Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Volume 670
Sitting date: 9 March 2011
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Visitors
Australia—Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, House of Representatives
Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs of the House of Representatives of Australia, led by Mr Shayne Neumann MP, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Bills
Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill
Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill
Procedure
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House): Following discussion in the Business Committee yesterday, I seek leave for the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill and the Securities Trustees and Statutory Supervisors Bill to be taken as cognate bills for their second and third readings, and that, for each reading, the debate comprise two 15-minute calls and 11 10-minute calls.
Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Earthquake, Christchurch—Measures to Meet Fiscal Cost
1. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: What are some of the issues the Government will consider to meet the expected fiscal cost of the Christchurch earthquake?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Based on an early assessment of the combined cost of the two earthquakes, the cost to the Government could be about $10 billion over the next few years. This will almost certainly involve a combination of the Government taking on a bit more debt in the short term. There is not much choice about that. We are incurring significant costs as we speak. Also, there is the issue of how much of our existing spending can be redirected towards Christchurch, and a likely increase in Earthquake Commission levies, I expect, alongside an increase in other insurance premiums. The Government will not allow an increase in debt to become permanent. We remain committed to a long-term goal of reducing our debt and vulnerability to foreign lenders.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What are some of the likely costs the Government will face as a result of the earthquake?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some of the direct costs will be at least $3 billion for residential property claims from the Earthquake Commission before reinsurance cover applies; significant contributions to local infrastructure—roads, water, stormwater, sewerage, and stopbanks—and potentially large costs around land remediation, depending on policy decisions there; and, of course, temporary assistance to families, individuals, and businesses from the various support packages that the Government is making available in Christchurch.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What are some of the fiscal policy options the Government might consider in response to the earthquake?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Sound fiscal policy is a good idea under any circumstances, regardless of whether there are extra costs for the earthquake. The Government, as signalled by the Prime Minister earlier in the year, was looking to make progress towards surpluses more quickly. It is certainly not now possible to get there more quickly than we expected, but any changes that the Government makes will ensure that we stick to principles we have employed so far: protecting the vulnerable, maintaining front-line public services, and maintaining our policies for a long-term improvement in economic growth.
Rahui Katene: What assurance can he give the House that low-income families receiving Working for Families or families where income support is the primary source of income will not be targeted for savings to meet the fiscal costs of the earthquake?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can give the member the assurance that low-income families and families for whom income support is the principal source of income will not be expected to make contributions.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What will the earthquake mean for the Government’s wider economic programme to build a faster-growing economy and higher incomes?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Although the earthquake is a very significant and tragic event, it merely underlines the importance of the Government getting on with its longer-term programme to build a faster-growing economy. It is essential that we get our finances in order to accommodate the costs of the earthquake but also that we continue with long-term investment in infrastructure, raising educational standards, providing a more productive and effective Public Service, and continuing with tax reform, because these things will give us a stronger economy, which will help us to recover from the earthquake.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Extent of Damage to Housing
2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that, in Christchurch, “up to 10,000 houses will need to be demolished and over 100,000 more could be damaged.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. It was a preliminary figure from the Earthquake Commission’s geotechnical engineers as a result of the early modelling of their observations. I have absolutely no reason to dispute their expert advice.
Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept that speculation by him about whole neighbourhoods having to be demolished has, according to the people in Bexley and Burwood whom I spoke to this morning, unnecessarily caused anxiety, distress, and uncertainty, because there is no follow-up as to which neighbourhoods he was referring to and what will be done to help them?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: To the best of my knowledge I have never said that whole suburbs would be abandoned. I have said that streets, houses, or areas may be abandoned. That is as a result of very, very significant damage. We will not know exactly those areas until we get the absolute geotechnical advice. I can say to those householders in that position that as soon as we get that advice we will not only release that advice to them but also share with them the options that are presented to them.
Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is better not to speculate about those sorts of things until those areas can be identified by geotechnical reports and there can be back-up support and assurance to the residents who will be so affected?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If I had gone out there and named streets, areas, or houses without geotechnical advice, then I think the Leader of the Opposition would have a point. That is not what I have done. The reality is that the issue is not ultimately whether 9,000, 10,000, or 11,000 homes are demolished; the issue is which homes will be demolished. It is blatantly obvious to anyone who has been in Christchurch that a significant number will be demolished. We know, as a result of the first earthquake, that 3,500 homes are to be demolished and 8,000 homes, in total, breach the $100,000 cap. We also know that as a result of this earthquake there has been substantially more damage. For the Government not to give an indication of the likely extent of damage to both business and consumers is, quite frankly, treating the people of Canterbury with contempt. We actually need to share with them the level of information we have and also share with them the options that may be presented to them.
Hon Phil Goff: Given the huge amount of rebuilding work that will need to be done, what is he doing at the moment to ensure that as many local people as possible who are currently unemployed, with 9,000 more being made redundant, can be upskilled to do some of that work and prevent a crisis in shortage of skilled labour?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I cannot speak for every building contractor who will be involved in the projects, but I know that from Fletcher’s perspective it is trying to use local contractors. Secondly, the Government is attempting either to have the cordon moved or, ultimately, to be in a position where Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology can get back to business. It trains a lot of people in the skills area. I am sure that over the course of a number of years in the future there will be enormous demand for people in the construction sector, and I think those people will find work in Canterbury. There is very little in the way of silver linings as a result of this earthquake but if it provides employment and skills for some young people, then I think that is one of them.
Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister aware that the building and construction industry in Christchurch is still downscaling, that companies are going into liquidation, and that apprenticeship numbers and training numbers are being reduced, when there will be a huge demand for skilled labour within 6 to 12 months; and what, specifically, is he doing to address that need?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I hate to go back to the basics of supply and demand, but if we look at what is going to happen to Christchurch over the next number of years, we think that in the order of $20 billion will be spent on infrastructure. We know that some workers will want to relocate from around New Zealand and that some companies will draw on their New Zealand - wide staff, but it is blatantly obvious for anyone to see that as that rebuilding process takes place there will be enormous opportunity. I for one happen to believe that plenty of people will either apply for courses or find opportunities.
Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister not understand that although there will be enormous opportunities, if there are people who are currently being made redundant and unemployment is projected to rise to 7 percent in Christchurch over the next couple of months, then unless there are specific programmes to enable people to acquire those skills, it will not help the employment and economic situation in Christchurch if people are coming from around New Zealand and around the world, as he suggested today and yesterday?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not what I have said. What I have said is that I believe there will be great opportunities for the people who work in Christchurch. I am advised by the Minister for Tertiary Education that at the moment he is looking at those programmes and projects that will be available to them. I have absolutely no doubt that increasing numbers of young people will find employment in that area.
Hon Phil Goff: How does the Prime Minister respond to criticisms from within the industry itself, in Christchurch and around the country, that this Government does not have an adequate skills-training programme and that there will be a major shortage of skills in the very trades we need to rebuild Christchurch, within 6 to 12 months?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am reliably informed by the Minister for Tertiary Education that that is total rubbish from the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly, let us get a little bit of perspective on what is going on. We have had an earthquake that has cost the lives of up to 200 people. We have a city that has had utter devastation wreaked upon it, and we are in a situation where 10,000 homes will probably be demolished and 100,000 additional claims are likely to be made. The city has been without power, water, and sewerage. The Government has been doing everything it possibly can in a 2-week period to restore those basic infrastructures. Yes, the issue of training more people is an important one, but if the Leader of the Opposition thinks that it is the most important one at the moment, he will be the Leader of the Opposition for a very long time, until the Labour caucus boots him out.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will understand that having spent several hours this morning talking to really stressed and anxious people—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The House will get into disorder if points of order are used for matters that have nothing to do with order. The member’s question verged on an allegation that the Government was ignoring an issue. The Prime Minister responded to that in his answer, and that kind of question will get that kind of response. If the member wishes to ask a further supplementary question he can, but he cannot use the point of order process for that purpose.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will agree that my question was a very straight question. It asked how the Prime Minister responded to criticism that had been made to me by the building industry that there was not an adequate programme—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He is now using the point of order process totally incorrectly. The Prime Minister disputed the assertion made in the Minister’s question. The Minister answering is perfectly entitled to dispute a claim that is made in a question, and the Prime Minister did that. If the honourable Leader of the Opposition wishes to ask a further supplementary question, he certainly may do so, but he cannot raise points of order like that.
Hon Phil Goff: How does the one-third fall in apprenticeships taken on by the building industry, and the continuing collapse of building companies—one collapsing today—assist in the rebuilding process that will be necessary, on a massive scale, in Christchurch?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One thing that the Government can pat itself on the back for is that in the last 2 years it has supported a huge amount of the construction sector through the amount of work it has undertaken. This Government has supported that sector, and therefore, ultimately, it has supported training in that sector.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Will water and sewerage be reconnected in streets that, as he has indicated, are to be abandoned?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I always find that it is going badly when one has to revert to another member on the front bench.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I am on my feet. The Prime Minister should not push his luck. He knows better than that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am deeply offended. I have been approached by people—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat right now, or he will leave the House immediately. The House will come to order. I say to members that it is not a good look, at this time. The Prime Minister knew that that comment would lead to disorder. It was not wise. The House will come to order, and I warn the shadow Leader of the House that when I get to my feet, he will sit down, or he will leave.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not seen what the final recommendations will be, but if an area of land cannot be remediated, and therefore properties cannot be built on it, partly because they would not be insurable, then it would be very unlikely that water and sewerage would be connected there.
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Proposed Changes
3. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Attorney-General: What changes, if any, is he proposing to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill, and why?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I answered the member’s question yesterday when I detailed two changes to the bill that would be proposed by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, as well as noting that there would be a number of technical amendments. That Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled and circulated, and I direct the member to it. The changes take account of public submissions, and submissions by officials, to ensure that the bill is properly integrated with existing legislation. It also addresses genuinely held concerns from submitters about access and negotiated agreements.
Hon John Boscawen: Why has he amended clause 27 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to allow free access to apply only to individuals, and can he confirm that the word “individual” includes a group, such as a wedding party, a school group, or a staff picnic?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I would have thought that, according to basic principles of statutory interpretation, reference to a singular word would also include the plural.
Hon John Boscawen: What sort of commercial benefits will customary marine title holders be able to derive under clause 63 as amended?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Basically, the same sort of commercial benefits that those who hold a freehold title are able to enjoy.
GDP Decrease—Outlook Prior to Christchurch Earthquake
4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How much of the cumulative $15 billion drop in GDP over the next 4 years, as identified in the Treasury’s February monthly economic indicators report, is a result of the “weaker [economic] outlook we were seeing prior to the February earthquake” in Christchurch?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The member will find that outlined in Treasury’s monthly Economic Indicators report for February, which was published early so that people can have good information. It notes that of the $15 billion drop in GDP over the next 4 years, about $10 billion of it relates to changes that occurred before the February earthquake. Just to clarify the expected growth path of GDP over the next 5 years, the growth will be in excess of $1,000 billion and is expected to grow about 13 percent in real terms. The pre-quake revisions lower the cumulative projections by about 1 percent. So there was an expectation of 13 percent growth in real terms, but that growth is now expected to be about 1 percent less.
Hon David Cunliffe: Did Treasury indicate prior to the February earthquake whether unemployment for the next 2 years would be higher or lower than predicted in December 2010’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, it did not, although in the absence of the earthquake it is likely that its employment forecast would have softened a bit. Treasury had just started its forecast round for the Budget when the earthquake hit. So, clearly, from here on both the original slow-down in the economy and the impact of the earthquake will affect employment. We would expect unemployment to be a bit higher in the short term, but in the longer term, as has been discussed in the House today, we are likely to have skills shortages by the middle of next year, which is a good sign for employment.
Hon David Cunliffe: Given that it was a priority for his Government to reduce public debt even at the cost of reducing services to New Zealanders, is he prepared to consider rolling back some of the tax cuts to high-income earners in order to spread the cost of the recent earthquake over time, or does he now consider it appropriate to borrow the lot and add it all to New Zealand’s international debt?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We expect to spread the cost of the earthquake over future years. As I have outlined, there is not a lot of choice about taking on further debt. The earthquake has happened, and the Government has already in the last couple of weeks spent about $200 million to $250 million, because we believe in giving Canterbury and the people of Christchurch all the support they need. As I have outlined, we are going through a pretty considered process of how we can haul back the extra burden of debt that we are taking on in the short term.
Craig Foss: How much fiscal stimulus is reconstruction arising from the earthquakes likely to generate?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The effect of the earthquake will come in a couple of phases. In the first instance it will be negative from the point of view of the Government’s books and its effect on our fiscal position. But when we look out over the future, we see that the expected rebound will be sizable. Our preliminary forecasts show total investment spending lifting by over 40 percent and residential investment by over 80 percent over the next 4 years. The size of the disaster will have to be matched by the size of the reconstruction effort. The combination means that next year we are likely to see growth rates lift above 4 percent on average across the economy, and that will be positive for employment.
Hon David Cunliffe: Further to my previous supplementary question, and leaving aside any possible change to the Earthquake Commission levy, is the Minister prepared to rule out for the House any change to tax rate levels or thresholds, or rule out a specific earthquake levy as part of the balanced consideration he is giving to spreading the costs of earthquake recovery over time?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the couple of weeks since this disaster the Government’s position has been pretty consistent: we are not ruling out a levy or equivalent measures. But it is our strong preference not to reverse the direction we have taken, which has been to improve incentives in the economy for savings, exports, and investment. Those measures will, in the long run, help us with stronger economic growth. We would prefer not to do that if we can avoid it.
Hon David Cunliffe: Given that answer, is he alternatively considering reducing entitlements under Working for Families—for example, those of a two-income family with three children where both partners work and earn a combined income of around $80,000 per annum?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In respect of Working for Families, there was some discussion about it last week. The Government has indicated that it has not ruled out changes for higher-income earning families. Certainly, at this time—when people, particularly in Canterbury, are dealing with uncertainty—we will stick to our principle of protecting low-income earners.
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will agree that it was a pretty straight question and it gave a specific and straight example of a two-earner family earning $80,000. The Minister replied that they were thinking of reversing Working for Families entitlements—
Mr SPEAKER: The member is rehearsing the entire question. In answering the question the Minister indicated that the Government has made no particular decision on the matter. How can he be more specific in respect of that specific example if the Government has not made specific decisions on it? That was my understanding of the Minister’s answer.
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise; if I had a further supplementary question I would use it to perhaps work my way to the same clarification. I submit that within the ambit of a perfectly straight question is the question of whether a combined income of $80,000 qualifies—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat; he is trying to relitigate the issue. I listened to the answer carefully. The Minister indicated that there had been discussions on the matter but that no decisions had been made, except—if I remember his answer correctly—that low-income families will be protected. The member cannot expect more of an answer if no final decisions have been made on the matter. The Minister cannot address the detail of that particular question.
Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table Treasury’s February Economic Indicators report, which indicates that—
Mr SPEAKER: Do not all members have Treasury’s Economic Indicators report?
Hon David Cunliffe: They may or may not. It is not a press article.
Mr SPEAKER: It is not a press article but it is available to all members. We will not waste the time of the House on stuff that is available to all members.
Hon David Cunliffe: It shows unemployment rising and—
Mr SPEAKER: We will not waste time tabling stuff that is available to all members.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Coordination of Response
5. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Is he satisfied that there is enough coordination between central government agencies, local council, and non-governmental organisations in the response to the earthquake?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Yes. One example is the coordinated effort by Ministry of Social Development staff, non-governmental organisations like the Salvation Army, community groups, and 400 volunteers in canvassing more than 70,000 houses in the suburbs most affected by the quake to check on the well-being and safety of residents. A second example is the head of the UK urban search and rescue team, Peter Crook, being quoted in the New Zealand Herald as saying about the emergency response: “The organisation has been outstanding, the best-organised emergency I’ve been to.” However, as in any disaster of this magnitude, there will always be examples of situations where coordination could have been improved. But the Minister is assured that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is doing its upmost to work with the city council and central government agencies to respond to the disaster. That is what the declaration of a state of national emergency is designed to do.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Is he concerned about the focus of effort between the central business district and the eastern suburbs? Has a fair balance been struck between the two?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Based on all the evidence I have seen, I can say a very fair balance has been struck.
Dr Kennedy Graham: What steps is he taking to ensure that vulnerable people in the east of Christchurch, some of whom already live below the poverty line, will not be pushed over the edge by this crisis?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I think that yesterday I indicated the number of civil defence grants that have been paid out to people, and the number of emergency subsidies towards housing that have been paid out. I am absolutely confident that if anybody is in dire straits and does need help, it is there. I made the offer yesterday that if any Canterbury member—because I think those members were all supplied with direct phone lines to the national coordinator—knows of a specific example that we have missed, the member should please not hesitate to let somebody know, and the issue will get dealt to.
Dr Kennedy Graham: I thank the Associate Minister for that response. Having attended meetings this morning in the east, I will get back to him on that. Has he attended any local community meetings in the eastern suburbs; if not, will he accompany me to my next meeting?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery is spending nearly all his time in Christchurch, and hence I can say that yes, he will have. I am doing most of the Wellington-end work, so although I have visited the place and been into the central business district and seen some of the devastation of the buildings, I have not attended any of those meetings.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Will the proposed central agency that is designed to handle the earthquake listen to the people of Christchurch by having their representatives involved in decision making?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I think that as time unfolds, the member will realise that a number of issues have to be dealt with right there and then, immediately. When any human life is involved and a building is causing a risk, a decision that would normally be taken over several weeks may have to be made in that minute. But I give an assurance that where life is not at risk, or human safety is not at risk, a measured, careful process of making decisions will be followed.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Will all the information that the central agency uses for decisions be made available to the public?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: It would be a bold call for me to answer that all of the information would be. Where it is possible, information will be made available to the public.
Dr Kennedy Graham: Will the Government consider a cross-party group with direct advisory powers to Cabinet for the Christchurch rebuild?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I am really reluctant to give answers about anything of a hypothetical nature into the future, because a lot of decisions are yet to be taken on this track. I assure the member there is a long, long way to go. We will be working on this issue for a very long time, so I cannot speculate on what may occur into the future.
Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, the question was specific. It was not asking for speculation in the future but asking whether the Government will consider doing that now.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister indicated that the Government is not prepared to do that; otherwise he would have said yes. Although the Minister may not have used those precise words, he has not jumped to his feet to say the Speaker’s interpretation was wrong.
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill— Passage
6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Attorney-General: Is it his intention to further progress the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill this week?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): My intentions are irrelevant. It is the Government’s intention that matters. The bill—[Interruption]
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.
Hon David Parker: My point of order is that the Standing Orders prevent me from asking questions of the Government and allow me only to ask questions of Ministers.
Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member is saying, but when I saw this question my immediate reaction was that there were plenty of outs in it for the Minister, because a single Minister does not determine the Order Paper of this House. If the member had worded his question slightly differently, he would have, I think, avoided this. There are a couple of questions on today’s Order Paper—
Hon Member: It’s up to the Clerk.
Mr SPEAKER: —where I would suggest members need to give some thought to the wording. It is not the Clerk’s responsibility.
Hon David Parker: Then it’s in order.
Mr SPEAKER: I am not saying that the question is not in order; the question is in order. It is just that the wording of the question leaves the Minister able to give the kind of answer he did. I invite the member to think about his question. It is very easy to see how it could have been reworded to actually make what the member was seeking less easy to avoid. There are two questions on today’s Order Paper that struck me immediately. They are badly worded. It is not the Clerk’s responsibility. They are in order. It is not the Clerk’s responsibility to help members get their questions better. But the Minister—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Numerous Speakers have ruled that any Minister can speak on behalf of the Government, and they are—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat, please. That is not the issue. And the member is debating an issue. It is just that this particular question, from the way it is worded, asks “Is it his intention to further progress” the bill. A Minister cannot determine whether a bill is further progressed. Wording that would have worked far better would have been “Is it his intention that the bill should be further progressed this week?”. I invite members to think about—[Interruption] The member may react like that, but Ministers are perfectly at liberty to look at the wording of a question and to answer the question in terms of the way it is worded. Think about how questions are asked. As I say, two on today’s Order Paper are carelessly worded.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. And despite what some people think, you know that I do not like debating these. That Minister said: “It is not a matter for me, but for the Government.” He is speaking for the Government—
Mr SPEAKER: That Minister is not responsible for the order of business in the House. That is a matter for the Leader of the House and not for that Minister. [Interruption] When I am on my feet, the members will not carry on like that. That is something that is very clear, and the Minister, I am sure, will give some kind of answer if members will only let him. But it was very clear to me from the way that question was worded that this problem would emerge.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I was going on to say before I was interrupted that the bill is not on the Order Paper for today, as it is members’ day. If the member wants to know how the bill will proceed, I suggest he speak to the Leader of the House, who has responsibility for House business. It is quite simple.
Hon David Parker: Will the Attorney-General recommend to the Government that it refer his 73-page Supplementary Order Paper, which was tabled just today and which is two-thirds of the length of the original bill, to the Māori Affairs Committee for public submissions before advancing the bill in this House?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.
Hon David Parker: Will he at least refer the 73-page Supplementary Order Paper to the committee for consideration by the committee, even if he will not allow public input?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.
