened to the public. The money is being used by the Salvation Army to progress its work in the meantime.
Sir John Logan Campbell is another philanthropist who springs to mind. In 1901 he gifted Cornwall Park to the people of Auckland, and this is a park that people throughout New Zealand have used and enjoyed for many, many years, and continue to do so to this day. I remember as a young lad coming up from the Naki to Auckland, and it was a great pleasure to drive through those beautiful fields, with stock grazing on them, surrounded by stone walls. It was a reminder—certainly seeing the stock in the fields—of home, even though I was all those miles away.
Sir John McKenzie was a well-known and successful businessman. He formed the J R McKenzie Trust in 1940, which has a very good deed that allows board members to give money for charitable and educational purposes in whatever manner they so wish. As a young boy growing up in a single-parent family and off to Otago University, I received a donation from the J R McKenzie Trust, which was gratefully appreciated at the time, and indeed is appreciated to this day.
We have heard that the land from Parana Park was originally gifted in 1929 by George Parr. I submit to the House that he was yet another philanthropist worthy of recognition, and it is totally appropriate that we should be thinking of him and mentioning his name in the House today. He was a farmer, and someone mentioned he was a Liberal farmer, so his giving was in the tradition of his beliefs. He gave the land to Hamilton City to be used for a children’s convalescent home initially, for patients from Waikato Hospital. In the 1950s it became apparent that it was no longer suitable for such use, and this bill will vest Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council as a recreational reserve. Parana Park will for ever be a testimony to the philanthropy and benevolence of George Parr, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) Link to this
It is an honour to speak to the third reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. The bill has been colourful both in terms of the debate in this House and the length of time it has been going through the House. Some would say that a bill that is administrative and relatively routine has enjoyed debate and scrutiny that is disproportionate to its importance, but it has been interesting to listen to some of the contributions today by members on both sides of the House.
First of all, I will touch on the fact that Parana Park played a very important role, just over a week ago, on Anzac Day. I believe that Parana Park is the main meeting-place on Anzac Day for the people of Hamilton. I am sure that if the ceremonies at Parana Park on Anzac Day were anything like they were at Titahi Bay and Porirua for me a couple of Mondays ago, they were just as moving.
I reiterate that Labour supports this bill, basically because of the bill’s intent, and that is to safeguard an asset in the hands of the people of Hamilton. As I said before to the member in charge of this bill, David Bennett, I think he may have gone a bit rogue in National, because this bill is looking to protect an asset and make sure it stays within the hands of the people of Hamilton. He is bucking the trend to make sure that Parana Park stays in the hands of the community.
Just down the road from Parana Park is the Huntly power station, and I wonder what would happen if we did the same thing for Huntly power station that we are doing for Parana Park, to make sure we protect the power station and keep it in the hands of the mum and dad investors who have paid for, and protected, it over many, many years.
I think there were only five submissions on the bill, if I remember correctly—and I spoke numerous times during the Committee stage, because of the bill’s importance. The submissions were very, very thorough and thoughtful. I think one of them proposed changes to the way in which the park is protected.
As I said, this bill sets out to protect an asset. Over the last 4 years power companies, which are State-owned assets, raised $732 million for the people of New Zealand. I wonder what would happen if we protected those State-owned assets like we are protecting Parana Park today. What could we get with that $732 million if we protected power companies, which we own, in the way we are protecting Parana Park today? If we protected power companies like we are protecting Parana Park today we could get 10,000 teachers at the average rate—10,000.
If we protected our power companies to make sure they bring in those profits, like we are protecting Parana Park today, we could bring in 12,000 more police officers. If we protected our power companies to make sure they bring in those profits and keep them here in New Zealand, like we are protecting Parana Park today, we could do 33,000 more hip operations. If we protected our power companies to make sure they bring in those profits, like we are protecting Parana Park today, we could increase the number of places at polytechs, such as the Whitireia Community Polytechnic in my electorate, by 91,000 places.
If we protected our power companies to make sure those profits stayed in New Zealand, we could have 70,000 more university places. So we should be protecting our power companies, our State-owned assets, just as we are protecting Parana Park today. We must make sure we protect Parana Park for future generations, and we must make sure we protect our State-owned enterprises so that all Kiwis can benefit, just as the people of Hamilton benefit form Parana Park and enjoy playing and picnicking in it with their families.
Over the course of the bill’s passage through the House we have learnt quite a lot about Parana Park and its history. It has been very interesting to find out about a man called George Parr, who gifted the land to Hamiltonians. It was gifted by George Parr in 1929, and, as we have heard, it was intended to be a playground for children who were using the Waikato Hospital. There was a play area, which makes up the bulk of the park, which was supposed to be a convalescent home.