Hon David Parker: Will the Attorney-General table in the House the legal advice about the effect of the crucial threshold test for the establishment of a customary marine title, including analysis of the proportion of New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed that is expected to be met by that threshold test and comparisons with tests for customary title applied overseas in places like Canada and Australia, or does he want us to continue to do this blindfolded?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No. I follow the practice established by Dr Cullen about making legal advice available.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Processing of Resource Consents
7. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) on behalf of NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for the Environment: What changes has the Government made under the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act to facilitate recovery and the processing of resource consents to enable Christchurch to rebuild as quickly as possible?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Changes adopted yesterday will enable land remediation work to progress far more quickly. This is essential because before houses can be rebuilt and before permanent infrastructure like roads, footpaths, sewerage, and water systems can be built in some areas where land has been liquefied during the earthquake, the land needs to be remediated. Every day involved in the processing of consents for this work is a day longer that families are displaced and a day longer that families are without basic services. That is why such a high priority for the Government is to have efficient processes so that this work can start as soon as possible. The first consent application for this work is expected next week.
Chris Auchinvole: How long could it take to get resource consents for the land remediation works if the Government did not use the Order in Council mechanism of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is no provision in the district or regional plans in Canterbury for construction of stone piles or the consolidation work that is needed to repair the now large areas that were subject to severe liquefaction. So the consents would need to be notified, they would be subject to full public hearings, and they would be subject to appeals to the Environment Court. That could take anything from a minimum of 3 months to as long as 2 or 3 years. The streamlined process that the Government has approved will allow written submissions by affected parties, and a decision can be made within a fortnight.
Chris Auchinvole: What is the purpose of the other Order in Council passed yesterday in respect of the Resource Management Act for temporary accommodation and works depots?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Normally resource consents would be required for erecting temporary accommodation and for establishing works depots, of which a large number will be required in Christchurch. The changes we have made enable councils and the Department of Building and Housing to erect temporary buildings such as site offices, temporary accommodation, and sewerage facilities to assist the earthquake reconstruction work. Landowners’ permission will still be required, but this will enable reserves, the margins on the area of roads, and other areas to be quickly utilised for the essential temporary infrastructure that will be required to support the rebuild of Christchurch.
Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister assure the House that past changes made under the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act have not contributed to an increased rate of death or serious injury in the 22 February earthquake?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is too early to speculate on the cause of death of the estimated 200 victims of the Christchurch earthquake. But I note that a number were killed by the collapse of older buildings that would not meet a modern earthquake standard. The provisions by which those buildings can be removed are complex, and it is possible that some buildings that should have been removed after the 4 September earthquake contributed to the loss of life on 22 February.
Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware of concerns about the consistency and accuracy of the use of the green, red, and yellow card system under the Canterbury Earthquake (Building Act) Order, is he further aware that both the Pyne Gould and the Canterbury Television buildings received green cards under the provisions of that emergency order, and does he accept that real care is needed when the wide powers available under the emergency legislation are used?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s question goes beyond my responsibility for the resource management and environment provisions, but I note that the Prime Minister has stated that there will be a full inquiry into the reasons for the collapse of the CTV building and the Pyne Gould building. As an engineer I urge people to await the proper process for establishing the cause of collapse and death, before drawing simplistic conclusions.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question addressed to the Minister asked the Minister to speak on behalf of the Government in respect of the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act and orders made thereunder to facilitate recovery. The Minister was quite happy to answer questions beyond the brief of his particular portfolio in respect of that primary question. I do not know that it is fair to seek to avoid answering the thrust of my question simply because it may, on narrow grounds, fall outside the warrant of the Minister for the Environment.
Mr SPEAKER: Because the question and answer have both been handled quite seriously, I will hear from the Hon Dr Nick Smith.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The questions I have answered are specifically about changes to the Resource Management Act; they are absolutely my responsibility. The latest question from the member was in respect of issues in the Building Act and the red, green, and orange sticker system that are the responsibility of the Minister for Building and Construction.
Mr SPEAKER: I hear both members. I wish I could satisfy the member because I acknowledge fully the care he has taken in preparing his questions, which are perfectly good questions. But I do accept the Minister’s point that he cannot answer specifically on issues outside his area of responsibility. I think good questions were asked, and I think the Minister did his best to answer. I thought the Minister gave very genuine answers in his attempts to answer the questions, and I regret I cannot satisfy the member, whose questions were good. But I think the Minister is right in that he cannot answer outside his portfolio responsibility areas.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Insurance Cover
8. Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Does he stand by his comment in the House yesterday that “there is a period in which insurance companies will not provide cover”; if so, what will the Government do to assist people who have already signed purchase contracts and are seeking insurance cover?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Yes, and I am advised that the same issue arose after the 4 September earthquake. Following that event, a range of quite creative and innovative legal solutions was provided by the legal fraternity, which made it possible for these contracts to be entered into and to function. I therefore advise people to consult their lawyers to see whether those same mechanisms can be employed in the interregnum of this earthquake.
Hon Jim Anderton: I am well aware of the process after the first earthquake, but I say to the Minister—
Mr SPEAKER: The member should be asking a question.
Hon Jim Anderton: Does the Minister understand that the insurance risk for Christchurch homeowners is currently much greater than normal; if so, what does the Government plan to do to help owners desperate to have insurance cover for the most valuable asset they own?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I repeat that I am told that the legal fraternity found a number of quite innovative and creative ways. For example, the new owner may actually just rent the property for some time, while the old owner keeps the title. The insurance that was on the property would therefore carry on. The owner would get ownership only once insurance is provided. But I point the member to an article in the Christchurch Press today, in which the largest insurance company in the area has said that it will continue to insure a house currently insured with it, even if the new purchaser is not a customer of that company, and so on. I hope other insurance companies will follow that lead and do the same.
Hon Jim Anderton: Whatever the Minister may hope, what would he say to a constituent of mine who sought to rehouse her parents after their home was destroyed in the earthquake by buying an undamaged property in an area that sustained no damage, and who now finds, after the purchase price was agreed and cash placed in the solicitor’s trust account, that she cannot get insurance cover to enable the deal to proceed, despite approaching the company that provides cover to the current owners?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I obviously cannot comment on a specific case, because there are always elements to it. I am told that people cannot proceed with a purchase if there is a mortgage involved, because the banks will insist on insurance cover. Therefore, there will be an out in that case. If this property was bought for cash—as the member might have indicated; I am not sure—then that might not be the case. But in the end I am told—and the Canterbury branch of the Law Society has been doing some work on this—of the creation of some quite innovative techniques that will allow people to keep their properties covered until the insurance industry re-enters the market. That re-entry occurred not very long after the 4 September earthquake; I grant the member that this time it might be a little bit longer because of the magnitude of this quake.
Hon Jim Anderton: Whatever the insurance industry and the legal profession might be doing over a period of time, is the Minister aware of the stresses and strains on people who own homes that are uninsured; in that event, will the Government help to underwrite the risk to completely innocent homeowners of having an uninsured home while it negotiates with the insurance industry to restore full insurance cover?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: As I said earlier, I am not sure it will be as widespread as that. If the largest insurer says that it will make sure its coverage carries on to a change of owner, I am sure the other companies will follow, because the market will not allow one to take such a beneficial rate. But in the end, as I said, I am told that these creative mechanisms that the lawyers used resolved the problem in nearly every case. For that reason alone, I do not think the Government will be getting involved in the insurance market.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Response from New Zealand and Overseas Police
9. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Police: What has been the response of the New Zealand police and their counterparts in other countries to the Christchurch earthquake?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I would like to commend the New Zealand police and police staff from a host of other countries for the extremely thorough and professional manner in which they have responded to this devastating event. Up to 1,200 police from throughout New Zealand and abroad have been working tirelessly in very difficult circumstances that have included extensively damaged buildings, distressed citizens, and frequent aftershocks. In addition, 75 staff from Police National Headquarters have been providing response coordination, intelligence, communications, and logistical support, and a further 32 staff in Palmerston North have been helping with data collation and missing person inquiries. I know that many people from the police and other agencies have gone well beyond the call of duty since 22 February. I would like to thank each and every one of those who have been helping Christchurch to recover from this terrible disaster.
Jacqui Dean: What particular support has been provided by police from overseas jurisdictions?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would like to pay special tribute to the 439 police and specialist personnel from outside New Zealand who have been working shoulder to shoulder with our officers. We have been extremely grateful for the provision of 323 police from Australia alone, as well as personnel from countries such as Singapore, China, Thailand, Japan, Israel, and the United Kingdom. These individuals have been carrying out a range of general policing functions, and providing specialist expertise for the highly demanding and complex task of disaster victim identification. I would like to offer my sincere thanks to them and to their Governments for providing this support to us in our time of need. It is deeply appreciated.
Question No. 8 to Minister
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Progressive—Wigram): Apologies to the House; I meant to seek leave to table a report compiled by the Parliamentary Library on the public responses of the insurance industry to the home insurance issues facing Canterbury.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Health Services—Cost of After-Hours Medical Treatment
10. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the cost of after-hours medical treatment?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I am concerned about the costs of some after-hours services, despite the fact that this Government is putting an extra $144 million into primary care over 4 years. There has always been a wide variation in after-hours charges, as those clinics are privately owned. This Government is supporting a range of initiatives, including a new 10-clinic after-hours network in Auckland, nurse telephone triage systems, and weekend clinics.
Grant Robertson: Is he aware that in Queenstown an after-hours consultation can cost $139 for an adult, $123 for a child, and $102 for a baby; if so, what is he doing to address that situation?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, I am aware of those figures, which are a substantial improvement on the situation when Damien O’Connor was asked in 2004 about after-hours care in Queenstown. He said: “I am aware of some excessive charges for after-hours services in Queenstown, for example, where some general practitioners have been asking for over $200.” I think that member would have to agree that under this Government the situation—
Grant Robertson: Not true.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is true; it is here in Hansard. The system has improved substantially.
Grant Robertson: What responsibility does he take for high after-hours charges, or does he agree with the Ministry of Health that practices should check themselves; and when will his Government take responsibility for these charges?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I said in my opening answer, there is concern about after-hours charges in some areas of the country, but it is a longstanding problem and we are working to address it. We are putting an extra $144 million into primary care over 4 years, and there are specific initiatives like nurse telephone triage systems, weekend clinics, extra funding for emergency departments to provide overnight services, and extra funding for longer evening services. It is a chronic problem but steps are being taken to address it.
Grant Robertson: Does he think it acceptable that a 14-year-old visiting an after-hours clinic in Auckland was charged $66 for a routine consultation, or that a community services card holder in Ashburton was charged $47 for a consultation?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I say, there are some issues in various parts of the country, but we expect that district health boards and primary health organisations will be working together to address this problem. The previous Labour Government failed to address this problem; it is not an easy one.
Grant Robertson: What specific things will he do outside of Auckland to address after-hours charges that are now becoming, according to one provider, beyond the means of many people?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think I have listed quite clearly the specific things that we are doing, but I can go through the list again if the member would like me to: nurse telephone triage systems, weekend clinics, extra funding for emergency departments to provide overnight services, extra funding for longer evening services, a network of 10 after-hours clinics that are planned in Auckland, $850 million going into primary care, and $144 million over 4 years going into after-hours services, including $14 million specifically for after-hours services, split between rural and urban areas. There are very specific measures.
Earthquake, Christchurch—Emergency Housing
11. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Housing: What assistance is available for people who require emergency housing following the earthquake on 22 February?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): Housing New Zealand Corporation and Department of Building and Housing staff have been working round the clock to secure temporary housing solutions for those in need. More than 3,900 people have offered emergency accommodation, many through the 0800 HELP 00 service. This figure significantly outweighs the 1,022 requests for accommodation received, so supply is outstripping demand at this point. Some of these people required immediate assistance, although others have registered as being currently housed but in need of assistance over the coming weeks. We know that many people have temporarily left Christchurch, but that in the coming weeks they will want to return to their homes, work, and schools. We anticipate that the demand for accommodation will grow.
Tim Macindoe: What work is the Government doing on longer-term temporary accommodation options?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The department is working with the civil defence controller on two further stages of accommodation. The next stage is options for the next 6 months. This includes sourcing self-contained motor homes and modular housing and appropriate land for them to reside on. Campervans and motor homes from various suppliers are being held, and contracts are in the process of being finalised. These are expected to be moved on to holiday parks and public sites next week, and they will be taken up as demand dictates. Alongside this a plan has been developed for longer-term temporary housing, which will follow in the next few years while people’s homes are being built. I must say this will only supplement whatever housing people arrange for themselves. Our experience is that most people will make their own arrangements, and we would like to support them in doing that.
MediaWorks—Payment Arrangement
12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: Who made the decision to defer MediaWorks’ payment of $43 million to the Crown?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Cabinet made a decision in October 2009 to offer all radio broadcasters deferred payment terms on their spectrum licence renewals. MediaWorks was one of nine companies to take this up. I would note that I put out a press release announcing the deferred payment option on 22 October 2009—some 17 months ago.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he take part in that Cabinet discussion?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I did take part in that discussion.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Was Cabinet told that the interest rate was between one-half and one-third of banks’ rates at the time for distressed companies?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Cabinet made a decision on the interest rate to be offered, and the announcement that I made subsequent to that decision was that it would be 9.5 percent plus the inflation rate at the time, which I think worked out in the case of the company in question at about 11.2 percent.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not what the rate was; it was whether Cabinet was apprised of a particular fact. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The members will not exchange comments. I invite the member to repeat his question, to avoid further problems.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Was Cabinet told that the interest rate was between one-third and one-half of banks’ rates for distressed companies?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I will repeat my answer. Cabinet was told, and I announced afterwards that the interest rate would be 9.5 percent plus the inflation rate applying at the time, which is what Treasury recommended as a rate for the loan. That was announced in the press release.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the current 11 percent interest rate made available to that distressed company also be made available to distressed companies suffering from the effects of the Canterbury earthquake?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member confuses himself. This was deferred payment terms for radio spectrum licence renewals. It was announced at the time, and it was done at the time because a significant number of renewals were required at the same time as the economic recession was at its worst. Cabinet made the decision to allow those payments to be made over time, provided that there was no cost to the Crown and that interest was recovered, and that is what happened.
Sue Kedgley: In the light of the Government’s decision to allow the privately owned broadcaster MediaWorks to defer payment of $43 million to the Crown, will the Government end its 5-year funding freeze on Radio New Zealand and not require a full-year dividend from State broadcaster Television New Zealand (TVNZ); if not, why not?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have responsibility for either TVNZ or Radio New Zealand. However, I point out that private broadcasters pay for their frequencies and Radio New Zealand does not. So if we are in the business of saying that there should be equal treatment, then either Radio New Zealand has to start paying or the private broadcasters have to stop.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Now that the 11 percent rate has been established as an appropriate rate for deferrals or loans—
Hon Steven Joyce: No, that’s not correct.
Hon Trevor Mallard: —has been established as an appropriate rate for a deferral, which is shown in the MediaWorks accounts as a loan—will it also be made available to businesses in Christchurch?
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can only answer that within his ministerial responsibilities. If he can answer it within his ministerial responsibilities he is welcome to try.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: All I can say is that it is a deferred payment for frequencies, and the member needs to understand that. I point out too that, ultimately, if the Government had not offered it and radio broadcasters had gone broke, then the member and his friends would have been accusing us in the House of not doing anything to help save jobs in the broadcasting industry. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon David Cunliffe and the Minister will cease that. I have called—
Hon David Cunliffe: Threatening a member, are we?
Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon David Mr Cunliffe that if he wants to be the third person to leave the Chamber since I have been Speaker, he should just keep doing that.
Questions to Members
Student Loan Scheme Bill—Report-back Date
1. STUART NASH (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: What is the expected report-back date for the Student Loan Scheme Bill?
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): The report-back date for the bill is 14 April 2011.
Stuart Nash: Did he recommend to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the report-back date be deferred to take on board proposed changes to the student loan scheme?
CRAIG FOSS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have ruled in relation to various questions to members recently that items that are before a committee are obviously part of the committee’s business and you have ruled out those questions.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker, you have very specifically ruled that actions of the chair in relation to the chair’s responsibilities and the chair’s recommendations are matters on which the chair can be questioned.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the advice from the Hon Trevor Mallard. It has been my view in my rulings in the past that when, for example, the chair might choose to call for further submissions, the chair can be questioned about that. So the chair can be questioned in relation to actions of the chair that are the chair’s responsibility. I do not think the question should be ruled out. Unless members believe that I have got that issue wrong, I believe that the question was in order. I will have a look at the note the Clerk has prepared for me. The advice I have is that the committee’s consideration is confidential to the committee. If such a recommendation is part of the confidential proceedings, then the chair cannot be questioned on that. I accept absolutely that we are getting down to a pretty fine line here. I will listen to the supplementary question again.
Stuart Nash: Did the chair recommend to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the report-back date be deferred to take on board proposed changes to the student loan scheme?
Mr SPEAKER: I accept that that is a matter to do with the confidential considerations of the committee and I rule the question out of order. I apologise to the House for my lack of clarity on that.
Debate on Budget Policy Statement
Debate on Budget Policy Statement
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2011. First and foremost let me acknowledge the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We considered this particular item of business and this report on the Wednesday post the Christchurch earthquake, and I acknowledge the way in which we dealt with that. As can be seen from the report, members have been able to express their policy and political views quite clearly—I was actually in the earthquake the day before—and members have been very good in assisting me, the chair, to get this report to the House.
I ask members to note page 5 of the report. The Minister of Finance and officials were before the committee a few weeks prior to our consideration of the Budget Policy Statement. Members will note the comment on page 5: “During our examination of these documents we considered carefully the likely impact of the September 2010 Canterbury earthquake. The events of 22 February 2011 occurred just as we were completing this report. Our thoughts are with all those affected.” I am grateful to members who thought to put that comment into this particular document, because events were unfolding as we prepared it. Again, I acknowledge the goodwill of all to produce the document that is before us today.
It is very important to note just how important it is that the Government is able to continue its prudent management, its transparency of accounts, and its rebuilding of the New Zealand economy. The investment statement, which forms part of the Budget Policy Statement for the very first time, is a very good and useful tool to use as the various Governments of today and the future start to prioritise their spending and make more informed decisions about how scarce capital, much of which is borrowed capital, can be allocated in the New Zealand economy.
Whatever the political hue of members, that is a very, very important document, and I strongly suspect that it will form the foundation of further budgetary process papers as we go through. It is very important because it puts a focus on each and every single dollar—borrowed dollars, in many instances—that the Crown has. Events of recent weeks, financial shocks around the world, and acts of God or of nature, such as the earthquakes down in Christchurch, demonstrate again our need to keep our pencils sharp so that we can allocate the limited resources, financial and otherwise, of this country to the places of most need. We have to remember that every dollar that is not efficiently allocated to whichever resource the Government of the day decides is a dollar that is not available for social policies or to rebuild the country in the case of tragic events, such as those we have witnessed recently. That is very important to note.
The Minister told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the Budget will ensure, will continue, and will demonstrate prudent financial management of the public accounts. The previous Government had ongoing, cumulative, and compounding new-spending increases of $2.8 billion per annum over the last 5 years of its term. One of the first moves of the new National Government was to bring that figure down to $1.1 billion. That is not a cut in spending; it is a cut in the ongoing increase in spending.
The Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance, in his evidence before the committee and in the Budget Policy Statement, noted that the Government’s intention this year is, through the savings and investment Budget, to bring that figure down to between $800 million and $900 million of new, extra spending every year. Members will remember that the total Budget is about $65 billion or $70-odd billion, so that figure represents new money every year. Yes, they are very large numbers, but it is very important to note that the rate of growth is changing and slowing down.
The rate of unsustainable growth under the previous administration—$2.8 billion, which are new dollars slopping around in the economy every year—squeezed the rest of the economy out of the game. The statistics and the metrics all show the same thing. They show that the real sector, which is the tradable sector, the export sector, was flat-lining for the last 5 years of the previous administration. There was no real growth. That is what the numbers say.
Hon David Cunliffe: And that looks good, compared to today.
CRAIG FOSS: A member opposite asks why that is important. It is important because that is the sector that creates the jobs, pays the wages, pays for families, and, funnily enough, pays that thing called tax, which allows the Government, whoever it might be, to allocate resources to education, health, disaster relief, or whatever it might be. That is the where the money comes from.
When the Government looks at its books and sees that the money coming in does not match the spending the Government would like to continue, what is the difference? It is in borrowing. Recent events around the world have cast huge light—torchlight, daylight, sunlight, or borax, if you like—on the need for prudent management of the accounts, and that is why this Budget is a savings and investment Budget. This Budget will start to arrest, turn round, and change behaviour in New Zealand.
There was an unsustainable growth in spending by the previous Government—that is, the squeezing of households. How did households react to the increased tax demands? How did households react to the increased demands of the Crown? They borrowed. They had to borrow, and they ate the equity in their own homes. When those homes were going up in value, OK, that might have helped, but now the bills are being sent to those same homeowners who had to borrow and consume their own equity to help them get through the last years of the previous administration.
On the surface it all looked hunky-dory, but the moment we scratched the surface, the moment the global financial crisis started to hit, and the moment a recession arrived—and remember that New Zealand went into recession 1 year before the rest of the world, under the previous administration—we were in trouble. That is why the coming Budget will start to address that.
New Zealand owes $180-odd billion to the rest of the world. Some members opposite say that that is not a problem, because it is mostly private debt. But, actually, when one is in the rest of the world, looking to lend money to New Zealand, it is the New Zealand dollar denominated debt that is the first port of call. New Zealand owes about $180 billion. When this Government came in, the forecast was for another decade of deficits, and that was before, to be quite fair, the tragedies that have happened in Canterbury and Christchurch recently.