We have heard a lot about Mr Parr, and about his Liberal Party background—if I am correct. There was some debate about the accuracy of that matter, but we do know that Mr Parr was the son of a Hamilton mayor, and that the Parr family owned a grocer’s shop in Hamilton. I just wonder what Mr Parr would make of Hamilton today if he could take a trip forward in time, plonk himself back in Parana Park, and have a chat to the people of Hamilton.
I think the member for Hamilton West is very interested in what Mr Parr might think of that, and whether Mr Parr would be worried about the cost of living and the fact that New Zealanders seem to be going backwards under this National Government. I think Mr Parr would also be worried that the people of Hamilton were looking for a plan to make sure that those who do not have jobs, or are looking for jobs, got the economy going. I think Mr Parr would be a bit concerned about what is happening in that space, as well. He would be a bit concerned that although the Government, with this bill, might be protecting an asset for the community it has, on the whole, become out of touch with the public.
It is absolutely brilliant that this bill looks to protect a community asset, to make sure that the community is listened to, and to ensure that the people of Hamilton and future generations can continue to enjoy this park. The protection of an asset for the community—in this instance, Parana Park—is a rarity. In my area, the community is not being listened to in terms of the Kapiti Expressway. The people of Raumati South and Raumati Beach want to make sure they protect their community. They do not want a four-lane expressway through their community. They want to make sure that their community is protected, just like the people of Hamilton want to see Parana Park protected. But in the instance of the expressway, the Government is not listening.
In the case of Parana Park we have the protection of a community asset, but on the Kapiti Coast we have a four-lane monstrosity. In the instance of Parana Park we have the protection of a community asset, but on the Kapiti Coast we have an expressway through a community, not for a community. In Parana Park we have a great protection of a community asset, but on the Kapiti Coast the Government is going against the will of the people.
In Parana Park we have the protection of a community asset, but on the Kapiti Coast we have an expressway that nobody wants. We have asset sales around the rest of New Zealand, which nobody wants to happen, and on 26 November the people of Ōtaki will send that clear message to the Government. Although this Government might be protecting Parana Park, it is not protecting the Kapiti Coast by putting in an expressway that nobody wants in their communities.
I will touch on the lighter side of this debate. As I said, the debate on the bill has probably extended beyond the importance of the bill, but it has been an interesting experience to go through some of the history of the bill. I congratulate the Hamilton City Council, David Bennett, and other Hamilton members of Parliament, including my colleague Sue Moroney, on making sure—
Sorry; and the member for Hamilton West, Tim Macindoe. He is a typical politician. He wanted to be mentioned in the speech; he did not want to miss out. [ Interruption] I got him in there. I congratulate all of them. Labour supports the bill.
NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
It is my pleasure to support the third reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. As we have heard, the bill is to vest Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council as a recreational reserve. It is a wonderful piece of land. It is in the heart of Hamilton, and it has been enjoyed for decades by Hamiltonians. I think it is appropriate that we celebrate the goodness of George Parr and we celebrate the philanthropy that he showed, and the vision that he showed in providing this land for the people of Hamilton. It was gifted to them by George Parr on his death in 1929.
We have heard a lot about George Parr today. He was extremely well respected. He was a businessman, and he was the president of the Hamilton chamber of commerce. He was a good, solid citizen. He was interested in politics—Liberal politics. He was very community-minded. He never married but he was very fond of children.
The debate about the name of Parana Park is very interesting. The Hon Nanaia Mahuta talked about whether it was a Māori name. In actual fact it is a combination name: the combination of George Parr’s name, the “Par” in Parana and of Annie McPherson, who was a small child who died just a year before George died.
Simon BridgesNo, Annie McPherson.
It was Parana as in “Parr-Anna” Park. So it was Annie McPherson and George Parr. That is how the name was put together. We have probably forgotten that fact, because we say “Parana” and do not think of “Parr” in the first place.
We have heard also that there was originally a house with big surrounds. George Parr wanted the house to be used as a convalescent home for children who came out of hospital. The house itself was never particularly suitable but the land has proved to be more than suitable. It has been used as a children’s playground ever since it was donated, and it has been well used. Picnics, barbecues, community events, and memorial services are held there regularly, and we have heard the fact that the Dawn Service and the citizens service this year on Anzac Day were particularly well attended.
I think George Parr would be delighted to see the good use that is being made of his land and the good use that is being made of his gift to the people of Hamilton. But now it is time to update and modernise the legislation by which Parana Park is administered by the Hamilton City Council. I think it is time to do that. I support this bill.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this
It is a real pleasure to speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. We have had some very good moments in the House discussing this bill. People watching the proceedings of Parliament might be wondering why on earth we are spending so much time on a bill that is largely administrative and vests Parana Park in the people of Waikato and the people of Hamilton. Part of the explanation for that, of course, is that while the Committee stage was under way with other bills there were attempts to push large Supplementary Order Papers through this Chamber without giving Opposition members the ability to take a really good look at them and study them, as is necessary to be able to make informed comment and an informed decision about them. Pages and pages of Supplementary Order Papers were put forward by the Government. As a result of that, this side of the House decided to spend more time on legislation that is perhaps less important in terms of needing debate but is nevertheless important to the people of Hamilton. It is for that reason that we are still debating the third reading of this bill and pushing it through its third reading today. It should pass its third reading today without any problems, because, as we have made very, very clear in the debates that have gone on, Labour definitely supports this legislation.
The bill, as has been said by many members, is a good piece of legislation. It gives the people of Hamilton more security about the parks and the land they have available to them. It enables informal play, as we heard during the Committee stage—not formalised play, such as football or soccer, but informal activity like flying kites and playing with frisbees—for the people of Hamilton. So from that point of view it is extremely good, and no doubt Mr Bennett, who is just entering the House now, will be able to trumpet this legislation as his major achievement for mankind when it comes to this year’s election.
It is also, I think, fair to point out, as my colleague Kris Faafoi just did, that land is going to be taken in his electorate of Mana, and to contrast the vesting of Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council with what is happening there, and also in my electorate of Mt Albert, where parks are being removed for the purpose of building motorways. Waterview and, in particular, Ōwairaka are less well off areas of my electorate. Yet, as often happens, the people there are people who are less able to fight the fight and to stop motorways; these sorts of public works are being pushed through, and a number of the parks in Mt Albert will be removed. It is worth pointing out, as I and others pointed out to the board of inquiry that met on this issue, that it is the people of Mt Albert who will be disadvantaged by the motorway. But it is not only that. One would expect that the New Zealand Transport Agency might try to overcompensate these people for the loss of their parks and their sports grounds, etc., but it has been rather stingy, to be perfectly frank, in doing that.
So when we come to legislation like this I reflect on the situation in my own electorate and I contrast that with the visionary thinking of George Parr and his forethought in being able to put aside a piece of land in the centre of Hamilton, near the banks of the Waikato River, that can be used for Hamiltonians into the future. It is also worth noting that the Māori people of the Waikato, the tribe of Tainui, have supported this legislation, as well. In many ways they have a real point in pointing out that this was part of the raupatu area, the area that was confiscated from Tainui, after the New Zealand Wars of the 19th century. Yet they see that the benefits for all New Zealanders living in that area, Māori and non-Māori, will be served by vesting this park in the Hamilton City Council.
There was one frightening moment during the Committee stage when we thought we had lost 0.4 of a hectare, or an acre of land. I have to say that when I looked at David Bennett’s face when he thought he had lost 0.4 of a hectare, and that people might cast aspersions on him for perhaps concealing 0.4 of a hectare of extremely valuable land, he did, I have to say, rise to the challenge. He went away, researched the various lots that were under consideration, and came back with an explanation of where that acre went. That was, I guess, the heart-thumping climax of this legislation. We were all on the edge of our seats wondering where 0.4 of a hectare had disappeared to. There was true drama and tension in this House.
I also want to reflect that this vesting of land is happening in an area that has the Huntly power station, and as we know from discussions in this House and outside, this Government is thinking of selling many of the assets along the Waikato River that generate New Zealand’s power. These are the assets I have contributed to through my taxes and that my parents and my grandparents have contributed to. They are our assets, yet we hear from this Government that it is about to sell those assets so that others—the mums and dads we keep talking about—can buy them. The mums and dads already own them but they can now own them again. We have looked at Contact Energy. What happened to the assets of that organisation? They ended up in foreign hands, generating benefits and dividends for foreign interests, particularly Australian interests. This Government wants to turn round and do exactly the same thing to our electricity assets, our energy assets, which belong, most rightfully, to the people of New Zealand. We oppose that sale. We have a similar vision perhaps to that of George Parr, who looked to the future of Hamilton, and we look to the future of New Zealand. We want to preserve the assets that belong to us for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It is absolute lunacy to sell those assets when they are generating returns of about 17 percent. It is economic lunacy to do that, and we need only read the column by Brian Gaynor in last week’s paper about the disastrous economic history and what happened to New Zealand assets when they were sold to get an indication of where we believe this Government is going wrong.