The need for much more focused and prudent management, the need to help turn round the economy—away from consumption, away from borrowing and hoping—is more paramount now than ever. The coming Budget has a savings and investment theme. As I noted earlier, the investment statement, which is a very important document, will be contained in it.
I need to raise a few matters that other members will probably raise in their various speeches. To be fair, I note that in the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report Labour and Green members made very clear their policy intentions. I say: “Good on them.” It is obvious whose points those were—the point being that every single one of those policies demands more borrowing, more taxes, and more spending.
Every single policy intention involves the same failed policy that got New Zealand into more of a bad place than it otherwise would have been in. They are trying to continue that policy with their various announcements. I think they are up to about $5 billion or $6 billion so far. One of their arguments—which they will make later, I am sure—stems from their confusion over the difference between debt and equity. They are totally ignoring risk. One member, I believe, is of the opinion that anything that exceeds the Government’s cost of capital should not be sold, essentially.
Well, the other side of that argument, therefore, is that anything that is not achieving the Government’s cost of capital on a return should be sold. If that is the case, then members opposite are saying: “Cash up New Zealand superannuation.” They are saying: “Sell every housing asset in New Zealand.” If they argue that one should not sell everything exceeding the cost of capital, they are therefore arguing that one should sell everything that is not.
I ask those members to look at the numbers. They are mentioned right here—in the investment statement—in black and white. They are hard numbers and they mean that there will be some difficult priority choices for New Zealand.
I look forward to other members’ speeches to clarify, perhaps, their intention that they do not want to cash up all of those investments returning under the cost of New Zealand’s Government capital. Thank you.
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): In this, the third year of a National-led Government, New Zealanders are getting rather tired of this National Government blaming the consequences of its own economic mismanagement on other events and on other people.
Let me begin where Mr Foss began: with the people of Christchurch. I had 2 hours down there this morning standing in the liquefaction with the stench of sewage. I talked to two or three dozen people who for 15 days have not had power, water, sewerage, or even access to decent toilets. One gentleman I talked to said that his next-door neighbour is 84 years old. He is an ex - Royal Air Force pilot. He has a heart condition and he is on drugs. Each morning and sometimes in the middle of the night he has to walk 300 metres up the road before he can find a Portaloo. That really is not good enough for the people of the eastern suburbs. Our sympathies go to those people, but they need more than our sympathy; they actually need active intervention and active government. Fifteen days after the earthquake people should not be living in those conditions.
I say to Mr Foss that it is no good blaming the earthquake for New Zealand’s perilous economic position. I have in my hand last week’s BNZ Weekly Overview. What does it say? It says that before we even had the earthquake the data was showing a recessionary finish to 2010 and a recessionary start to 2011. It says, basically, that we were back in recession before the earthquake struck. That makes New Zealand one of just two countries in the developed world that is facing a double-dip recession.
I say to Mr Foss that he needs to look to his own Government’s actions or inactions to explain that. How does one explain it when New Zealand is getting the best prices in 38 years—the very best prices—for its export products? Mr Foss knows that, because he is a farmer. He is getting a bigger wool cheque, a better lamb cheque—he is smiling and grinning now—and a better tax cut. He has personally had hundreds and hundreds of dollars a week in tax cuts.
I will tell him about what it is doing to the rest of New Zealand. It is no good Mr Foss blaming the previous Labour Government. Bill English will take the next call. On 18 December 2008 in this House he stood up and he said as the new Minister of Finance that the books of this country were in reasonable shape. He said the Government was saving for a rainy day—it was not his Government; he had become just the Minister—and that rainy day had come. Mr English picked up a country that had zero net Government debt. There was no comparison to the countries of Europe that were heavily overburdened with debt. He picked up a country that had one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the world, yet today, in the third year of this National Government, 700 additional New Zealanders every week are losing their jobs—every week they are losing their jobs.
Do members know the shameful thing that shows that this Government is so out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders? Mr Key said that people going to food banks—and the number of them has trebled or quadrupled—are taking lifestyle choices. I tell Mr English about one of the people whom I spoke to this morning. His wife lost her job in the earthquake. She will get 6 weeks’ payment, but what happens after that? Their mortgage repayments will not halve but their income has. That family, like so many other families who never in their lives have gone to a food bank, will possibly be looking for additional assistance. It is not because of a lifestyle choice, but because their income is halved and their cost of living has gone up. I say this to you, Mr English—
Mr SPEAKER: I have allowed the member—
Hon Bill English: Don’t you know the Standing Orders?
Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I have allowed the member to get away with it a couple of times, but in debate members must not refer specifically to other members as “you”, because it leads to disorder. I apologise to the member; he must not do that.
Hon PHIL GOFF: I say this to Mr English: it does not help people who go to petrol stations each week and pay more than $100 to fill up their petrol tanks, who go to the supermarket every week and pay more and more money for everything they buy, and who have to pay more for the Government charges that Mr English is imposing on them. It does not help those people that this Government has contributed to their increased cost of living through a GST increase, but has not delivered on what Mr Key promised, which was that everyone would be overwhelmingly better off because of the tax switch.
Mr Key is better off. He is better off by $1,000 a week. He has given himself $1,000 a week in tax cuts. Of course he feels that everyone is better off. But how about talking to the guy down the road who is a cleaner on the minimum wage? He got 25c an hour—25c an hour—from the tax cuts, which does not come close to meeting the increased cost of living. His family is suffering. His family is being pushed into poverty because of tax cuts. The National Government has looked after its wealthy mates and itself but has not looked after middle-income people or lower-income people. Those people are being squeezed.
The Government has failed because it has no plan. It has no plan about skills training. The head of Business New Zealand said to me that the Government has not put together a skills programme. He is not a friend of the Labour Party or an enemy of the Government; he is a friend of the Government—he is telling the truth. There is no plan. When we are thousands of skilled tradesmen short at the end of the year; when we cannot build the houses in Canterbury that people desperately need; when we cannot put the businesses back on their feet, because there is a skills shortage; and when costs go through the roof because of that skills shortage, maybe the National Government will reflect on the lack of a plan to train people in order to get the 7 percent of Cantabrians who will be out of work back to work and rebuilding their city. That is a huge gap.
Maybe Mr English will think about research and development when he thinks about why the clever, innovative companies are not coming through and providing the high-skill, high-wage, high-tech jobs. Mr English has cut research and development by 50 percent. National does not have a skills programme.
Hon Bill English: That’s not true.
Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr English says that is not true. Ask Sir Paul Callaghan. He will tell Mr English what is true and what is not true. National has cut research and development. It has cut the skills programme.
National members say we have to save more, yet after 2½ years of a National Government it has no plan for saving. Except for the fact that National closed down New Zealand Superannuation and is not contributing to it, the only thing that is keeping the books afloat at the moment is the return on things like the Superannuation Fund and State-owned enterprises. Yet the Government has stopped funding superannuation and it wants to sell off State-owned enterprises.
The Government does not care about what Kiwis think. Two to one, Kiwis are telling this National Government that they do not want to sell the assets that generations of New Zealanders have built up. Selling the assets is bad for Kiwis and it is good for foreign investors. The foreign investors will laugh all the way to the bank.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Who sold Telecom?
Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr Williamson interjected. He worked for Air New Zealand. National said that selling Air New Zealand would be good for the country. It was run into bankruptcy. Labour learnt and never sold a single asset in the 9 years it was in Government. But this National Government will sell it off. National sold off New Zealand Rail to its mates Mr Fay and Mr Richwhite, and they asset-stripped it and ran it into the ground. They bought it cheap and sold it for too much. We needed New Zealand Rail back for an infrastructure programme.
National has learnt nothing. It listens to nobody. It does not listen to New Zealanders when they say they do not want those assets sold. It does not listen to the hundreds of New Zealanders who are writing to me every week about the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill and saying they do not want it. Those New Zealanders tell me that it is not what National promised. People who have been card-carrying members of the National Party have been absolutely betrayed by a Government that has broken its word and is acting just to retain its power, with the help of the Māori Party. New Zealanders are fed up with that sort of arrogance. This Government has failed, and on 26 November this Government will go.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Mr Goff’s speech was enthusiastic, but almost all of it was wrong—just simply wrong in fact, let alone wrong in analysis. His speech showed what the public know, which is that Labour still does not understand the mess it made of the New Zealand economy when it was in Government, particularly from 2004 onwards. Although the earthquake is a very significant and humanly tragic event, it will not knock the Government off course in rebuilding and rebalancing the economy towards some kind of sustainable, strong growth that raises incomes, raises people’s opportunities, and now assists with the rebuilding and reconstruction of Christchurch.
I will talk about just a few things on which Mr Goff was wrong. I am interested in Labour’s rapidly developing theory about skills shortages in Canterbury. Apparently, Labour’s skills strategy anticipated the earthquake. Apparently, if one has the right kind of plan, it includes things like earthquakes. There will be issues about getting sufficient skills in Canterbury, but I think the story of skills development in the next 12 months will reflect what has happened in the past. Back in 2006 and 2007 there were skills shortages because we were in a housing bubble. There were massive increases in debt and massive increases in credit. New Zealanders were paying an awful lot of money for houses and building lots of new ones, all off the back of foreign-lent money. With the global financial crisis, that situation turned out not to be sustainable. The building and construction industry then went into a fairly deep recession. It has been propped up by the investment of this Government and long-term infrastructure projects. Some of our major companies have found that 90 percent of their work has been publicly funded work. We have committed billions of dollars to long-term infrastructure investment that has supported the maintenance of those skills.
As it happens, if it were not for the most recent Christchurch earthquake, the reconstruction effort after the first one would have been taking off about now. It was pretty obvious that there was spare capacity in the construction industry to pick up that effort. Now that we have had the second earthquake, which according to Phil Goff we should have anticipated, it is likely that in 12 months’ time all that spare capacity in the construction industry will have been taken up, including all the thousands of people who have been made redundant from it over the last 2 or 3 years. It is likely that we may be back into skills shortages. I might say, again, as an illustration of the difference between Governments, that in respect of industry training this Government has had a clean-up. We have taken about $40 million out of that, because thousands of people were getting no skills from it, and we have put the money into other tertiary places. We have maintained the number of people who are in skills training. That is how that picture is going to unfold. It is part of a longer-term approach that the Government has taken to rebalance the economy, and is reflected in the Budget Policy Statement.
I hope the next speaker for the Opposition will at least demonstrate an understanding of where this economy went off the rails, even if they continue to demonstrate Labour’s inability to put together the kinds of policies that will lead to sustainable and strong economic growth in a risky world. We have set out to rebalance the economy, because growth under Labour was based on fast increases in Government spending and on excessive debt. That is what grew this economy, particularly from 2004 onwards. That is where the 200,000 new jobs came from—essentially from the Government sector and the construction industry. As it happens, neither was sustainable. That is why all this Government’s policies for the last two Budgets have been, and for the next one will be, focused on shifting people, capital, and resources into savings, investment, and exporting. We will hold back on growth in consumption, growth in the housing market, and excessive growth in the Government sector. That is how we will get sustainable jobs. That process is being assisted by relatively high commodity prices—in fact, very high prices. Unfortunately, there have been some headwinds in the process: the Christchurch earthquake would be an obvious one, and another would be the ongoing relatively high New Zealand exchange rate, particularly against the US dollar, the euro, and the pound.
We intend to continue with that plan, and we have taken a pretty broad and considered approach. In fact, we have picked up a number of the better policies that the previous Government had in place. We have continued, for instance, to increase the investment in research and development. That is just one example. On the other hand, we have discarded other policies. We do not believe in an ineffective Public Service with very large back-office costs. We have shifted the focus to very effective front-line services, and we are reducing back-office costs. All of this has to be seen in the context of a New Zealand that is one of the most indebted countries in the world where private sector debt, household debt, and Government debt have given us a proportion of total liabilities to foreigners that puts us up with Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Ireland. So the focus of economic policy over the next 12 months has to be to absorb the effect of the earthquakes—both of them—plus the fact that households in New Zealand are grappling with reducing their debt and increasing their savings. That has meant flatter economic growth than was expected. We need to deal with both of those adverse circumstances, without increasing our liabilities to foreigners. That would increase New Zealand’s vulnerability to all the kinds of problems we see playing out, particularly in Europe, but to a greater or lesser extent all across the developed world.
We cannot put our long-term health as an economy, and our long-term stability as a community, at risk by taking short-term decisions that will push us in the wrong direction. The Government has said a number of times that it intends to absorb the effect of the earthquake, in the initial stages, through increased debt. That is unfortunate. Our overseas debt levels are already high. The Government, in its own balance sheet, can absorb that debt but we do not want it adding to New Zealand’s total vulnerability. Then we will work to reduce that debt, over time. We will do that in a fair and balanced manner. I think that most New Zealanders understand those circumstances, because the things the country is dealing with are exactly the same as New Zealanders are dealing with in their homes, in their community organisations, and in their businesses. We all have to cut our cloth to suit the new circumstances. We have to reduce debt. That is what the Government is doing and what families are doing. We need to be careful with our spending. That is what all organisations are doing, what businesses are doing, and what families are doing. That is what the Government is doing. We have to take a long-term view to see our way through these adverse circumstances that have arisen, I would have to say, a good deal more frequently than any of us might have expected.
The Government is staying on course. The same issues that mattered before this earthquake matter now. The long-term structural weaknesses of this economy, which were exacerbated in the last 5 or 6 years, still have to be straightened out. The people of Canterbury want us to do both things at once—that is, support them in the short term but also make sure that this is an economy where they and their children can rebuild their opportunities in the long term.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): This is the first opportunity I have had to address the House since the terrible events of 22 February, and may I please at the outset take this opportunity to extend on behalf again of our caucus our sincere condolences and our heartfelt support to the people, families, and businesses of Christchurch. We are making every attempt to keep the tone of our interventions in keeping with this sad time but there are real issues in this debate, which are made more pressing, not less pressing, by the events of the Canterbury earthquake. So it is appropriate to deal with them in this context.
I wish it were true—in the words of the Minister of Finance who has just returned to his seat somewhere else—that everybody in the country was going through the same thing. It is not the case, because some people in this country have been suffering more than others, and that is part of the problem. Of course the people of Canterbury have suffered the most of all, and our hearts are with them and our resources will be behind them. But that is not the only terrible unfairness that is going on at the moment. Some people in this country have had massive tax cuts and some people in this country have benefited from record export prices. Other people get stressed and depressed every time they go to fill up the petrol tank in the car or get a trolley load of groceries at the supermarket. Their incomes have not risen for several years; they have gone backwards in real terms. Those people are struggling to feed their families in the face of ever-rising prices, and a higher and higher cost of living. We are getting to be two New Zealands, not one.
Under National, New Zealand is going backwards. National does not have a plan to get our whole economy going and to lift all boats. National is terribly out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders. Those Ministers received their big tax cuts—each better than $240 a week. Someone on the minimum wage received 25c an hour. They received 25c an hour in the latest adjustment to the minimum wage. There is nothing fair about that. Someone earning a $1 million a year received $1,000 a week back in tax, and the country had to borrow an extra billion, over 4 years, to fund it. In the process the Government has been mortgaging our children’s future. Not only has it cut funding for research and innovation but it has refused to contribute to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Ironically, that is about the only fund that is driving the Government’s books back towards balance, at a very difficult time. The fund is up $3.47 billion. That is the very fund that the Government refused to pay into. The Government is stealing from tomorrow to make short-term tax cuts for people who do not need them today. That is not right; it is just not right. It was not right before the earthquake, and it is certainly not right, now.
Before going into the symptoms and the causes of those problems, can I just again note the double talk that we are getting from the Minister of Finance about the legacy that the Government inherited. He said in December 2008 that the Crown’s books were “left in reasonable shape”, that the Labour Government had saved for a rainy day. What did reasonable shape mean? It meant that we were in credit to the tune of 4.7 percent of GDP by the time the assets of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund were taken into account—net credit. We have a net Crown debt now above 20 percent of GDP and rising. But that is on the current Government’s watch, not the previous Government’s, so let us be very clear about the historical legacy. If the Minister was being fair in December 2008, why can he not continue to be fair about it now?
Of course we regret the events that have happened to the country beyond anybody’s control, and we must pull together to address them. But the way to do that is to have a plan that provides a way forward for all New Zealanders and not just some. National is not working for every New Zealander’s family and every New Zealander’s future. Labour will give New Zealanders a fair go and make sure that everybody pays their fair share. We will protect the assets that have been built up by generations for our future and for our children.
The raw truth is that the New Zealand economy was going backwards, well before the earthquake hit. The Budget Policy Statement shows that even before the earthquake, the economy was heading in the wrong direction. In the third quarter of 2010, growth was minus 2 percent. We checked with Treasury this morning, and its latest estimate of growth in the fourth quarter was zero percent, if not negative. Everybody is now saying that the first two quarters at least, or probably most of 2011, will be negative. We are in another recession. This is not the global financial crisis recession; this is National’s recession. It has been in power for 2½ years and it is solely responsible for the policy framework that has driven us backwards.
What is the essential error in National’s plan? Well, firstly, it does not have a plan. Secondly, such actions as it has taken have taken from some who could not afford to give, and given to others who did not need to get, and borrowed in the process. That brings us to the great debt deception that has been exposed by the earthquake. The Government said in its Budget Policy Statement that this debate reviews that the country’s international debt was so high that it would have to cut new spending from $1.2 billion to $0.8 billion in order to balance the books—that Government debt was the problem. That flies in the face of the truth, which is that 90 percent of New Zealand’s high international debt was not Government debt; it was private debt. It was private debt that was built up by people borrowing to bid up each other’s house prices and make their bankers rich—bankers like the Prime Minister.
Borrowing for housing speculation made this country at risk. When that was happening, what was Bill English saying? He is an expert on housing. He was saying: “Tax cuts.” That would have inflated the bubble more, and it would have prevented us from building up a Government surplus for a rainy day, which he at least had the grace to acknowledge in December 2008. If we had followed his advice then, we would be in a worse position now, with less in the kitty to fund the earthquake recovery and less to cushion us from growing international debt.
The second part of the deception is this: if it was a priority on 21 February to cut Government services and maintain tax cuts in order to pay down debt, why is it that after the earthquake the whole cost can be put on to international debt, and that, once again, those who could afford to spread the cost are immune? Why is it that the wealthier New Zealanders, those on very high incomes, who got the bulk of the windfall in the 2009 and 2010 Budget tax cuts, are immune from any revision of the tax rates that would help spread the cost?
Why is it that it is now OK to put what we cannot save straight on to international debt, which was the very thing a month ago that the Minister was railing against, even though it would mean fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer policemen, fewer firemen, and fewer people who would be there in the process?
What did the Minister say to the Finance and Expenditure Committee? He said to public servants: “Don’t dish up waffle. Go and find a new job.” Those were his words, and they were precisely the same public servants who have come up trumps—come up trumps—in the response to this tragedy. I ask where we would be without a professional Public Service, with the very people whom this Government was running into the ground to fund its tax cuts. It is a great, great shame that it has taken something as tragic as the Christchurch earthquake to prove the untruth that it was all the Government’s fault. It was never the Government’s fault. It was 90 percent private debt, because everybody in New Zealand—you and me included—borrowed to bid up house prices and build up private debt. That was the folly. Yes, New Zealand is paying for it—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Not me; I live in Wainui.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —oh well, there we go—but the solution to that is not to run the economy down by cutting the Government’s Budget to the point where it cannot be a force for good.
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): As noted by the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in opening this debate, this year the Budget has been eclipsed by the Christchurch earthquake. Previously the Green Party has criticised this Government for not putting the environment at the heart of its economic management, and that criticism remains. The Green Party has also proposed solutions to the growing levels of inequality in our society. This disaster will only exacerbate those trends. But today we also question the Government’s fiscal responsibility in its response to the earthquake. We do so on four grounds: first, the failure to consider raising revenue; second, the risk of taking on more and more debt; third, the threat of reductions in social expenditure; and, fourth, the failure to reprioritise infrastructure spending on roads. Let me address each one.
The first is the failure to consider raising revenue. This Government has decided to take a one-sided approach to responding to the Christchurch earthquake. It has decided to take on more debt and enact spending cuts that will hurt the most vulnerable in New Zealand. Instead of living within our means, the Government has decided that future generations will pay for this disaster. This chosen course will expose us to more risk and weaken our ability to respond to further possible shocks in the near to medium term.
We believe the responsible and smart response to the Christchurch earthquake would take three forms: first, to raise some revenue from those most able to pay; second, to borrow a little in order to share some of the costs of the rebuild with future generations; and, third, to reprioritise infrastructure spending, but not to cut other forms of Government expenditure.
Failing to consider new sources of Government revenue to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch is simply not a smart way to run this economy. The commentators agree on that. Let me cite just one of them. Fran O’Sullivan has come out in support of a levy, arguing that by setting the levy at a high threshold, the additional tax is unlikely to affect economic growth, as high-income earners are currently using their wealth to retire debt, not to consume. A temporary levy set at a low rate on high-income earners is unlikely to affect economic growth and could raise up to $1 billion per annum, making a meaningful contribution to the reconstruction effort—an effort now estimated by Treasury to be in the vicinity of $5 billion of uninsured cost to the Government. A temporary levy as set out by the Green Party, coupled with leaving the corporate tax rate unchanged at 30 percent, would raise just over $1 billion per annum. We should share the cost across those who can most afford to pay. A levy is the fairest way to pay for the earthquake, and we believe serious investigation of this option should be undertaken.
Let me address the risk of taking on more debt. Before the earthquake the Government was adverse to increasing debt. This Government rejected a meaningful economic stimulus as a response to the recession, due to a fear of a downgrade of our credit rating. Before the earthquake this Government used reducing debt as the rationale for selling State assets. Greater Government debt means higher borrowing costs for all. It also means we face the very real possibility of a near-term credit downgrade, the results of which will mean we all pay more for the money we borrow, thereby suppressing growth and sending precious resources offshore simply to service the higher cost of risk of lending to “New Zealand Inc.” Fitch Ratings and Standard and Poor’s have put us on a negative credit watch. A credit downgrade means most households will pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch. However, none of the additional money that households will pay will go to Christchurch; it will go offshore to international financiers. A levy, by comparison, will limit the risk of a credit downgrade and ensure all money levied will go directly to pay for the earthquake. Therefore, taking on additional debt should be a last resort, used only to make up any difference between raising additional revenue and reprioritising infrastructure spending.
Let me address the reductions in social spending. The Government has indicated that it will cut social spending and use the earthquake as a justification for imposing National’s policy on welfare reform. Rather than asking those most able to afford it to contribute to the cost of the rebuild, the Government has proposed cuts to those on Working for Families benefits, and cuts to entitlements to students who require student loans to enable them to get an education. The Government is sending a perverse message that students and those with families will have to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch, while those on higher incomes and those without children to support will not. This is not smart economics; neither is it fair. Welfare cuts of the size needed to pay for the likely damage will need to be significant and will affect some of the most vulnerable. The Green Party supports a fair and equitable approach to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch.
Fourthly, I turn to the failure to reprioritise infrastructure spending on roads. As part of a responsible, smart, and balanced response to the Christchurch earthquake, this Government can reprioritise its current infrastructure spend. It can suspend its massive expansion of motorways—a capital investment programme of $9.6 billion. To date the Government has failed to reconsider its commitment to spend $9 billion on roads outside Christchurch, when roads inside Christchurch are twisted, broken, and impassable. I was on them today.
By postponing indefinitely the Wellington Northern Corridor project, up to $2.4 billion in funds could be redirected into critical infrastructure spending in Christchurch. Transmission Gully is a new motorway project to be built on an active earthquake fault, and it has a cost-benefit ratio of 0.36 to 0.5. That means that for every dollar that the Government pours into that motorway, 36c to 50c of benefit will result. Such low-quality spending of public funds must now be placed in doubt when our second-largest city has been destroyed. The same can be said for another road of national folly: the $1.7 billion Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway extension. As if the current high oil prices are not reminder enough, these projects represent an extremely poor quality of public expenditure. The significant amounts of money involved—close to $9 billion in all—need to be redirected to meet critical infrastructure needs in Christchurch. The amount that John Key’s Government wants to spend on motorways alone could rebuild most of my city’s destroyed and uninsured infrastructure twice over.
Let me turn those four criticisms into four constructive principles. We can call them the principles of earthquake recovery. First, the Budget should include a levy. Second, the rebuild should be sustainable, and the Budget should allocate funding for an environmental clean-up as a result of the earthquake. Third, those most able to pay should help the most. Fourth, infrastructure spending should be reprioritised.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke this morning about spending time in Christchurch. He spent 2 hours there this morning, and I know he has spent time there on previous days. I have spent almost every day in the field, in the suburbs in eastern Christchurch, and downtown in the inner city. I know what it is like there.
The Green Party supported the extension of the state of emergency for Christchurch. The earthquake is a tragedy, and we all need to do whatever we can to help the people of Christchurch. There is a lot of work to be done. People need food, power, toilets, and a place to sleep. There is a looming crisis in the east of Christchurch, and we must address this as a priority. It does not help that winter is approaching. As we move forward together, we must find ways to ensure that the voices of the people are listened to. I have been through most of the city. I have been in the central business district, and I visited my office two doors away from the Methodist Mission Church, which lies in rubble. I have been up the hills to the south, where new homes lie awkwardly, broken in two. I have taken Green Party volunteers into the eastern suburbs, shovelling the liquefaction, doorknocking, and delivering food and counselling.
We know what we must do. Yet that is for the future. For now, for the present, for this moment, we shall remain one in this House. Thank you.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): On 28 May 2009 I said in this House that this is a Budget of deficit—a deficit of spending, a deficit of current accounts, a deficit of courage, and, more important, a deficit of imagination. I now realise I got it wrong; I was far too generous to the Government. This country is up the proverbial creek not only without a paddle but in a boat that is quickly sinking. We are running a cash deficit of $300 million a week, which will rise dramatically over the next few months, and the Government’s response has been to simply sit on its hands. Government members have refused to do the right thing. They are happy to fund reports, to hold press conferences, and to give speeches, thereby doing everything humanly possible to avoid making any decisions that might, in any way, make them unpopular. I, for one, am sick of that.
To be fair, New Zealand faces problems that are of a longstanding nature and not necessarily of this Government’s making. But the point I make is that the Government is the Government, and it is the Government’s responsibility to fix those problems. If we look around the world, we can see a number of inspiring examples of Governments that have had the guts to do what is right, to make the tough decisions, and they are now enjoying tremendous success. Their economic prosperity has meant that the vulnerable and the old in their societies are looked after. The physically able have access to productive jobs. The sick have access to health care, and their children are well-educated. These are the hallmarks of a well-functioning society.
For many politicians in this House, it seems that a vision of a prosperous society is just too difficult for them to fathom. Steve Chadwick made this clear when she said recently that her children had already resigned themselves to earning less in New Zealand than they would overseas. Is that the sort of vision and inspiration we will see coming out of Labour in the future? What a great future and vision she has instilled in her children for New Zealand!
Instead of looking for reforms that could see us pass Australia, many politicians in this House have simply given up. In this speech I do not want to focus on a comparison with Australia. The National Government, by rejecting the 2025 Taskforce, showed that it in turn does not want to catch Australia. It seems to be too ambitious for the Government. Rather, I will look at a country that we should be outperforming in almost every respect: Singapore. Singapore has everything against it. It has roughly the same-sized population as New Zealand, it has absolutely no mineral wealth, and it could easily fit inside Lake Taupō. In almost every respect we should outperform it. However, the reality is that we do not even come close. Let us draw comparisons between the two countries. First, New Zealand’s GDP growth in 2010 was under 1 percent; Singapore’s GDP grew by a whopping 14 percent. In 1960 our GDP value was almost three times that of Singapore; in the last 20 years Singapore has raced ahead and will have a GDP value that is three times that of New Zealand by 2015. So in 1960 our GDP was three times that of Singapore; in 2015 Singapore’s GDP will be three times ours. If we look at labour productivity per capita in New Zealand dollars, we see that Singapore productivity in 2010 was $182,000; New Zealand’s productivity by comparison was $90,000. We can see how the gap has grown quickly from 2000 on.
Why has Singapore been able to achieve such prosperity with no minerals, no land, and a relatively small population? It certainly did not do it, I suggest, by giving loans of $43 million out of Government coffers to private television channels. It is because Singapore was willing to make the tough decisions. Government expenditure in Singapore is only 17 percent of GDP—17 percent; that compares with New Zealand’s 43 percent. Its tax rates are also low. The top tax rate in Singapore—and I have a chart here—is 20c in the dollar, and that rate does not cut in until someone earns $320,000. New Zealand’s top rate of 33c in the dollar kicks in at $70,000. The first $20,000 of income in Singapore is tax-free, which is good for low-income earners, and on the next $15,000, people pay at a rate of only 2c in the dollar.
Most important, Singapore’s politicians had a vision for the future of their country. They put aside short-term political gains and focused on the future. In short, they had the guts to do what was right. They outlined a blueprint of where they wanted to go, and they moved swiftly to achieve it. In doing so, they left New Zealand in the dust. But that is enough of that.
What vision should we lay down for New Zealand’s future? The first point is that we should not accept apathy or poverty, as many do today. We need new leaders that are inspired and want to do the best for New Zealand, not necessarily for their own political parties. We need politicians who are prepared to implement quality reform. At the heart of any successful reform programme in New Zealand, we need to achieve a switch from Government delivery to private sector delivery, as Singapore did in a whole range of industries. In health, for example, the Singapore Government spends only 1 percent to 3 percent of GDP; in New Zealand, we spend 9 percent of GDP on health. But in every area of the health sector, Singapore has better outcomes. Its death rate at birth is only a quarter of New Zealand’s, and so it goes on up the scale. People in Singapore save for some of their own health costs, and they take out catastrophic cover. They also encourage the best doctors from around the world to come to their country.
In education, the outcomes for the poorest third of its population are extremely high, with two-thirds of people in the lowest income bracket in Singapore scoring within the top two-thirds of their primary school leaving examination.
Only when we in New Zealand are willing to look forward, and to devolve control of much of what the Government currently spends on individuals, will we deliver solutions for the problems that people on low incomes, in particular, face. New Zealand has become a nation rife with bureaucracy, recklessly determined to reuse the ideas that have failed to solve poverty and other social ills over the last 80 years, leading to poor education outcomes and poor health outcomes. But if we always do what we have always done, then we will always get what we have always got. Eighty years of political control has achieved a larger welfare budget, more people on welfare, and barriers for those at the bottom that actually prevent them from getting ahead. It is time that we looked at countries like Singapore and had the guts to implement the types of policies they have implemented.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): When the Finance and Expenditure Committee met on 9 February this year, the impact of last year’s Canterbury earthquake weighed heavily on all our minds. Discussion with the Minister of Finance included some of the immediate impacts of the quake—for example, the need for support for small businesses, the inevitable increases in unemployment, the cost to the Crown of some $1.5 billion to cover the net costs of the Earthquake Commission, and the consequences of $5 billion worth of damage and the associated reduction in economic activity.
As dire as these impacts are, nothing prepared us for the profound cost to the nation that would accrue from the events of 22 February. I stand here today painfully aware that when the committee had its second meeting on the Budget Policy Statement, my colleagues from Canterbury and I were immersed in the most catastrophic tragedy of our time, a tragedy that will cost us dearly. Best-guess assumptions from Treasury indicate that the total cost of both Canterbury earthquakes will be $15 billion.
There is no question that we have to factor in the combined effects of these natural disasters on the Government’s finances and the wider New Zealand economy for many years ahead. The Government’s balance sheet plays an important role in the economy, including the drive to maintain low overall costs of capital-raising by improving New Zealand’s credit rating and by providing financial flexibility to support the economy in times of distress, such as post-earthquake times. We all know and accept that the Government will have to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch by short-term loans and also giving priority to Ōtautahi over some other Government spending.
Some very interesting statements made in the 2010 Investment Statement have particular bearing at this time. Basically, the Investment Statement suggests that the Government’s balance sheet can be better managed. It issues some direct challenges to the Government to rebuild its balance sheet as a buffer against future adverse events. It suggests that we must systematically work to reduce the Government’s risk by strengthening the economy, and it calls for an approach to sharpen incentives on Government agencies to use existing money well.
I was heartened by the Minister of Finance’s statement last weekend about committing to an approach that he described as protecting the most vulnerable. He added: “Any spending changes we make will ensure that continues.” That is music to the ears of the Māori Party. The Māori Party entered into a coalition agreement with National with the following commitment: “The Māori Party seeks significant outcomes in whanau ora, through eliminating poverty, advocating for social justice, and advancing Māori social, cultural, economic and community development in the best interests of the nation.” Those words are as vital now as they have ever been.
These post-earthquake times have given me an insight into the communities that we might describe as being the most vulnerable and that I will never forget. Over the last fortnight I have walked the streets of Wainoni, New Brighton, Aranui, Bexley, and Dallington. Those communities were already vulnerable from low incomes, high unemployment, and a range of other social and health needs, but it has been devastating to see how unprepared so many of our people were for an emergency of such proportions.
Over the weekend Māori wardens reported to me that as they went door to door they came across a woman who was dehydrated and in 2 weeks had not been visited once. People in the eastern suburbs have had the additional pressure of shops being closed, access routes being blocked, a lack of petrol, and the basic absence of sanitation and water facilities. Some people are getting food grants but have been denied petrol vouchers. Consequently, they lack the means to travel across town to get basic supplies for their families.
We really need to teach our people to look beyond today and to prepare for tomorrow. One of the key issues arising from this crisis has been the need for greater efforts to occur to ensure that our families are self-determining and self-managing. This is where it comes back to the notion outlined in the Investment Statement of getting better value for money through the services provided by the State. This is also where the Māori Party’s leadership with Whānau Ora has been so critical. We believe that one of the fundamental revolutions of our time has been the mobilisation of whānau through investing in whānau to build their capability, rather than resorting to dependence on service.
One of the greatest success stories of our term has been the roll-out of some 25 provider collectives, with 158 providers across 10 regions building whānau resilience and independence. I want our mokopuna in our future to benefit from having whānau who are self-managing, living healthy lifestyles, and participating fully in society. Anyone can rant and rave about what is not being done, but the greatest outcomes come from those who actually get up and do. That is why we are so proud of the momentum achieved through Whānau Ora. I have been so pleased over the last 2 weeks to see Whānau Ora in action in Christchurch, with Ngāi Tahu, matawaka, and the Māori providers working with Government agencies to support the most vulnerable in our communities.
Having said that, I will return to the Minister of Finance’s words about protecting the most vulnerable. Earlier today the Child Poverty Action Group issued a release drawing attention to research from the University of Auckland demonstrating that many low-income families are unable to afford even a basic nutritious diet for their children. The group called on the Government to help all families better afford nutritious food by extending the in-work tax credit to all low-income families. It is a call the Māori Party supports.
I did all I could to encourage the Government to consider the elimination of poverty as one goal that could be progressed through my member’s bill to address rising food prices by removing goods and services tax from healthy food as defined by the Ministry of Health. But that is not all we are doing in our determination to make our nation great again by investing in ourselves. The Māori Party is about investing in opportunity and in the optimism all families need to experience in order to be the best they can be.
On other fronts we have actively campaigned against so-called loan sharks to protect our most vulnerable from paying excessive interest rates. My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell currently has a bill on the Order Paper that focuses on gambling harm reduction, the purpose being to provide local communities with more power to determine where pokie machines may be sited and how the proceeds can be distributed. We will continue to apply concentrated efforts to our campaign to lift the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour, in our absolute belief that raising low incomes will improve the country’s economic performance while at the same time supporting families. We will, as always, maintain the vigilance that is needed for any MP worth their salt to be in the House, to monitor the policies that are debated, to place pressure where pressure is due, and, above all, to come up with ideas worth investing in.
Protecting the most vulnerable—whether they are families post-earthquake or low-income families struggling to make do—must be the mantra for all of us to apply to every issue debated in Parliament. This is the time for collective responsibility, for shouldering the responsibilities of working together to absorb the worst effects of the recession over the past 2 years, and for rebuilding and restoring. We must make the best of the lessons we have learnt over this last difficult year and commit to an approach that places priority on environmentally friendly, sustainable development, on working together to create our communities, and on strengthening all our families in order to build our future together.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Today we are talking about the Budget Policy Statement. I will first of all start by acknowledging the pain and suffering that our whole country, and especially the people of Christchurch, have suffered in recent weeks. The Budget Policy Statement debate today has tended to focus on the Christchurch earthquake and on the economic approaches that could be taken to deal with such an issue. It will be a focal point of the Budget, no doubt, but I think we also need to be mindful that fundamental economic policy does not change. What is right for an economy, and what is right for the New Zealand economy, will always be the same solution. It is the solution that National, along with its coalition colleagues, will be promoting through the Budget. It is not the solution that Labour and the Green Party have been trying to promote through this House today. That fundamental debate about economic policy has been crucial to this debate about the Budget Policy Statement today. On the one hand we have heard good, solid, strong economic policy from National, and on the other hand we have heard a distributive, slightly communist approach from Labour, an approach that went into full-blown communism from the Green members in terms of how to deal with such an issue.
If we go back to what is good, solid economic policy, we must look at what we need in order for a strong country to go forward, and we need savings and investment. We need a country that saves money, that invests in its future, that provides for its people so they have the signals and incentives to take advantage of their opportunities, and that also provides results, so that the country, through its tax system, can take the fruits of labour and use that money for social distribution. We cannot have social spending without income coming into the Government, and that income needs to be promoted. The more we promote that income, the more money the Government has to spend, and the more social spending the Government can provide.
It is very simple economics. On the left the equation for economics is that the Government can take more in the first instance, before actually letting the economy grow. Those on the left believe that by taking more, they can redistribute more. That is a very circular and very cyclical argument, in the sense that it keeps on going inward. We have a much more open approach, which looks at having a greater economy and therefore being able to provide greater Government spending, rather than having greater Government spending at the initial point of contact, which cannot grow any bigger because effectively the economy is being strangled.
That is what Labour did to the economy in our best years. It strangled the New Zealand economy. It put us in recession before the rest of the world. Then, on top of that, we had a world recession that meant New Zealand had to go through some very difficult economic times. National, in coalition with the Māori Party, ACT, and United Future, set about a plan to build this country to be stronger, and we were making the first steps to achieving this. Now we have had a natural disaster, which nobody could have predicted, and which is on a scale beyond any comprehension, but it does not mean that we have to change the plan. The plan and the answer will always be the same—
Grant Robertson: You haven’t got one.
DAVID BENNETT: —because that is the response we need to have; it is fundamental economics. Labour says we do not have a plan. That is patently not true. We have a plan that is based on savings and investment, and therefore on building a stronger economy. We want growth, which will mean that the Government, through its tax system, will have more money to spend. That is the nature of it, rather than Labour’s approach, which is just to tax and tax, and then, hopefully, work its way through. New Zealand has a plan. We have a good economic plan. It is a plan that does not need to change as a result of what is happening in Christchurch, but we need to be mindful of what has happened in Christchurch. Of course the Budget will consider that in our priorities for spending, and there will be some balance between that and the need to increase debt, as everybody would expect, because such a natural disaster had not been anticipated and could not be anticipated by a country going forward.
The important approach of how we build an economy is to concentrate on the tradable sector. We do not want to see what happened under the previous Labour Government, when the tradable sector shrank in the 5 years from 2005 to 2009, when the non-tradable sector grew by 15 percent over that time, and when the previous Labour administration increased its investment in Government administration but not in the way whereby we paid our way in the world. There was a large increase in borrowing by New Zealand. Our debt to the rest of the world increased by about $60 billion to over $160 billion, and that blowout in debt put a handbrake on our economy, especially in the productive parts of our economy and its growth. We need to change that. We need to get back to a place where we have savings and investment, and that is the crucial aspect of what National has been doing over the last year or so.
We also have to be mindful of the fact that we have large assets within Government portfolios. If we look at what happened with the Budget Policy Statement, we see that there was also the 2010 Investment Statement of the Government of New Zealand. This document is new, in the sense that we have not had them in the past. It shows the assets the Crown possesses, and their potential returns, in the formats that have been put together in a booklet. That is a starting point for New Zealanders to look at where their investments are, and at what rates of return they get on their investments. That can be a crucial point as we go forward and look at the Government’s role in investing and delivering a stronger economy.
If we look at that statement, we see that the Government holds about $223 billion of assets. We are looking at ways in which that holding can be further enhanced, in the sense that there are opportunities for New Zealanders to potentially invest in making our economy stronger and those assets stronger. It is one of the things that we look to do in the future, as we work towards providing that savings and investment culture. Just like the tax issue, one raised many times by Labour today, it is crucial in providing that investment and savings culture. New Zealanders now have the incentives out there to get a good education, to work hard, and to take advantage of the jobs that are in this country and this region. That income will then come through to the Government through the tax system, and we can spend it on social and other spending.
This is contrary to the Labour point of view, which is to keep New Zealanders at low incomes, then control their destiny and therefore control Government spending. At the end of the day that will never lead to a stronger country, and it will actually lead to a country that cannot manage and deal with natural disasters such as the one we have had in Christchurch. Crucially, when we look at the Labour approach, we see that it would never enable us to deal with the natural disaster we have had; it would be an approach that would stifle the economy further in these times.
We need to look at a long-term approach that will grow the economy and provide the way to deal with this issue, and also build a stronger future for New Zealanders. That is the crucial part of this Budget and the Budget Policy Statement, which will be amended to reflect the natural circumstances that we now have as a country. Effectively, the heart of it is the same, in the sense that economic policy that is solid, strong, and effective will be employed in the Budget as we go forward. That economic policy is universal. It is not designed to take into account just one situation; it is a policy that will enable us to provide opportunities for New Zealanders. It will enable this country to grow, and through long-term growth we can pay for the effects of natural disasters such as Christchurch’s earthquake. Not only can we pay for those effects but we can grow our economy further so that New Zealanders can have those opportunities, and so we can have the prosperity we need in this country to deliver the social services and other assets that people want.
The Budget coming up this year will be an important one for New Zealand. It will be part of that portrayal of how we deal with economic issues, and that is the fundamental debate we have had in this House today. But let us remember that there is an answer, that there is a plan, and that that plan is the one that can work. The Opposition will try to put out something else that is not a plan, that is not an answer, and that has failed in the past, as we have seen from the previous Labour Government. The choice is quite stark, and it is the fundamental choice of economics that this House represents.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): When the National Government was elected 2½ years ago its members said that they were going to go for broke—go for broke. They were going to close the wage gap with Australia, they were going to cause a step change in the New Zealand economy, they were going to keep debt low, they were going to reduce taxes, and they were going to reduce unemployment. Well, “go for broke” has proved to be true: New Zealand is more broke now than it was then. National has failed to achieve any one of the promises upon which it was elected.