In conclusion, I would like to close by saying that this is a good bill. It is good legislation, and it is something sensible that we certainly can support and that we have supported right throughout these debates. We have perhaps given it more attention than we would have other legislation of a similar nature. That was for a reason, but it is worth pointing out that we support this today.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) Link to this
The last shall be first and the first shall be last. Having had the great pleasure, in the absence of the member for Hamilton East, to move the second reading, I now have the enormous privilege today of ending this debate on the third reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill.
Just last Monday, which was Anzac Day, I wandered through Parana Park on my way to attend the civic service at the Hamilton Cenotaph. I stopped to talk to some constituents on the attractive stone bridge that crosses Gibbons Creek and marks one entrance to Parana Park. I drew their attention to the two memorial marble plaques that face each other on that bridge. We studied the inscriptions together. As Nicky Wagner reminded us a few minutes earlier, it is believed that the names of the two citizens commemorated on those plaques, George Parr and Annie McPherson, when combined are thought to answer the question asked by many members in the first and second readings of this bill: how did Parana Park acquire its name?
The inscription on the first plaque reads as follows:
I am sure the learned member for Mt Albert will recognise that extract from Marc Antony’s speech at the forum in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. I am pleased to assure the House that the circumstances of George Parr’s demise were less dramatic than the famous murder scene that is analysed in act three, scene two, which David Bennett tells me he enjoyed studying so much in his distinguished days at St John’s College in Hamilton.
But once more on to the bridge, Mr Speaker! On the opposite plaque is written—
Hon Steve Chadwick“And the Lord God planted a garden.”
He did indeed, and a beautiful garden Parana Park will remain for Hamiltonians to enjoy for generations to come, enhanced by the provisions of this bill promoted by the MP for Hamilton East.
Members opposite also asked during earlier debates about the origins of our city’s name. The area now covered by our city was originally the site of a handful of Māori villages, including Pūkete in the north in my electorate, Miropiko, and Kirikiriroa, which I am advised by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who also represents our city in this House, means long stretch of gravel, and from which our city takes its Māori name.
The English name, Hamilton, commemorates Captain John Charles Fane Hamilton, who was born in Scotland in 1822. His grandfather was for a period the MP for Oxford in the House of Commons. His father was an army colonel, and his uncle was a rear admiral. With a pedigree like that it is probably not surprising that Hamilton joined the navy when he was a mere 13 years of age, and served in many parts of the world, including China, the Americas, and the Crimea. His bravery at the siege of Sebastopol, which led to the Russian defeat in the Crimean War, earned him promotion to the rank of commander.
He was subsequently appointed captain of the Esk, a corvette or gunship, and was sent to New Zealand where he served in the Waikato campaign of the New Zealand Wars. Hamilton was killed in action in the Battle of Gate Pa. The member for Tauranga is here and no doubt has frequently visited his grave, for Hamilton is buried where he died in 1864, at the cemetery close to the embankment where he fell. The gold-plated Royal Navy officer’s sword owned and used by Captain Hamilton during the Waikato campaigns and the Battle of Gate Pa were subsequently gifted to the Hamilton City Council, and it is a significant exhibit at Te Whare Taonga O Waikato, the Waikato Museum, which is located just across the Waikato River, opposite Parana Park.
Just to set at rest the troubled minds on the other side of the House, I am delighted to confirm to those rude mechanicals opposite that there are no piranhas in the stream running through Parana Park, and that the missing square metre that was so lamented by Mr Shearer is not really missing at all, nor is it in Mr Bennett’s back garden on River Road. In fact, that missing acre is exactly where it has always been, and always will be after we band of brothers and sisters have shuffled off this mortal coil.
It is a relief to have reached this point after the bubble, bubble, toil, and trouble of the contributions of members opposite. Their bizarre contributions to the progress of this bill through the House are memorable for all the wrong reasons. During the second reading, and especially in the Committee stage, members opposite gave us a case of—if Churchill will forgive me—never was so much said by so many of so little. Or, to borrow from the Bard again, we heard from members opposite, and not for the first time, a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The manner in which Labour members milked their performances to keep a debate going, despite unanimous support for the measure, was reminiscent of Nick Bottom’s protracted demise in Pyramus and Thisbe, and had a similar impact on those who waited patiently for the puffery to peter out. They traversed from dubious history, through tragedy, to comedy.
It has taken nearly a year for this important but uncontroversial measure to complete its passage through this House. The purpose of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill has been more than thoroughly outlined and examined during that period. I simply conclude this debate by congratulating David Bennett, our mayor, Hamilton city councillors, and all the citizens of the fine city of Hamilton, on the fact that this bill is finally about to be passed. I look forward to Parana Park being well managed, carefully maintained, and an area of beauty to be enjoyed by many generations to come.