Let us take the first one: the wage gap with Australia. New Zealand is going backwards in terms of the wage gap. It is but one example of where New Zealand under National is going backwards. National members promised that they would close the wage gap with Australia. Yet in that respect, New Zealand is going backwards. It is growing ever larger—so much so that rather than the number of New Zealanders going to Australia going down, it has increased and increased. The Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, was here recently and I was embarrassed when she said that Australia really like having New Zealand as a neighbour because we train people really well who then go and work in Australia for decent wages.
The National-led Government was elected on the promise that it would fix that gap. For the past 2 years Labour members have tried to pin the Government down as to the date by which it will have fixed it. National members will not give us a date by which they will have fixed it, so we moderated our request and asked them to at least give us a milestone by which we can judge their performance—to at least tell us a date by which they think they will have stemmed the flow so that the gap between wages in New Zealand and Australia will cease growing wider, or at least will get back to the point that it was when they came into office, but they will not. The reality is that under National New Zealand is going backwards.
Until recently National’s literature on its website was promising a step change in the New Zealand economy. Do members remember that phrase—a “step change” in the New Zealand economy? That is another of the things that National members promised New Zealand before the election. They were going to cause a step change in the New Zealand economy. Actually, there has been a step change in the New Zealand economy: we have not had just one recession; it sounds like we are in the middle of a second. We have a second recession. We are one of two countries in the Western World to have a double-dip recession.
This second recession is undoubtedly National’s recession. It is the National Government’s recession, it is responsible for it, and it was National that promised New Zealand a brighter future. A “brighter future” was another of the phrases that does not really measure up with the duller future that we are now experiencing as New Zealand goes backwards under National. The step change has gone, closing the wage gap with Australia has gone, and the “brighter future” is very dull.
In this Budget Policy Statement we have acknowledgment by Treasury that more than two-thirds of the reduction in New Zealand’s forecast relates to events pre-earthquake. Although the Government might say: “Woe is me.” for having to deal with the consequences of the earthquake—and there is something in that—let its members not say that it is the majority of the problem. Two-thirds of the problem pre-dates the earthquake and the tragedy and economic costs that flow from it.
The reality is that National has done very little to change the way in which the economy operates. National members talked big about their tax switch. They called it a tax switch; that was clever language for changes that increased the proportion of taxes paid by low and middle income people and decreased the proportion paid by higher-income people. The tax switch from income tax to GST for lower-income people makes no difference to them so long as the total amount is identical, because they still have to spend all their income. It is effectively still a tax upon their labour, whether they pay it through income tax or whether they pay it out of their wages through GST for the things they buy at the supermarket. The only people for whom it made a substantial difference were the top 10 percent of earners, who managed to garner 42 percent of the income tax cuts.
The Government does not have a plan to get the economy going. It has only a very small part of what would be a prudent economic plan, and that relates to tax policy. Its tax policy is, in the view of the Labour Party, wrong because it so disproportionately benefits the very narrow section of New Zealand for whom National plainly governs. But even if we accept that tax policy as being right, which we on this side of the House do not, it is but a small part of a good economic policy.
What are the other parts of the economic policy of the Government? We should mention a couple, such as the cut to the research and development tax credit, which is needed to stimulate the sectors in the economy that will grow exports in non-traditional export areas. We all know that agriculture, forestry, and fishing are very important sectors of the economy and will continue to be so, but growth in those sectors alone will not lift New Zealand’s fortunes sufficiently for us to bridge that gap with Australia. We know that from, amongst other things, the report by the New Zealand Institute A goal is not a strategy. The title itself was a flick at the Government for its economic mismanagement.
We know that in order to grow our exports we have to have exports in new sectors. What did the Government do? It cut the research and development tax credit when virtually every other OECD country has one and, most important, Australia has one. Given that Australia is our competition for some of this innovative endeavour, it is obvious that, as a consequence, more of that work will be done in Australia than in New Zealand.
The other major blue on the part of the Government underlines the fallaciousness of the contribution we heard from the previous speaker for National, David Bennett, that we need more savings. If we look at National’s record on savings through the decades, we see that it cut the Kirk savings scheme introduced under Labour. That scheme was designed by Sir Roger Douglas, who is now in ACT. National cut that scheme. If we had it, New Zealand would be in a similar position to Australia, with savings and investment markets similar to those of Australia. The stand-out difference between New Zealand and Australia is the quality of savings and the depth of the investment market.
What did it do subsequently? The last Labour Government ran surpluses. We ran public surpluses on the Crown balance sheet and we reduced Government debt. Every one of those Budgets was opposed by the National Party. Its clarion call, Budget after Budget, was: “Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts! Do not run surpluses!”. If the prior Labour Government had done that, New Zealand would be in the position of some of those countries like Portugal, Italy, and Greece, which are having to drastically cut social expenditure at the moment because public debt is so out of control. Instead Labour reduced net Government debt to zero and brought gross Government debt down from 38 percent to 17 percent of GDP. Every one of those Budgets was opposed by National.
National said that there was an increase in private debt at the time, and that is a problem. That is very true. No one in Labour has denied that. What did we do in response? We pushed against it in two main ways. First, we ran Government surpluses, which were opposed by National, and reduced Government debt.
David Bennett: What did you do?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Secondly, I tell Mr Bennett, we introduced KiwiSaver. He shakes his head because he has obviously forgotten that. We introduced KiwiSaver because we knew there was a problem with increasing private debt. Interest rates were increased through the Reserve Bank, independently of the Government—it does that independently—to try to take the top off some of the asset bubbles. We did more than National has done since then to stimulate savings, both to take pressure off that burgeoning private debt and to increase the depth of our investment markets. What did the National Government do in return? It cut KiwiSaver.
It says that the focus of this Budget will be savings. I say to Mr Bennett and other National members that it is 2 years too late. They have undermined savings until now and not many people will be fooled by their rhetoric and belated steps at this point. They are out of touch with Kiwis. Costs are going through the roof. Living costs are up. Ordinary Kiwis cannot afford their power bills. Those members are putting them at risk by flogging off State-owned enterprises, which will put further upward pressure on power prices. New Zealand is going backwards.
The Government does not have an adequate plan for the economy. Therefore, the contest at the end of the year is open. The contest at the end of the year is open because people are increasingly recognising that although it might be true that the earthquake has exaggerated New Zealand’s economic problems, National is the cause of them.
Debate interrupted.
Personal Explanations
Legal Services Bill—Chairperson’s Report to Speaker
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Waikato): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not to be. Leave is granted.
LINDSAY TISCH: Last evening while the Speaker was in the Chair, having been recalled to rule on a matter arising in the Committee of the whole House on the Legal Services Bill, as the Chairperson of the Committee I reported to the Speaker on a matter that had arisen—my acceptance of a closure motion. I have now reviewed the exchanges that occurred at the time. Although I denied saying, and certainly never intended to say, that I sought a closure motion, I accept that I did inadvertently use those words. I apologise for this. I can assure the House that as Chairperson I have never sought a closure motion and would never do so.
Debate on Budget Policy Statement
Debate on Budget Policy Statement
Debate resumed.
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Two weeks ago Christchurch was dealt a cruel blow with another vicious earthquake. The shocks reverberated around New Zealand and, in fact, across the globe. One of the things that has been particularly moving is the response not just from my own community but from those across New Zealand in Christchurch’s time of need. I thank all of those who have volunteered in the efforts to rescue and recover those who perished in the Christchurch earthquake. I also take this opportunity to thank those who are working in a less visible way—people like those who work at GNS at Wairākei for the vital monitoring work they continue to do around the clock.
This is the debate on the Budget Policy Statement, and this Government is providing significant assistance. Budget 2011 will have two main areas of focus, one of which, very clearly, will be Christchurch. The Budget this year will ensure that the Government provides adequate resources to support the people of Christchurch and to help rebuild their city. But the Budget will also ensure that the Government plays its part in improving New Zealand’s savings by controlling spending increases and setting a very credible path back to Budget surplus. This is a Government that is rolling with the punches, and Christchurch was a particularly hard body blow. It is the Government’s job to provide strong leadership, and that is exactly what we have had with Prime Minister John Key.
Sound fiscal policy was the priority for the Prime Minister when he gave a statement to Parliament earlier in February, and sound fiscal policy is still the priority: promoting economic growth, getting our books in order, and controlling spending. These challenges are the same as businesses up and down New Zealand. Community organisations and families have to control what they are spending and reduce their debts. The previous speaker, Mr Parker, said that the contest is on, on 26 November. Absolutely it is on. The biggest gap that is emerging is in the economic policies between this side of the House and that side. Members opposite want more tax and more spending. I can tell members that when I talk to my constituents they know that when they work hard every day they want to keep a little more of what they earn.
I want to focus for a few minutes on the Christchurch earthquake before coming back to the other planks of our economic policy. As we have heard today, Christchurch is an important part of where the Government’s priority will be. It will have a significant impact on our books, not only in terms of increased spending but also in the loss in tax collected. We will take a responsible, balanced approach to that, increasing debt in the short term, but also taking a closer look at our spending priorities. I think it is fair to say that the response to the immediate needs of the people in Christchurch, in terms of rescue, recovery, and welfare, has been outstanding. The focus now, though, is on restoring and rebuilding the city.
National says that we are building the foundations for a stronger economy, because we know that that is the only way we will provide New Zealanders with a better future. It is the only way that families will have more income through better jobs, and therefore improved living standards. That was the Prime Minister’s priority before the earthquake, and it will continue to be the priority. This is a Government that is focused on building a stronger future. We will continue to rebalance the economy away from debt-fuelled consumption, focusing the Government’s spending towards savings, investment, and exports.
I am not sure whether the Opposition has been listening to what the National Government has been saying in terms of priorities. Continuing to build world-class infrastructure helps businesses compete. In my own electorate, the geothermal developments are a massive part of what is going on in Taupō. It is exciting to see continued projects such as Contact Energy’s Te Mihi project. Those will continue to create jobs in my electorate. More importantly, we must help exporters to sell more of their goods to the world at better prices. Again, the jobs in my electorate are coming from farming and forestry, so we have to make sure that our export sector is growing, not shrinking as it did in the last 5 years of the previous Government. As my able colleague Mr Bennett said, we cannot spend money that we are not earning, so I am not quite sure why members opposite think that money grows on trees, and that they can increase their spending commitments as they already have—$5 billion and counting.
We have to focus on reducing our reliance on foreign debt, and on building up our own pot of savings and investment here in New Zealand. In order to see the importance of why we need to lift our national savings, we need to look back at the state of the economy that we inherited from the party opposite. The economic growth we had in the latter part of the 2000s was fuelled by consumption and debt, which ultimately was unsustainable; it does not take much to figure that out. In the 3 years leading to the global financial crisis, our average annual GDP growth was less than 1 percent, and on a per capita basis it was negative. That meant we went into recession at the start of 2008, 9 months ahead of the global financial crisis.
We need our export sector to be strong, healthy, and growing. As I said earlier, the vast majority of jobs in my electorate come from farming and forestry. In the last few weeks it has been exciting to hear from our Crown research institutes, and to find out just exactly how much value they are adding, and will continue to add over the years ahead, to our export sector, whether that is in forestry, agriculture, or in exciting industries such as mining. A company in Tokoroa is expanding its export base because of work it is doing with Crown research institutes, which means more jobs in Tokoroa, and more export dollars for the country.
On the issue of spending, in the last two Budgets we have identified $2 billion of spending and redirected it to higher-priority areas—front-line services, whether that is in health, education, or, as our Minister of Police is doing so well, keeping our communities safe. We are expecting to continue that work in Budget 2011. It is about paying down debt and spending a little less to make sure we have a solid foundation for sustainable growth, because we do not want to have growth that is not sustainable over the longer period of time.
I will talk briefly about our assets, and about the fact that this Government needs to look at the assets we own and the model of ownership we have. Some of the State-owned enterprises that are being looked at in terms of a change of ownership model, such as Mighty River Power, have a significant operation in my electorate. It is interesting to talk to people about whether they believe we should be looking at changes to the way those assets are owned. It is quite heartbreaking to listen to constituents who have lost massive amounts of money they have saved and saved over decades, in the collapse of finance companies. Those people see the opportunity to invest in solid companies such as Mighty River Power as an opportunity presented to them that was not there before.
Another significant group who are interested in those investment opportunities are iwi groups. Following some of the Treaty settlements that we are proceeding with at a rate far faster than the previous Government ever did, all of sudden we will have communities that will have money they will want to invest. They will invest locally in areas that will create jobs in their communities. Budget 2011 is about getting our books in order, controlling our spending, and reducing our debt.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I will make a very quick response to the last point made by the member who preceded me, Louise Upston. I make it absolutely clear that not one extra job for Māori will be created by transferring a taxpayer asset to Māori in the way she promoted. Not one extra job for anyone will be created by transferring a State-owned enterprise, or part of one, to Māori. There will not be one extra job in Mighty River Power from the transfer of ownership to Māori, as she has just advocated in the House.
I say to that member that the assets that have been built up in my grandparents’ generation, in my parents’ generation, and in my generation, and have been paid for by taxpayers and by the people who have paid for the power, should not be hocked off, whether it is to Māori or to John Key’s rich friends offshore. I think that is wrong. It does not matter whether the member is prioritising Māori for the sale, or prioritising John Key’s mates at what used to be Merrill Lynch and is now the Bank of America. Those assets should stay in the hands of the Government, because it is the custodian of those assets for the people of the future.
What is more, on average, the group of assets that is being proposed for sale is returning 15 percent a year. The Minister of Finance told us at a select committee meeting—and this might have changed slightly since then—that he was borrowing on a short-term basis at about 3.5 percent per annum, and on a 10-year basis at about 6 percent. I ask what sort of business person would sell an asset that is returning 2½ times the amount it is costing for that capital. Retiring debt at a loss seems to be one of the maddest approaches.
The other interesting thing we heard from Bill English was that he was worried about the risk. He was worried about the risk profile of the electricity companies in New Zealand. I just ask him what the risk is in the current ownership model. I cannot think of a much better spread of portfolios, and I cannot think of a much better utility than those assets.
Labour will protect those assets. They have been built up by past generations, and we want Kiwis to own the future. We do not want just wealthy Kiwis to buy the shares, then sell them offshore, as happened with Contact Energy. We do not want only the wealthy to buy them and flick them off—sometimes at a profit and, to be fair to them, sometimes at a loss—to overseas owners.
I will make another point. There has been a lot of talk about New Zealand going forward under the National Government. But, actually, New Zealand has been going backwards. I will ask a question; I give credit, again, to Cameron Slater, because he has put it there. I ask members to just name me people who are better off under National.
Grant Robertson: John Key.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: John Key is better off under National. He is better off by $1,000 a week as a result of the tax cuts, and by $100,000 a week as a result of the changes in his net worth. I am not surprised that he is a tad out of touch—a tad out of touch! Not many families in New Zealand, after they have paid all their bills for the week, are $100,000 better off. Therefore, I can understand how people feel that the Prime Minister is slightly out of touch.
I should have started with Canterbury, and I will now make a comment about it. I have not made a speech of this sort, a more general speech, in the time since the earthquake. Like all of us, we are dismayed with the situation. Many of us are scared for the future of Christchurch, both in the social and economic sense and also physically. I am one of those people who believe—and it might be an old-fashioned belief and a myth—that bad things often come in threes. I am very, very anxious about that. As recently as last night there was a major earthquake, which I understand was only 2 kilometres down, under the centre of Christchurch. It was only 2.2 on the Richter scale, but when it is only 2 kilometres down it must cause enormous anxiety for the people of Christchurch.
Although I give a lot of credit to many of the people who have been involved—and people have been involved on a voluntary basis—I think there are some questions around the organisation. I think the head of civil defence has made it clear that they have missed some things as far as Christchurch east is concerned. It is not sorted. I say also that some people who live on the other side of town are still waiting to be properly treated from September, and some of those people have been hit again. The Government needs to keep on looking to its own organisation post this earthquake to make sure the step goes quite a long way further than on the previous occasion.
I reiterate, as I did today by way of a question to the Prime Minister, that the Government will have to decide pretty soon whether it will put resources into reconnecting the sewer system and the water in the areas that, as the Prime Minister has indicated, are, in effect, going to be bulldozed and turned into parks. There are people in those areas. Some people know they are in those areas and, unfortunately, a lot of people think they are in those areas of Christchurch. When there are scarce resources and there are priorities to be set, there needs to be some certainty as soon as possible. Clearly, it would be foolish for those people to work on repairing their houses if, in fact, they will not get water back and the sewers will not work again.
This Parliament is, however, back to some normal action. I think probably the decision of the Government to proceed with the seabed and foreshore legislation has taken us out of the happy families approach that had occurred before.
I emphasise the importance that Labour puts on having a fair go and on young people having a fair go. I think all of us know of families that have invested their money, have taken student loans, have done everything right, and have done what people have recommended to them. The kids have got their training and their degrees, and if they are lucky they have got jobs at McDonald’s.
I am concerned that well before this earthquake we were getting to the point where the skills of the country were not being used. Also, very importantly, a lot of the skills that were in demand had been run down by the current Government. Again, I give the example of the building area, where the trades training and the number of apprenticeships had been run down. The intake into those courses and the number of apprenticeships had been deliberately run down by the previous Government and the numbers going into pre-apprenticeship courses had dropped as well. We know that if we are not careful we will have to bring people from overseas to do the work that is necessary in Christchurch.
My priority is for Kiwis to have a fair go, to get the skills, to get the jobs, and to get ahead. The National Government has no plan. It has no long-term plan and it does not have even a decent short-term plan. It does not seem to have a plan beyond the plan for the next photo opportunity. We want New Zealand to get ahead. The National Government shows no sign of wanting that.
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): It is my privilege to round up the Budget Policy Statement debate this evening and to remind people out there in New Zealand that the Budget Policy Statement is, in fact, a forward-looking document, looking at the future of New Zealand. I will start by briefly looking at this forward-looking document, and in particular at the fiscal strategy of New Zealand and what the document projects both in terms of revenue and the balance sheet. I think it is important that we do look forward. There has been a lot of time spent tonight looking back in hindsight at what happened in the early 2000s and recently, but I think we need to focus, particularly in light of the earthquake, on a forward-looking vision for this country, a go-forward intention.
In terms of the fiscal strategy, it is clear that we reached the lowest position in our operating deficit in the 2010-11 year, with an $11.1 billion deficit. But from here on in, the projections are good, with the deficit reducing to the point where in 2015 we break even, and by the early 2020s there will be significant surpluses for the country again. So let us be under no illusions: this is a good-looking Budget Policy Statement. In terms of our debt profile, yes, I acknowledge that we are incurring significant debt as we go through a difficult period during this recession, as we get out of it, as we fund education, as we fund health, and as we fund the earthquake recovery. But the reality is that this Budget Policy Statement projects that by 2015 we will peak, with our debt at about 28.5 percent of GDP, which will still be one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios in the OECD. From that point on, as we make surpluses and are able to pay down that debt, and as our economy grows relative to that debt, our debt profile will reduce. So by the 2020s we will be back down to about 20 percent of debt to GDP. So we are looking forward in a great position.
We have to remember that this Budget Policy Statement was written before the earthquake. We have to acknowledge that there will be an additional hit on the books as a result of the earthquake. I will make a few comments about that. I had the privilege of going down to Christchurch to help some of my colleagues and to help in some of the suburbs of Christchurch. The thing I want to say about it, which a lot of people are not recognising—and it is a terrible tragedy—is that it was quite localised. Some suburbs have been terribly affected, but suburbs close by have not been affected in nearly the same way. The reality is that a supermarket in an affected suburb is no longer open, but the supermarket in the suburb next door is open, and the same goes for petrol stations. So there will be some real winners and losers in that retail sector. Some supermarkets will really struggle but others will be in for a significant gain. The same goes for light manufacturing in Christchurch. As one drives around the back of the airport towards the A and P showgrounds where Federated Farmers are based, one sees that all the light industry was up and running a couple of days after the earthquake had happened. That is good for Christchurch. Many of those light manufacturers and exporters are still operational.
The central business district clearly is in a significant situation and is a terrible disaster area, but many of the businesses provide services. Although businesses like PricewaterhouseCoopers and other businesses that provide accounting and financial services will take an immediate hit—there is no doubt about that—I think we will be surprised at how quickly they are able to re-establish themselves in other premises and get under way. I believe in these people. The entrepreneurial spirit of Christchurch people—the innovators out there—will lead them to find ways to get on with their businesses as quickly as possible. Television One interviewed a hairdresser who had moved out of town and had brought his clients with him. He was operating in the front part of a clothes store. Those businesses will get up and running quicker than we think. Although they will take a hit, and certainly our Budget Policy Statement projections will be hurt, I am confident we will get through this and I have confidence in the people of Christchurch. I am very proud of what they are doing.
The other thing that excites me about going forward and looking forward is what is happening in the provinces, in places like my own province of Hawke’s Bay and Napier. Today, rather than dwell on the past, I will focus on what the business people there are talking about and how they are looking forward in the environment, and part of the structure, that the Government is providing for them. I will start with farming. I rang a couple of guys up in Hawke’s Bay, like Jeremy Absolom. He is on the board of Silver Fern Farms and runs Rissington Breedline. He is extremely excited about the future of the lamb and beef industry in the country. Silver Fern Farms has been the beneficiary of the Primary Growth Partnership. The Opposition talks about cuts to investment in research and development, but there has been massive investment in research and development through the Primary Growth Partnership, with the likes of Silver Fern Farms benefiting from it—and it is very excited.
On Sunday I had the privilege of going to Napier’s Great Long Lunch, where I met Gary Collins. He has a farm on the Waipātiki-Napier road. Mr Collins said: “For the first time in a long time, I have nothing to grizzle about.” That is a comment from a farmer in New Zealand. He said: “For the first time in a long time, I have nothing to grizzle about. I have had good grass growth through the January and February period. My lamb prices are $148 to $150. Wool prices are 50 percent higher than they were. I am actually going to make money for the first time in a long time. And while I use up my tax losses, eventually I will have to start spending or paying tax again.” That is exciting news.
Our apple orchardists have been in a difficult position for many years. I do not think we really appreciate how good the announcement by Julia Gillard is for the New Zealand apple and horticultural industry. It is huge. It will mean that apples end up in Australia years and years before they would have got in otherwise, even though the World Trade Organization’s decision was pretty straightforward. Apollo Pac, which is owned by a guy called Ross Beaton, has a thousand employees in Hawke’s Bay. He is really excited about the opportunity to use the cool store to deliver containers out of the Port of Napier into the eastern ports of Australia 52 weeks of the year. It is exciting news. He is really excited about his business.
Just 2 weeks ago, we were at the McCain Foods factory with the Prime Minister to announce a $20 million investment in a new pea and corn line at the plant. It will bring new growth, new jobs, and new opportunities for farmers. Businesses create the jobs that create the growth. I am really excited about the future in that regard.
Another example is Pan Pac Forest Products up in Hawke’s Bay, which is one of the bigger employers up there. It produces pulp and paper and is also a big sawmill. It is investing tens of millions of dollars in the sawmill, bringing on another shift of workers—not minimum wage employees or those on $15 an hour; they are earning $30 or $35 an hour. Another 40 to 45 jobs are being brought in through the extra shift. These industries see a big future in this country. It is absolutely fantastic.
Another exciting example is the light manufacturing industry. I was interested to hear David Parker going on about how important these industries were. Well, it is happening now. The light manufacturing industry has a very exciting future ahead of it. I spoke today to Hamish Whyte from Furnware, a furniture manufacturer. Domestically, it has been pretty tough, but in respect of exports, his company is going from strength to strength. Furnware will double its exports to Australia next year based on a low dollar.
David Shearer: Going backwards.
CHRIS TREMAIN: How is it going backwards when it is doubling its exports?
David Shearer: You can’t talk it up.
CHRIS TREMAIN: Hardly! These guys are very excited about their future. It is all good. [Interruption] Labour members do not like it when they hear the positive stuff. They do not like it at all. They do not want to hear about businesses that are getting out there, creating jobs, creating income, and being excited about the future, because it does not go along with Labour’s story.
Our story is that we are very excited about the future of this country. This Budget Policy Statement is putting together a framework. We have an excellent plan for the economy, and many, many businesses are getting on with the job and doing a fantastic job for this country. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2011.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill
In Committee
Clause 1 Title
SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak on clause 1 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, which is the title clause. The title of the Act will be the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010. The question I want to ask actually relates to the title. I am really keen to hear from the member in charge of the bill, David Bennett, who is in the chair. I congratulate him. It must be the very pinnacle of his career so far to be sitting in the chair on this occasion as the member in charge of the bill. I would like him to clarify for us why the title has “2010” in it when I am sure we all know that we are here debating the bill in 2011.
Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Unless I am looking at a different bill, the bill does not have the year in it, at all.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a debating point. You will have a chance to speak and make the correction if need be.
SUE MORONEY: I invite the member opposite to take a call on this issue, because the copy of the bill that I have in front of me and that has been tabled—the one we are debating—certainly has “2010” in the title. I think Mr Auchinvole is agreeing with me that the bill has “2010” in its title. Grant Robertson just got a copy off the Table and concurs that the bill has “2010” in the title. This seems curious, given that it is 2011. We are in the Committee stage debating the title of the bill, but the title indicates that the bill would be passed and enacted in 2010. That cannot possibly be the case, as we are debating it in March 2011. I really would like the member in the chair to clarify that point. We want to get it right.
We are passing this legislation on behalf of the Hamilton City Council, and as a Hamilton-based member of Parliament I want to ensure that we get the detail right. Although I am not the member responsible for the bill, I take the responsibility upon myself as a Hamilton-based Labour MP to make sure that we get that detail right. It would be very unfortunate if we let the Hamilton City Council down in that way, if the title showed the wrong year that the bill was enacted. That, of course, assumes that it becomes a bill; it has every prospect of becoming a bill—
David Bennett: An Act.
SUE MORONEY: —sorry, an Act; thank you. It has every prospect of becoming an Act because the Labour Party is supporting it. But in supporting it, we want to make sure that we get the title right. I want to hear the member in the chair explain why “2010” is in the title. Maybe there is a very good explanation—
Chris Auchinvole: A drafting error.
SUE MORONEY: Perhaps it is. If it is, as Mr Auchinvole thinks it may be, then the Committee of the whole House is exactly where it ought to be picked up.
I recognise that it does not appear that any Hamilton MP sat through any of the select committee process.
Chris Auchinvole: You could have come along at any time.
SUE MORONEY: I wonder whether due respect and regard was given to this very important bill from Hamilton to make sure that we got right not only the content but also the detail. Mr Auchinvole has kindly said that I could have come along at any time; I would have welcomed the opportunity.
I really would have thought that the member in charge of the bill would be watching this bill very carefully indeed as it went through the Local Government and Environment Committee. If Mr Auchinvole is correct and this is a drafting error, I would have thought that the select committee was the right place to pick up that error. However, the Committee stage is also a good opportunity for that matter to be rectified, if Mr Auchinvole is correct and it is a drafting error. I would like some clarification on the year that is named in the title.
Irrespective of the title, I also suggest that another—
Chris Auchinvole: It will be 2012 if you keep going.
SUE MORONEY: The member is quite right: it could be 2012. Perhaps that is a challenge to members on this side of the Chamber, and we may well rise to it. I point out that the very reason why we have the Committee stage is to make sure that we get these things right.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a great pleasure to rise and participate in the Committee stage on clause 1 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010. I suppose some of the confusion may arise because the year 2010 in the title is not in the heading of the bill. But the title clause shows 2010 in bold; it is beaming out at us from the page. I would not be as uncharitable as to suggest that maybe this is the Hamilton calendar that we are working to. I am sure that Hamilton MPs will not only put that right but may bring Palmerston North into the debate later on. One never knows; it could happen. I congratulate my colleague Sue Moroney on picking up on that very important point about the date.
The title—Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill—superficially looks quite appropriate. The city council is seeking to secure the area commonly known as Parana Park to maintain it as a publicly owned asset for the people of Hamilton. The title seems quite appropriate, but another title could be the “Hamilton City Council (Security of Public Assets) Bill” or the “Hamilton City Council (Working for its People) Bill”. This bill is quite a different approach from the approach we see from this Government. But this is not a Government bill; it is a local bill. If this were a Government bill coming from this National Government, I suggest it would be the “Parana Park (Flog It Off for the Lowest Bid) Bill.” This is a public asset, but this Government does not pay much heed to public assets. It is not particularly fond of public assets. It would want to try to flog it off to one of its mates, or maybe to some foreign company, for a nice sum so that the private individual could make the profit out of it. I have no doubt the asset would be horrendously devalued in the same way that the Government is trying to devalue our Crown pastoral land in the high country of the South Island, and then some private operator would be able to make all the profit out of it. But, no, the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010 is all about securing this particular public asset for the people of Hamilton. I congratulate the city council on taking that approach and on bringing this local bill to its local member David Bennett to do so.
In the second reading of the bill we discovered that the name Parana Park may not be completely without controversy. I am no scholar of Hamilton geography, and I am prepared to admit that. My colleague Trevor Mallard, a former representative of the people of Hamilton, said that in his day the area was known as Pūtikitiki. I am a bit sketchy on the details but I believe that the name is associated with a stream or a river that runs nearby the land. In fact, many people would refer to the area as Pūtikitiki, rather than Parana Park. So an alternative name could be the “Hamilton City Council (Pūtikitiki) Land Vesting Bill” but that would be quite debatable. Some people might say that having Parana Park in the title of the bill is in a way alienating those people who call the area Pūtikitiki. The local members might have more knowledge on that than I do and might explain why the area is not being called Pūtikitiki in this legislation.
Normally the titles of bills are not considered particularly contentious but this one might be a little bit contentious because of that alternative name by which Parana Park is known.
Chris Auchinvole: Mr Mallard was simply trying to fill up his time.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: He may have been, but he raised an important point and it should be considered. The Committee stage is where those sorts of contentious matters can be dealt with by way of Supplementary Order Papers and the like.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is a great pleasure to take a call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I acknowledge the member in the chair, David Bennett. I have sat in that chair and I will treat him as well as he treated me when I had my turn in that chair! I say to him: “Watch out!”. It will be very, very interesting. In addressing clause 1, “Title”, I congratulate the Hamilton City Council and join with my colleagues in saying thank goodness for councils like the Hamilton City Council. It was prepared to ensure that land that has been gifted by our forebears stays in public ownership as a recreational reserve for the use of the public and their families. As we have been hearing from other members, if this land belonged to the National Government it would be up for sale before one could blink an eye.
I am interested in a couple of things in the title clause. First of all, I am not very familiar with Hamilton, and I apologise to my Hamilton colleagues. I spend a lot of time driving through—[Interruption] The sky always seems too low to me in Hamilton. I am interested in a couple of things. First of all, I ask why Hamilton is called Hamilton. Why is Hamilton called Hamilton?
Sue Moroney: Actually, it is Kirikiriroa.
DARIEN FENTON: Oh is it? OK, perhaps one of my colleagues or the member in the chair could enlighten me about that. “Kilikiliora”?
Sue Moroney: Kirikiriroa.
DARIEN FENTON: OK, so where did “Hamilton” come from? Why is it in the title clause, why was that not considered, and why has the Hamilton City Council not changed its name? It is a very, very important question.
I am also interested in the name “Parana”. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway talked about the contribution from Trevor Mallard, and I have to correct him because he said Parana was in Argentina and it is not.
Iain Lees-Galloway: Uruguay?
DARIEN FENTON: No, it is in Brazil. It is Brazil. It is absolutely in Brazil. I am really interested to know where the name “Parana” came from.
Iain Lees-Galloway: You looked that up, didn’t you!
DARIEN FENTON: I did look it up, actually; I had to think of something to say. But I am genuinely interested in the name “Parana” and where it came from. I suppose it could have come from the name “George Parr”, but I am not sure. “Parr-ana”—I am not sure whether that is its history, so perhaps the member in the chair can enlighten me about the name “Parana” and what its history is. I have had a quick look over the history—it is very interesting. Parana Park has a very interesting history, but I could not find anything that explained why it is called Parana Park, let alone anything on why Hamilton is called Hamilton.
Having driven through, as I said, I have not been to Parana Park, but I understand that it is on the other side of the river.
Sue Moroney: Yes.
DARIEN FENTON: Across the river?
Sue Moroney: Yes.
DARIEN FENTON: It is a wonderful recreation reserve that is used for a variety of purposes, and when we get on to later stages of the bill I will talk about what some of the submissions said about the historic nature of Parana Park.
There have been suggestions about other names for the title. I did wonder whether the member in the chair could explain why in a title like this brackets have been put around the words “Parana Park”. I ask whether this is a normal thing to do in legislation. Is this a design thing for legislation or could it just be there without the brackets, and would it make any difference? I would be interested in hearing an answer to that question, as well.
As I said, this is a very important bill and I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution on it. I am really pleased to be able to talk about something a little bit positive in the House. It has been a harrowing couple of weeks for members of this House, and I acknowledge the colleagues who live in Christchurch, and all the people who are suffering at the moment. Of course, our thoughts are with them, and we will work together to rebuild Christchurch; we are all in this together. It is quite good to be able to talk about something like Parana Park, where children can go and play, where there can be picnics, and where there are, from what I have seen in the pictures, beautiful trees and—is it native trees, as well, and gardens?
Hon Member: A bit of both.
DARIEN FENTON: A bit of everything. I would also welcome an invitation from my colleagues in Hamilton to Parana Park.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): In the absence of my colleague the member for Hamilton East, I had the great privilege of moving on his behalf the second reading of the Hamilton—[Interruption] I beg the member’s pardon? The member can sit down. I am delighted to take this double act with Mr Shearer. I say to the member: “You hum it and I’ll play it.”
David Shearer: For a moment there I thought you were going to sell it.
TIM MACINDOE: Absolutely not. I think I might actually get on. I was saying that I had the great privilege of moving on behalf of the member for Hamilton East the second reading of this most important Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill when he was absent on Government business. Some members opposite on that day indicated their support for the measure. In fact, they were very fulsome in their praise of my speech. They even suggested that some of my insights suggested it might be the pinnacle of my career. Nevertheless I say that, sadly for them, that is not the case, and I look forward to impressing them over and over again for many years to come during a long and industrious career as the MP for Hamilton West.
Today I will take just a short call during this Committee stage to once again commend this measure to the Committee and commend the work of my Hamilton colleague David Bennett and our local council, which has already been acknowledged, in promoting it.
Following my second reading speech, one of my predecessors who represented Hamilton West nearly three decades ago, the Hon Trevor Mallard, asked me to explain how Parana Park—as it has long been known informally and will now be known officially—got its name. Having already spoken in the debate that day, I had no right of reply, but I am happy to do so now, especially as Ms Fenton has just posed the same question, although other Labour members who spoke before her have so far spent a fair amount of time unnecessarily prolonging this measure without saying anything remotely relevant about it.
I am pleased to say that although the matter cannot be resolved with absolute certainty, the best guide we have comes from a submitter to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill called Laura Kellaway, who is a Waikato-based architect and heritage consultant. In her submission, which was available to all members of the committee and, therefore, to Labour members had they—[Interruption] Absolutely, I say to Mr Auchinvole. Had they chosen to go along they would have known that she pointed out that the most likely derivation of the name “Parana” comes from combining, as Ms Fenton has just correctly guessed, the surname of George Parr, who donated the land in his will in 1929, and the first name of Annie MacPherson, a young child who had died a year earlier.
Iain Lees-Galloway: So it’s not from Brazil?
TIM MACINDOE: It is not from Brazil, I say to Mr Lees-Galloway. The member may be, but I am pleased to say that the name is not.
George Parr was an important contributor to 19th and early 20th century Hamilton. Indeed, his entire family, although little is remembered of them now, were certainly very prominent in their day. George and his brother Robert were by 1901 the General Shopkeepers of Hamilton, who had acquired a New Zealand co-operative farmers association that had been established in 1882. They acquired it in 1884. Both brothers and their father, who became a mayor of Hamilton, were heavily involved in the early development of Hamilton and its community.
The point is that, although this matter is not absolutely able to be resolved, it does seem likely, as Ms Kellaway has pointed out, that Parana Park was named by truncating the “Par” from George’s surname and the “Ann” from Annie MacPherson to form “Parana” Park. Annie MacPherson was the daughter of an early settler who had gifted the memorial bridge that crosses Gibbons Creek to the park. As I said earlier, she died in 1928, and her plaque faces George Parr’s plaque on the bridge. The fact that the two face each other almost certainly explains the origin of the name.
I am happy to enlighten the Committee and also to have been the first member this afternoon to say anything remotely relevant about the bill.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): It is a rare pleasure to take a call this afternoon in this debate on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. In commenting on the bill’s title clause I raise a question about the Hamilton City Council. We have seen all around New Zealand over the last year or two a great deal of concern. District councils and city councils around New Zealand have been rather worried about the prospect of a unified Auckland, as was executed by the Hon Rodney Hide, and we have seen a flurry of initiatives to amalgamate regions. The fear that has been stoked—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Title—we are on the title.
PHIL TWYFORD: —around the use of the words “Hamilton City Council” in the title of this bill is that the region could very quickly end up being amalgamated and that we could see a different local government entity.
We saw this situation recently with George Hawkins’ Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. It was passed in this House at its first reading and then very quickly, with the creation of the new Auckland Council—otherwise known as the Auckland super-city—it had to be sent back to the Auckland Council. The council had to be asked whether it wanted to pick up the bill. What started out as a local bill sponsored by my colleague George Hawkins for the former Manukau City Council is now to become a local bill for the Auckland Council. I think that raises the question of whether the title of this bill for Hamilton City Council will have any sort of life or whether it should be changed.
Property Council New Zealand just published a report called Initiatives for Hamilton. It is one of a flurry of initiatives all around the country looking at local government amalgamation. Property Council New Zealand has proposed for Hamilton an amalgamation of four territorial local authorities in the Waikato region. That amalgamation would probably necessitate a change in the title of the bill, possibly even before the bill is passed. The bill would have to be referred back to the august Local Government and Environment Committee, which is chaired by my colleague Christopher Auchinvole, and it might have to be renamed the “Waikato Regional Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010”, because the kind of initiative that Property Council New Zealand has proposed would see four local bodies in the Waikato being merged into one.
It is quite interesting; Property New Zealand has also proposed the corporatisation of the assets and services of local councils in the Waikato and their amalgamation into a super-unitary authority. I think that raises the question of whether the title of the bill should be amended at this stage. Otherwise, the bill may have to be referred back to the select committee before it is even passed.
The “Land Vesting” aspect of the title is important. Perhaps the bill should be called the “Park Securing Bill”, because we saw recently in the legislation for setting up the Auckland super-city a threat to the security of local ownership of the Waitakere Ranges. There was a great deal of concern in Auckland, particularly in west Auckland, amongst people who fought long and hard for the Waitakere Ranges parkland to be held in perpetuity by the people of Auckland. There was a great deal of concern that the bill that transferred those provisions in the existing legislation and that transferred the title of the parkland to the new Auckland Council actually weakened the protections and could open the door for Auckland Centennial Memorial Park in the Waitakeres to be transferred out of local ownership. There was some concern about that issue and a great deal of debate. I think some of those concerns were somewhat assuaged but not entirely.
The “Land Vesting” referred to in the title of this bill is incredibly important.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I am happy to take a brief but, I hope, informative call on the title of this bill, having heard the earlier contributions in the Committee stage. I firstly recognise the contribution of my colleague Phil Twyford. Everything is in a name, as he rightly pointed out. In terms of the way in which land is vested, it matters that we retain some linkage with regard to the purposes for vesting lands and reserves like this, but we should also retain the history of how the land got its name.
I was quietly interested to hear Tim Macindoe’s contribution clarifying how Parana Park got its name. In fact, we had a small conversation about whether the word “Parana” could be partially “pā” and “rana”. Then I was asked by Darren Hughes whether I knew of a “Rana Pā” in Kirikiriroa and I told him that no, I did not. However, the discussion did urge me to set straight some of the record in terms of the history of this particular bit of land.
This land was part of the lands of notable significance confiscated in 1863 as a result of the Land Wars in the Waikato region. Parana Park is situated opposite Rangiora, a hill on which an Anglican church now stands. It was a significant pā site and a place for spiritual and cultural practices in the area. Parana Park is also to the left of Miropiko Pā, which is somewhat down the road. By way of clarifying some of Parana Park’s pre-European history, I think it is of note to mention that Parana Park has a history that precedes its being a park. It is in a very special place in that part of Hamilton.
The other point I will comment on in so far as the title is concerned is that it is really important to ensure that the purposes of vesting lands is for reserve reasons—in this case, a recreational reason. That is really important. If the prospect of an amalgamation such as the one Mr Twyford commented on is a very real prospect for the Waikato region, a number of reserves across Hamilton City Council, the Waikato District Council, and Waipā District Council will need to retain their special significance, which is why the councils are now managing those particular reserves.
I commend the member David Bennett for bringing this bill into the House on behalf of the city council. I bet that when he introduced the bill, he did not realise there would be a long and vociferous debate on every part of its purpose.
Chris Auchinvole: Hang in there, David. You’re doing well.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Ha, ha! But one thing we Hamiltonians can say is that we are proud of the reserves we have in the city, which provide recreational opportunities for our families and children. For my part, the small stream that links Parana Park and the memorial park together is a delight for the young kids who get their gumboots on now and then, in summer mostly, and have a little kick around in water that is probably no more than 3 or 4 centimetres deep. I know my son enjoys doing that when he is there.
In so far as the title is concerned, I want to further ensure that any future consideration of amalgamation of the city’s assets across the region retains the special nature on which lands have been vested, and the purposes of the history of that vesting in any transfer of assets or amalgamation of those assets. The title is very brief. Anyone listening to this debate will know that Parana Park is but a small shareholding of the council’s managed reserves, but it is a unique reserve, and it is something very special in the lives of a lot of kids. A lot of early childhood centres use the park and visit it often—kōhanga reo and people across the community. With that in mind, I commend the title of the bill, and register some of those future concerns I have with regard to the purpose and management of this bit of land.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I will take a brief call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Though Tim Macindoe is not here at the moment, I thank him for his explanation of how the name of the park became Parana Park. I was sitting here talking to Nanaia Mahuta and asked her whether the name came from a Māori background. She said that, no, there is no such word as “Parana” in Māori. We thought perhaps it was named after George Parr, who, as we know, vested this land.
Darien Fenton: Who thought of it first?
DAVID SHEARER: Maybe it was Darien Fenton who thought of it first. I would like to give her credit for coming up with that without having read the submission that Tim Macindoe told us about before. It raises an interesting issue, though, of how the name of George Parr and the word “ana”, which refers to the bridge, were joined together. I accept Tim Macindoe’s version of events in terms of how Parana Park got its name, and he might be able to enlighten us in terms of how “Parr” and “ana” came together in the name Parana Park, and how people came to know that park in the heart of Hamilton as Parana Park,.
Tim Macindoe: She was a child, and he wanted to do something for children. She had died the year before, and he acknowledged her. The two plaques are there. They look at each other; they merge.
DAVID SHEARER: That is a very touching explanation. I thank Mr Macindoe very much.
Tim Macindoe: You asked; I’m happy to help.
DAVID SHEARER: Ha, ha! I am pleased I asked.
I want also to touch on the point Sue Moroney raised, which was the 2010 issue. I think we could all benefit from the wisdom of officials, etc., in terms of how 2010 comes into the equation when we are debating the bill in 2011. As Chris Auchinvole said to us before, if this bill does not proceed as quickly as it should through the course of this year, it could actually go into 2012 and we could be putting it through under a new, Labour-led Government—which would provide the same support, because Labour members are supplying support today to the bill—rather than a National-led Government.
The third point I will touch on—and it was brought up by my colleague Phil Twyford—concerns the word “vesting”. There is an enormous amount of nervousness around the country at the moment about land and assets being sold off. I think the people of Hamilton are also worried about it. I do not think they are an exception. When the opinion polls say that between 65 and 70 percent of New Zealanders are opposed to the selling-off of our State assets, then I imagine that the same thing applies to land inside Hamilton. This park is a piece of land that is well used. The Hamilton City Council wants it to be protected. The bill has been brought to the House by David Bennett—and I congratulate him on doing that—on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. The bill, hopefully, will ensure that this piece of land in the heart of Hamilton—which is being used, as we have heard, for kōhanga reo, for various early childhood centres, and for a number of different uses—is preserved now and into the future. This park is an enormously important asset to the people of Hamilton, and the people of Hamilton need to be absolutely and utterly assured that the intention of this House in using the word “vesting” is to ensure that the park stays with the people of Hamilton so that they can have the use of it both now and long into the future. It is, as I say, an asset that needs to be protected.
I can understand why the people of Hamilton want to ensure that this legislation goes through—to guarantee that this land stays in trust for them, for their children, and for their grandchildren. At the moment there is an enormous amount of nervousness around the country about the selling off of assets and, potentially, of land that people feel they have already paid for. They have paid for this park, as well.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I will take just a short call to thank all members for their interest in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill tonight, and especially the Labour members and National members who have said such lovely things about Hamilton. I am sure they will get to know the city even more over the course of the evening.
I will address one point that has been raised by Sue Moroney with regard to the year of the bill being 2010. If the member refers to Standing Order 307 she will see that it provides a way for dealing with such issues. So we do not have a problem with the bill, at all. Thank you.
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I appreciate the solidarity that Mr Chairperson Tisch has shown as a former resident of the Piako area—and I am a former constituent of his, as it so happens. Perhaps that is the reason why I felt moved to speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, and specifically on the bill’s title.
I grew up in Morrinsville, and I like to clarify that because often people think that that just means I grew up in Hamilton. But they are two very different things, when one is from Morrinsville. However Hamilton was the nearest city, so the recreation areas of Hamilton, I think, were still very important to us. Of course, a trip to Hamilton was very special—so deprived was my upbringing. It was a significant move from the time I lived in Murupara, when a trip to Rotorua for the groceries was the highlight of the calendar month. But the point I wanted to make was that upon hearing Darien Fenton’s contribution, in which she delved into the history of both Parana Park and Hamilton, I wanted to come to the Chamber and explore whether some options for naming existed within those questions that Darien asked. I believe that she asked whether we should be putting into the title, perhaps, the history of the word “Hamilton” itself, and I am not sure whether that question has been answered yet. I have not been able to find the history behind “Hamilton”, but of course Kirikiriroa, the Māori name for Hamilton, actually means “long stretch of gravel”. I decided that on that basis I would not suggest that we call the bill the “Long Stretch of Gravel Park Bill”. The name was not really synonymous with the idea of a park, so I will not propose that. But I thought it was interesting that Morrinsville, one of the nearest townships, is a swamp, so the combination of a long stretch of gravel with a swamp is almost a match made in roading heaven.
I do not propose to rename the bill the “Long Stretch of Gravel (City Council) Parana Park Land Vesting Bill”, so I explored some other options based on a Wikipedia entry. Members will be interested to know that some of Hamilton’s nicknames are included in the Wikipedia entry on Hamilton. On this occasion I have not turned to Wikipedia for policy advice, as Bill English has done in the past, but I thought that from a creative perspective it might help us with the naming, the title, of this bill. So some options include “Hamiltron”, “the Tron”—I thank Sue Moroney—
Iain Lees-Galloway: City of the Future?
JACINDA ARDERN: “City of the Future” is not named, so we will not be using that as a potential title. There was “H-Town”, “The Fountain City”, which is obvious, and “Cowtown”. That is not one I have heard before, and I do not suggest to members that we adopt that lingo. Again, I did not think that any of those did justice as a title, so I will ignore those nicknames, as well.
I think that perhaps the best contribution for a potential title was from Nanaia Mahuta, who explored the history of Parana Park and its surrounding area, and I think she captured the significance of its placement and its space. When we look at the original history—because that was another area where I looked for a more fitting title for this bill—we find the idea that Parana Park was intended to be a children’s convalescent home and playground. I note that the commentary on the bill now mentions that “Parana Park is currently used for passive recreation,”. I would quite like to know whether the member Mr Bennett could inform us of the criteria for passive recreation, as opposed to active recreation. I would not like to explore, necessarily, the difference between passive and active recreation, but I think it is important that we title the bill appropriately so that in future no one feels obliged to move into active recreation, because that would obviously be outside Parliament’s intent for that park. If the member would clarify that, I would be very grateful; that would assist with the title of this bill, which is incredibly important to this Parliament.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the question be now put.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am very disappointed that National members are trying to shut down this very important part of the debate, but I thank the member Tim Macindoe for his very informative comments on the derivation of the name Parana Park. But I say to him that he is not the member in the chair, and I think that in order for that information to have credibility, we need to hear it from the member in the chair, David Bennett. That member is known for being all over the detail, and is known for being all about facts. Mr Macindoe is an honourable member, but until we hear that information from Mr Bennett about where the name Parana Park came from it is very difficult to take Mr Macindoe at his word.
The name is particularly important. There is a story about Hamilton that is very, very relevant to this legislation. When I was in Hamilton for a Labour Party regional conference, I went for a lovely walk along the riverside and came across Lunar Park—Lunar Park in Hamilton. But to my horror and dismay Lunar Park has nothing in it, at all, that justifies its carrying the name Lunar Park. There is nothing about space travel, there is nothing about “Hamiltron”, “City of the Future” in Lunar Park. I worry that the name Parana Park may also not be relevant to the particular area.
Sue Moroney: With due respect—
MOANA MACKEY: Sue Moroney tries to convince me that at some point there was a slide shaped like a rocket ship.
Sue Moroney: There was!
MOANA MACKEY: I believe her, but I have to say that—
Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s what they told you!
MOANA MACKEY: I thank Mr Mallard. I always welcome his contributions, particularly during my speeches—they are particularly helpful. I just want to know from the member in the chair, David Bennett, in particular, that the name Parana Park is relevant to the piece of land that we are discussing, unlike Lunar Park, which to this day remains a gross misrepresentation of that particular piece of land in Hamilton, and is a huge disappointment to those of us in the science and innovation area who went there expecting to see the living embodiment of “Hamiltron”, “City of the Future”, and found nothing—just an old slide and a couple of swings. Nothing! That was pretty much it. I am interested to hear from the member in the chair an absolute assurance that the name Parana Park is absolutely relevant to that area.
I want to pick up on a very important point raised by my colleague Jacinda Ardern when she was cut off by the bell. It is the idea of “passive recreation”. I was also very interested to read that this part of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill—[Interruption] Trevor should shut up. I was interested to read that this legislation is for the provision of land for “passive recreation”. I think we need a definition from the member in the chair of what actually constitutes—
Chris Auchinvole: No, you don’t.
MOANA MACKEY: I notice that Mr Auchinvole is telling me not to open that particular door, but—
Chris Auchinvole: We discussed this at the select committee, in closed session.
MOANA MACKEY: Well, I say then to the member who is interjecting that he was the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Why did he put “passive recreation” in the report back to the House if he is not prepared now to tell us what it is, and assure us that the title Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is appropriate for the provision of passive recreation? As my colleague Jacinda Ardern quite rightly pointed out, if people were to move into the area of active recreation—[Interruption] I tell Mr Mallard to be quiet. They could then be outside the intent of the legislation, as Parliament had intended. I wonder whether Mr Auchinvole could possibly take a call and explain why, as chair of the select committee, he decided that the intent of this legislation was the provision of an area to be vested for “passive recreation”, but did not provide Parliament with a definition of “passive recreation”. I think that is a fair point. Maybe Mr Bennett might feel compelled to take a call on the definition of “passive recreation”.
I have to say that whenever we see Government legislation with the words “land vesting” in the title we automatically take notice, and we want to know the detail.
Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s not a Government bill.
MOANA MACKEY: It may not be a Government bill, but this may be the way of getting things through in another way. We do trust the Hamilton City Council, but, of course, we are going through some very interesting debates in the House at the moment around the vesting of particular areas of land, where the Government has been less than forthcoming on its intentions. I want to know that when I see the words “land vesting” in a title we are not talking about the kind of land vesting that Parliament is about to push through.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move, That the question be now put.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I apologise if I repeat some points that colleagues have made, because I have been held up in meetings. But as David Bennett, the member in charge of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, and his colleague from Hamilton West know, Parana Park is an area that I do know relatively well.
As a number of us know, the park is the base for Anzac Day services and memorials. One of the interesting things I did as a first-time MP was participate in a march. I had been to the services before, but I had never been part of the march, and on the way to Parana Park people had to break their step in order not all to be bang, bang, banging on the bridge at the same time and causing it damage. It is fair to say that I was slightly concerned about that. When we were seeing 45-tonne trucks going over the bridge, the idea that a few old soldiers could break it as they went across was something that concerned me, but that was the practice. It might have been a habit that had developed from Bailey bridges, or other bridges that engineers had built and people had used in times of war.
I will go to the question of the bill’s title, and particularly to the name “Parana Park”. I have two substantive questions for the member in the chair, David Bennett. The first is by way of confirmation that “Parana” is in fact the name of a South American river that one of the founders of Hamilton visited on the way to Hamilton.
Grant Robertson: It turns out not to be that, but carry on.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It turns out not to be the case? It is fair to say that during a previous debate I spent quite a bit of time researching the name “Parana” to try to work out where it was, what the links were, and where that came from. I have not heard the explanation yet.
Grant Robertson: We did earlier, but carry on.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh well, I apologise for that.
Grant Robertson: It wasn’t from the member in the chair, though.
Sue Moroney: And that’s what Moana raised. It wasn’t from the member in the chair—one of us raised that point.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh well, it is OK if the Committee has heard an explanation. Was it believable and acceptable? [Interruption] That is fine.
I will go on to my second point, which I will address to my colleague from the Māori Party who is currently in the Chamber, Rahui Katene, and that is whether she, and for that matter the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, are happy with the way that the Geographic Board process has been bypassed in order to remove a traditional Māori name, not from the whole park, but from the section of the park at the south end—the brewery end of the park, if you like. I say that setting up names by way of legislation that overrides other Acts, as this bill will do—because, as we know, the specific overrides the general in these matters—means that a name that has traditionally been used for the southern section—
Chris Auchinvole: The brewery end.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, I am just indicating that the brewery is on the other side of the river. But it is on the south—well, it is not, actually, because we go over the bridge and turn left. But I am right; it is the southern end. It is, I think, the other bit of the park. I think the member in charge of the bill understands the section of the park I am talking about, which has traditionally had a Māori name ascribed to it. It has certainly been referred to in that way. I do not know about recent times, but roughly 20 years ago when I was a member in Hamilton—well, slightly more than 20 years ago—it was certainly referred to in that way. I am just wondering what Tainui think of the decision to override their traditional name and not use the process of the Geographic Board, which is the normal process. I would say that the Geographic Board has traditionally tended to leave options open in terms of using either imported names or Māori names. In this case, that right has been taken away from the Māori of Hamilton.
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 78
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.
Noes 42
New Zealand Labour 41; Progressive 1.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Clause 2 Commencement
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We are considering the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. We are just about to commence debate on clause 2, the commencement—a very narrow debate.
SUE MORONEY (Labour): Yes, this debate is on the commencement clause—clause 2 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. The commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent.” It seems pretty straightforward, but we have already heard quite a bit of debate on the title clause in terms of what year this legislation is coming into effect. Is it 2010 or is it 2011? I can well imagine, when we talk about the commencement, that surely the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent would be in 2011—
Chris Auchinvole: We’ve already talked about this. This is repetitious.
SUE MORONEY: —although Mr Auchinvole offered the view before that it might be 2012. He offered the view that it may well be 2012 before we get to the commencement of this particular bill.
I think it is important that we get to the commencement of the bill. This bill is about a luxury we have in Hamilton. I will depart from what has been at times a jocular debate this evening to say that at least in Hamilton we have the privilege to talk about this land and do not have to think about its destruction or about the things that people in Canterbury now have to think about very seriously. Every single piece of public—
Jo Goodhew: Commencement date!
SUE MORONEY: I am sorry that the junior Government whip does not allow me the opportunity, as it is one of the first times that I have been on my feet since the Christchurch earthquake, to offer my condolences to the people of Canterbury and Christchurch for what has occurred. I am sorry that she finds that offensive, but I take the opportunity to say that to the people of Christchurch.
We are talking about the commencement date of something that is fairly minor, in fact, for our city. I know that in a jocular way I said before that this bill must be the pinnacle of David Bennett’s career and, perhaps, of Tim Macindoe’s. It is great for the Hamilton City Council to bring this bill forward, but in the grand scheme of things, compared with what this Parliament ought to be dealing with and the things that the Government has ahead of it at the moment, this bill is very, very minor.
Tim Macindoe: Why are you dragging it out?
SUE MORONEY: Why am I dragging it out?
Simon Bridges: She’s not in drag, Tim.
SUE MORONEY: If the two members have stopped their interjection with each other I will continue.
I say to Mr Macindoe that this is the Committee stage on this legislation; the select committee overlooked the fact that it had the wrong date in the title clause. If we were not giving proper scrutiny to every single clause of this bill—as the Opposition, at least, is prepared to do—then that would have not been picked up. That is the role of this Parliament: to give decent scrutiny to legislation like this.
That is unlike what the Government is prepared to do with another piece of legislation that talks about vesting land. It is rushing it through a select committee process and rushing it through its processes in the House. Yet the Government is complaining because the Opposition dares to give this legislation the proper scrutiny that it is supposed to have in the Committee stage! I do not apologise for that at all, I say to Mr Macindoe, because that is actually the job of parliamentarians: to give proper scrutiny to legislation as it goes through.
Simon Bridges: So righteous.
SUE MORONEY: Mr Bridges has just said: “So righteous.”
Simon Bridges: If it wasn’t for you, where would democracy be, Sue?
SUE MORONEY: Good question. A great question from Mr Bridges. Where would democracy be in this House, quite frankly, if it was not for the Labour Opposition calling for democracy and proper process? I think Mr Bridges asks an absolutely appropriate question.
Simon Bridges: This is the bill to stake democracy on!
SUE MORONEY: It has to start somewhere, I say to Mr Bridges, because it certainly is not happening much in the legislation that this Government is putting through when it comes to talking about vesting land and who owns the interest in land around this country. I think it is quite useful that we are giving proper scrutiny to this bill, because it certainly is not happening with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to take this call on the commencement clause of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is, in fact, my first call on the bill. I wanted to take a call on the commencement clause, which is a very specific clause, because I think commencement clauses in legislation are vastly underrated and are not debated enough. Members fail to understand the significance of a commencement clause and the complexity of the issues behind a commencement clause. Although they may seem simple on the surface, there is actually a huge amount of complexity involved. I will talk members through some of that complexity.
This commencement clause, clause 2, states: “This Act comes into force on the date after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” That may seem very simple in writing; it is nice and clear in black and white. But what does “the day after … it receives the Royal assent” actually mean? In New Zealand it means, effectively, the day after it is signed by the Governor-General. The Governor-General in New Zealand has some reserve powers; the Governor-General could refuse to sign this bill. This bill could be passed by Parliament and the Governor-General could say he does not like it and is not going to sign it. The New Zealand Governor-General has that ability on behalf of the Queen, as it is at the moment, to refuse to assent to legislation.
Tim Macindoe: You’re making a mockery of Parliament, Chris.
CHRIS HIPKINS: Tim Macindoe says that I am making a mockery of Parliament by talking about the constitutional significance of the Governor-General signing legislation. I do not think that that is making a mockery of Parliament, at all.
Coming back to the issue of whether the Governor-General signs legislation, it is not the House that recommends to the Governor-General whether legislation should be signed; it is normally the Prime Minister, or often the Attorney-General, or it could be any other Minister. Usually a Minister of the Crown makes that recommendation to the Governor-General.
Tim Macindoe: How does this relate to the bill?
CHRIS HIPKINS: It has everything to do with this bill, because it will determine when this bill actually becomes law. Parliament could pass this bill and the Prime Minister could recommend to the Governor-General that it be signed into law. When that happens the Prime Minister may do so very swiftly, as Prime Ministers normally do, or he may not. The Prime Minister may not report it very swiftly to the Governor-General for signature and the Governor-General, as I have said, is under no obligation to sign it. There is a constitutional convention that Governors-General will sign all the legislation presented to them on behalf of the Parliament by the Prime Minister, but they do not need to and they have a reserve power to refuse to do so.
In fact, there have been instances in the past when the Governor-General has been petitioned not to sign legislation. I think there was some legislation in the 1970s regarding the SIS. The Governor-General at the time, Keith Holyoake, a former National Prime Minister, had the opportunity, should he have chosen, to not sign that legislation. It would not have become the law. He decided not to go with the people who petitioned him but to go with the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon. He signed that legislation and it became law. I think that that was the constitutionally proper thing for him to do—to sign the legislation so that it became law. Parliament ultimately has that supremacy in New Zealand. The laws of the land are made by this Parliament and it is incumbent on our unelected head of State to sign those laws on behalf of the people who are elected.
There is a remaining technicality in here, which is that this bill does not give a specific date on which it should come into force. That is quite welcome. As a member of the Regulations Review Committee I am aware of issues around allowing any flexibility around the dates, for example. This bill is very specific: the Governor-General signs it and it becomes the law. It does not contain what is called a “Henry VIII” clause, which gives the Government of the day the choice to introduce this law whenever it feels like it. It does not say that this bill will come into force on the day that a Minister determines, or the day that the Hamilton City Council determines. It is very clear: it comes into force on the day after the Governor-General signs it. The democratic process is actually being respected by the commencement clause as it is worded, providing the Governor-General does his part and does not decide to utilise his reserve powers and refuse to sign the legislation, which under our current constitutional arrangements he could do.
As I said, the commencement clause in legislation is, I think, vastly underrated. It is a very important part of the parliamentary process and one that from time to time we probably should spend a little time talking about so that those who pass the laws actually understand them, and those who follow the proceedings of Parliament at home—and there are many of them—understand what we are doing.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now put.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The commencement clause contained in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” That seems quite appropriate to me because it is about as fast as a bill can come into force. We certainly would not want to delay this bill unnecessarily, because it is a good bill. The member in the chair is signalling to me that he would like me to sit down. I suggest to the member in the chair that he—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member cannot bring the Chair into the debate.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I was referring to the member in the chair, David Bennett—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): OK.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —the member in whose name this bill stands, who was signalling that he would like me to take my seat. He might want to reflect on why the Opposition has taken so much interest in this bill and, in fact, is taking so much interest in all the bills before the House this week. He might want to reflect on that tonight in particular and this week, as well.
I come back to the commencement clause. The member would not want to put off this bill any more than is necessary, because it is a bill that ensures that a public asset stays in the public domain—remains in public ownership. We have seen many other attempts by this Government to dispose of public assets, so a commencement date whereby this bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent—the fastest possible way for it to come into power—is excellent and entirely appropriate. This bill is not a Government bill. It is a Hamilton City Council local bill. The council is working on behalf of its people and making sure that this legislation comes into force quickly because it ensures the public ownership of a public asset at a time when we have so many attempts going on around us to have public assets shifted into private ownership.
The other thing the bill does is bring certainty to the people of Hamilton in relation to the ownership of a public asset, and we need to see that happen quickly, as well. There is so much uncertainty for people at the moment with costs going up, GST going up, the unfortunate effects of the earthquake in Christchurch, and the fact that so much uncertainty has been generated around what that means for the public at large. Certainty around this legislation brings some certainty to the people of Hamilton as to exactly what the future is for Parana Park. That is a very important aspect of the commencement clause and the commencement date, which, of course, will occur in 2011, which is unusual for a bill whose title clause states: “This Act is the Hamilton city Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Act 2010.” I accept the submission from the member in the chair that that date should be reasonably easy to amend.
Sue Moroney: A Supplementary Order Paper would do it.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: We would gladly debate a Supplementary Order Paper from the member in the chair to tidy up that little anomaly in the title, and that would sort out any question marks around the commencement date, because it will look a little odd if an Act that has “2010” in its title comes into force in 2011.
Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s very muddled.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It does seem muddled, but this is a muddled Government, and I think it is just part of its programme to be a little confused and a little muddled. We really want to see this commencement date tidied. We do not want any questions marks over it so that when it does receive the Royal assent it can be quickly actioned and the people of Hamilton can have certainty in relation to what this bill means for them and for the piece of land in Hamilton known as Parana Park.
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am going to call Darien Fenton but before I do that I have a little clarification about terminology. Mr Bennett is the member in charge of the bill. The words “the member in the chair” would, by most interpretations, be regarded as referring to the Chairperson.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Thank you for that clarification, Mr Chairperson. We will certainly be careful about our contributions in the next little while. I am happy to take a call on clause 2, “Commencement”, of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010, which states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” We have had a very interesting dissertation from my colleague Chris Hipkins about how this works. What we are really talking about here is the Governor-General, who is the representative of the Queen in New Zealand. Right now we are going into a transition so it could be either the current Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand, who has been an excellent Governor-General and has done a wonderful job, as everybody in this Chamber agrees, or it could be the newly announced Governor-General, Jerry Matepārae, who is also a wonderful choice. There is cross-party support for that choice and there are a lot of things to recommend that appointment. I want to recall quickly if I may—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member should come back on track.
DARIEN FENTON: If I could just recall quickly in relation to commencement dates that my first year in Parliament was when we welcomed the then new Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand, and I am now looking forward to welcoming the next Governor-General.
If we are talking about the commencement date, I agree with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway that we want to see this come through as quickly as we can.
Tim Macindoe: So why are you doing this?
DARIEN FENTON: A lot of important dates for our country are ahead of us. The member has talked about those dates in relation to Parana Park. In this debate we have heard about what Parana Park delivers and what it is used for in Hamilton. Parana Park is used for things like a very important memorial service on Anzac Day. This year we have a very interesting situation around the commencement date and whether it will occur before Anzac Day. This year we have a coinciding situation with Anzac Day and Easter Monday, and that is an issue. While I am talking about holidays may I say that I believe that the commencement date will come after the memorial service next Friday, and the Opposition will support a public holiday for that. Other things are coming up too, and whether they will come up before the commencement date is another question.
Workers Memorial Day is 28 April. Opposition members may not have heard of this day but it is a very important day in New Zealand’s history and on the New Zealand calendar. It is when we recognise all the workers who have been killed or injured in their jobs. I suggest that 28 April this year will be a significant day, not only in Christchurch and at Pike River, but right across the country. I understand that there has been a request from unions in Hamilton to have a space across the river for Workers Memorial Day. I suggest that before the commencement date of this bill, that might be something that could be considered so that we show our respect for the people who when going about their business—their jobs—are killed and injured. Unfortunately those numbers are increasing every year. As I said, this year will be significant and I think members opposite should show their respect because 28 April this year will be a significant day. It will be a significant day in Hamilton, Auckland, Christchurch, and on the West Coast. Right throughout the country there will be recognition—
Simon Bridges: What’s that got to do with Parana Park?
DARIEN FENTON: It has an awful lot to do with the commencement date.
David Shearer: It’s celebrated in Parana Park.
DARIEN FENTON: Yes, that is right.
Of course, other things could happen either before or after the commencement date. There is the Rugby World Cup. Forgive me, but I am not sure whether—
Sue Moroney: It won’t be at Parana Park.
DARIEN FENTON: It will not be at Parana Park, but there must be something in Hamilton, surely, so people who are enjoying the Rugby World Cup will be able to take their children along to Parana Park and enjoy its wonderful—
Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I ask for some clarification from you about just how narrow you wanted the debate on the commencement date to be.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Quite a bit narrower than it currently is.
DARIEN FENTON: Of course there are other important dates. As we are talking about the commencement date, we have the election date on 26 November this year. That is a very, very important date. Will the commencement date be before or after the election? No one knows, because of that clause.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 76
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 3; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 77, Noes 43.
Clause 3 Interpretation
SUE MORONEY (Labour): Clause 3 is the interpretation clause, and there are just two phrases that it seeks to clarify. One of those is the meaning of the word “council” as it is used in this bill. Clause 3 states: “Council means the Hamilton City Council”. I reflect on a comment made earlier by my colleague Phil Twyford, who made a very good point about whether we are giving enough flexibility in naming the Hamilton City Council. Sorry, I should wind back and let members of the public know that the clause states that the word “council”, when it is used in this bill, means the Hamilton City Council.
Mr Twyford raised the question of why we would bind ourselves to that definition when the current Government seems to have a penchant for forcing amalgamations amongst various councils, thereby changing their names and making bills like this irrelevant. Under this bill, even if there was a forced amalgamation or an agreed amalgamation between Hamilton City Council and another authority—
Hon Steve Chadwick: Or a unitary authority.
SUE MORONEY: —or a unitary authority—we would have a bill that no longer made sense. It would state that every time we read the word “council” in this bill, which will become an Act, it would mean Hamilton City Council.
I for one am not in favour of forced amalgamations in my region at all, and I have been really clear on that. In fact, the Labour Party has made a public pronouncement that it is not in favour of forced amalgamations in the Waikato region—or anywhere. I specifically recall making that statement on behalf of Labour, for the Waikato area. I am certainly not proposing that Labour would want to see that changed.
Shane Ardern: The member should study Labour’s history. What happened in 1989?
SUE MORONEY: No forced amalgamations. The point I am raising is that we may be about to sign off a bill—
Hon Steve Chadwick: Take a call, Mr Ardern.
SUE MORONEY: Maybe Mr Ardern would like to take a call, because he has rather a lot to say. We are binding ourselves to an interpretation where the word “council” always means Hamilton City Council. In years to come, that may not be the name of the council. It might change because a Government might force amalgamations on other councils with the Hamilton City Council, or it might change because Hamilton City Council chooses to amalgamate with other local bodies. It might change because, as I think somebody else said in the debate on clause 1, the Hamilton City Council might decide to call itself the Kirikiriroa City Council in days to come. Who knows? But here we are saying that every time we read the word “council” under the interpretation clause it will mean Hamilton City Council. I certainly do not want to be responsible for coming back at a later date and wasting parliamentary time to amend this bill to reflect a new name for that council. I wonder about the wisdom of using that interpretation whereby every time we use the word “council” in the context of this bill it means Hamilton City Council.
The other thing the interpretation clause clarifies is that when the phrase “the land” is used, it means “the land commonly known as Parana Park”. We have already had some discussion about the fact that it might only be a section of the community who commonly know it as Parana Park, and there is another section of the community who know that piece of land by a Māori name. Never mind, this interpretation clause states: “the land means the land commonly known as Parana Park”. Then it goes on to describe that the park comprises an area “more or less 1.2141 hectares; and (b) described in computer freehold register SA128/41.”
I notice that before the Local Government and Environment Committee made its amendments there was a much more thorough description of that piece of land in the interpretation clause, and I wonder why it has been shortened to become, I would imagine, a good legal description, but significantly less than what the original bill contained in terms of describing where the land is. I would hate to see any dispute on this issue in the future.
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on clause 3 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, which aims to give more certainty to the people of Hamilton on the ownership and use of what they know as Parana Park. I was deprived of the opportunity to speak on clause 2 on the commencement of this bill. I understand that on the commencement of this bill the land defined in clause 3 as “(a) comprising more or less 1.2141 hectares; and (b) described in computer freehold register SA128/41.” will be officially put into the realm of the Hamilton City Council, so that the good people of Hamilton, and those who visit Hamilton can enjoy Parana Park. I also understand that this land can be described as “Lots 1, 2, and 3 on Deposited Plan 3401”. Under the commencement clause I would say that on that day the land would officially have gone into the realm of the Hamilton City Council. Being a Wellington member, I do not think I have ever visited Parana Park.
Sue Moroney: I will take you.
KRIS FAAFOI: My good friend and colleague Sue Moroney will take me there. I believe that this bill will also give more certainty to the Hamilton City Council about the way it administers Parana Park.
It is important to look at the history of the land and of the Hamilton City Council. I understand that the land was gifted to the people of Hamilton in 1929 by George Parr. Am I correct, I ask Sue Moroney?
Sue Moroney: Correct.
KRIS FAAFOI: I think I am correct. It was originally gifted to the people of Hamilton. The original purpose was for a playground and convalescent home, but it came to be that it was not suitable for a convalescent home, so the good people of Hamilton started using it for passive recreation, and that is what is set down in the bill. I understand that the Hamilton City Council uses it for Anzac Day ceremonies to pay respect to our fallen soldiers, and for other festivals.
As I was thinking about how Hamilton City Council administers Parana Park I wondered about what kind of activity it would try to encourage there. I am sure the council would be thinking of family activities and picnics, when families, mums, dads, aunties, grandparents, colleagues, and friends might get together to enjoy what the Hamilton City Council provides for them, and what we here tonight are supplying for them. Then I was thinking about what conversations would be going on tonight. If people were having a picnic tonight at Parana Park, which is administered by the Hamilton City Council, I think they might be talking about the price of petrol, and the fact that it has gone up so much, and looks like it might go up another 5c. They would also be talking about such issues as the cost of living, because they would be enjoying the outdoor area of Parana Park—as soon as this bill is commenced and the Hamilton City Council is be able to administer it. There would be increasing talk at Parana Park about what is going on with the Government of the member who is sponsoring this bill, and that under National things seem to be going backwards in Hamilton.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Interpretation.
KRIS FAAFOI: OK. Clause 3, “Interpretation”, defines the land itself and the council, Hamilton City Council, which will have administrative authority over this park. As I said before I was pulled up, we were wondering what kind of activity would happen at Parana Park. The people of Hamilton want to be assured that they can do that kind of thing at the park—have open, free, political conversation. As people enjoy Parana Park they could also talk about whether the member for Hamilton East’s Government is delivering a brighter future, and whether they would leave Hamilton and the beauty of Parana Park for Australia, maybe, as the wage gap between jobs in Australia and Hamilton seems to grow. As they sit there in the Hamilton City Council - administered Parana Park they could also talk about how they ran into Sue Moroney at Parana Park and how Labour has a plan for their future.
Sue Moroney: Yes, they will be talking about that. They will be.
KRIS FAAFOI: That is right.
I will also talk about the certainty that this bill gives the people of Hamilton. Although it is an uncontentious bill, we on this side of the House think it is worth further investigation clause by clause. It is such an important bill for the people of Hamilton that we think that the interpretation, especially, should be looked at very closely.
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I will take a brief call on the interpretation clause, clause 3. Before I do so, as it is my first opportunity to speak in the Chamber since the events of last week in Christchurch I will reflect on them for a moment.
The pain felt by people in Christchurch has really reverberated through all our homes in a very personal kind of way. The days afterwards—and continuing from then—have been quite a lesson in how a country comes together to grieve and to respond to such a catastrophe. I will reflect on that response, but first I will reflect on the dignity of the House and how it conducted itself on Tuesday and Wednesday the week before last, when we were here, and then throughout the period following the earthquake. May that approach continue for as long as the House has to respond to Christchurch in a particular way.
As an immigrant New Zealander I certainly felt very proud about our response as a nation to Christchurch. I live in Auckland, and I reflect particularly on how Auckland has responded. It has been a great delight for me personally to see the ethnic communities of Auckland coming together—the ethnic radio stations and newspapers, etc. They address Christchurch’s needs and respond to them in a very human and very personal way.
I acknowledge those in Auckland who have made a solid contribution and who continue to do so by opening their homes, making accommodation available, and collecting money and sending it down. My colleague Raymond Huo and the Chinese community have made a tremendous contribution today.
I will also reflect on the plight of the refugees who now have to leave Christchurch and find a place away from—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think the member has taken half his call on an issue. I am quite tolerant because of the drama that has unfolded in Christchurch, but we are now on clause 3 and I ask the member to speak on it.
Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. May I just finish what is a serious reflection on Christchurch during my first opportunity to speak in the Chamber since then? Are you denying me that opportunity?
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member has had 2½ minutes and has not once spoken on clause 3. I understand the sensitivities around Christchurch, but this is not an opportunity to pad out a debate in the Committee, which is what I am determining the member is doing. The member is welcome to take a call on clause 3. I have given him ample time to make an expression.
Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Clause 3 is a good improvement. The bill has been returned from the Local Government and Environment Committee with a clause 3 that is improved from the old clause 3. The old clauses 3(a), (b), and (c) were redundant, really, in trying to look at the three part allotments and record them separately. It has been a good move to be economical about the calculation of the land by adding up all the amounts and referring to the size of the acreage as well as to the computer freehold register. Clause 3 is an improvement on what went to the select committee. It is an economic way of reflecting the actual parcel of land that is now being referred to. Thank you.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I am pleased to take a call on clause 3 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I will reflect on members opposite tonight, who look very agitated about the fact that Labour members are taking this bill seriously and debating it in the Chamber clause by clause. I think they should feel very privileged that we are paying Hamilton the respect that it deserves.
I heard about the history of this land in the debate on clauses 1 and 2. I think we jumped a little bit of history, to 1929 and George Parr. We forgot the original owners of this land. I am sure that my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell will be really interested in this. This bit of land, I say to Mr Flavell, was confiscated from Tainui. It is quite interesting that we are now calling it Parana Park rather than the name Kirikiriroa given to it by Tainui. I think that issue should have been better considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. However, we have the bill back before us.
Part of the reason why we are concerned about the bill—and we like the clarity in it about the park being vested in the Hamilton City Council—is that we are really concerned that assets that have been built up by past generations should always be protected and never sold off, so that Kiwis can own their own future.
I think this bill, particularly the vesting of the park in the Hamilton City Council, at least fits our principle that we protect our assets, although there is some contention about the role of the Tainui Māori Trust Board and Tainui iwi, and in the naming of this land as Parana Park because that is what they called it in 1929. That is rather unfortunate.
This bit of confiscated land was ultimately freeholded, sold for generations, and then turned back into council land by George Parr. The bill protects the future of the land for its original purpose, which is covered in other parts of the bill. Clause 5 talks, really, about the tribute to George Parr and what he left for future generations of families in Hamilton to enjoy. So we are really pleased about the park being vested in the Hamilton City Council.
I think there should have been more caution at the select committee. My colleague Sue Moroney talked about forced mergers and unitary authorities. We know that when the next Government comes in, Rodney Hide, with his controlling mechanism of mergers around the country, will disappear.
That will give certainty to the next Government about whether Hamilton City Council actually has a secure future or whether we will face another bill like the Auckland super-city bill for Hamilton, which means we will have to go back and address this legislation all over again. I congratulate the member in the chair for sitting patiently.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Me?
Hon STEVE CHADWICK: Not you, no, Mr Chair—the member in charge of the bill, David Bennett. He should have a little chat to Tim Macindoe, who is not showing quite the same tolerance about the need for good debate about the bill.
We have learnt about the history of this law. We must correct in Hansard that Parana Park was confiscated Tainui land taken by the Crown in the 1860s. That is the reason we are debating this bill. We have been denied the ability to look at a Supplementary Order Paper on other bills that attempt to address mistakes of the past, like the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. We are absolutely fed up that the Minister tabled a Supplementary Order Paper yesterday on that bill that denies community access and public submissions. We will fight it over the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, and we will keep it going so the people of Hamilton know that we do not trifle with democracy on this side of the Chamber. We take things seriously.
We think the select committee did a fine job, but they did not look into the future with regard to the bill. We will debate the bill with fulsome debate right through every clause, because we believe in democracy. We know that people are listening out there. They know, and the people listening in the Chamber tonight know, that democracy was denied by the Government over the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I move, That the question be now put.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): It is a pleasure to take a call on clause 3 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I want to look at the interpretation clause, which is what we are debating. There are effectively three issues around the interpretation clause. Sue Moroney addressed the Hamilton City Council aspect of it. My colleague Steve Chadwick did the same in terms of addressing the risk of our changing the name of Parana Park and whether it is the most appropriate name for this park in Hamilton, although I concede that it is well known in Hamilton as Parana Park.
The other matter that I want to speak on is the amount of land that is part of Parana Park. It is very interesting to look at the interpretation clause and see the changes that have taken place from the 1950 Act to the bill today. Currently, Parana Park is the land “(a) comprising more or less 1.2141 hectares; and (b) described in computer freehold register SA128/41.”
Shane Ardern: How many acres is that?
DAVID SHEARER: It is not about acres. I will refer to the words in the clause that have been crossed out. This is quite a substantive point, and it is a question; I am not trifling with the Committee. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) have been crossed out. If I add the square metreage of land in paragraph (a), which is “2832m2 more or less being Lot 1 DPS 3401 (formerly Part Allotment 219 Kirikiriroa Parish …”, to the land in paragraph (b), which is “8700m2 more or less being Lot 2 DPS 3401 (formerly Part Allotment 219 Kirikiriroa Parish …”, and to the land in paragraph (c), which is “4856m2 more or less being Lot 3 DPS 3401 (formerly Part Allotment 219 Kirikiriroa Parish …”, my addition comes to 16,388m2, which gives us 1.6388 hectares. I do not quite understand the difference between what was the land called Parana Park, which comprised 1.6388 hectares, and the current area of 1.2141 hectares that we will be voting on today. This is a pretty important point. Somewhere along the line from one bill to another we have lost approximately 0.4 hectares. That is about an acre, I tell Shane Ardern. It is a considerable amount of land.
This is a serious point. I read through the submissions very closely, trying to find out where the 0.4 of a hectare might be. I went through the Hamilton City Council submission, which I thought might have addressed where the 0.4 of a hectare had disappeared to, but I could not find any reference to it. The conspiracy theorists out there might say that the Government sold it off, but I tell David Bennett that I would not say that. I think what we have here is a mistake. It could simply be that something has been changed around. But I would have thought there would be an explanation, either in the commentary on the bill or in Hamilton City Council’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I would like to ask the members of the select committee—particularly David Bennett, who is sitting in a chair alongside the Chair—what the discrepancy might be.
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 76
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 3; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 Purpose
SUE MORONEY (Labour): Clause 4 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is the purpose clause. It is probably one of the two most substantive clauses of the bill, so I expect to hear some very good contributions on it. I know that the Labour team is certainly very keen to make contributions on this important bill. The Labour members really have rallied to the call. I am very impressed with the caucus, because its members certainly have rallied to my call to see Hamilton as being a really important feature of New Zealand. That is evidenced by the Labour team’s contribution to the debate so far, which will continue.
The bill states that “The purpose of this Act”—presuming it becomes an Act—“is to … repeal the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958;”. Why is that? It is because the Hamilton City Council has determined that that particular Act of 1958 does not have the sort of flexibility that the council needs in order to administer the park under today’s conditions. We have heard that today’s conditions include the interesting concept of passive recreation, which we still have not really quite got to the bottom of. We are surprised that it was not in the interpretation clause. But never mind; that has gone by the by. We have missed the opportunity to have clarification and a definition of the actual meaning of “passive recreation”.
The bill is about enabling Parana Park to be not only vested in the Hamilton City Council—and we will debate that more fully when we get to clause 6—but used for passive recreation. I move around those areas quite frequently, and I would like to know what passive recreation is, so I can make sure that I do not have recreation that is not passive enough or that is too passive. I would like to know exactly what is required these days when one is in Parana Park. In fact, I will be there on Anzac Day this year, because, as we have heard, the memorial park adjacent to it is a really important part of the ceremony on that day in Hamilton.
I too am concerned about the point that my colleague David Shearer just raised about the 0.4 hectares that seem to have gone missing in terms of the way the land has been described. I ask the member in charge of the bill, David Bennett, what he has done with the 0.4 hectares. Where has that gone? All joking aside, I really want to make sure that we have the description right. We are describing for the first time in legislation now quite specifically that this land will be known as Parana Park, and then we are saying what the land is. I want to make sure that we have the right description of the land. My colleague told us that there was a very full explanation in three different parts when this bill went before the Local Government and Environment Committee and that it set out exactly the legal description of this land. In that legal description the land added up to 0.4 hectares more than the resulting replacement clause that has come out of the select committee.
I know that the Labour team will want to know the answer to that before we support the clauses further along in the debate. We will want to make sure there is not an inadvertent further confiscation of land going on. I am sure that would be an unintended consequence from the Government benches. It would absolutely be an unintended consequence from the Opposition benches. We are supporting this bill, so I sincerely ask the member in charge of the bill to respond to that issue in order that we can all be assured, in supporting the further clauses of this bill, that we are not supporting something that has an unintended consequence. As I understand it, the purpose is to make sure that the Hamilton City Council has certainty that the legislation fits its needs. I congratulate the city council on bringing this bill forward. I should have said: “drafting the bill for the member to bring forward”. David Bennett was quite right to frown at me.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Before I call the next speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, who has been trying hard to get the call, I wish to bring to the Committee’s attention a miscalculation in the votes on the closure motion to clause 2. The correct number is Ayes 76, Noes 43. It does not change the outcome. I seek leave for the record to be amended. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not. It will be amended.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is good to get those votes tidied up, but where is that 0.4 hectare? I wonder whether there would be room on that 0.4 hectare to form “Bennett Park”. That is what I want to know, and I wonder whether that is where it has gone; it is possible. It could be a place for passive recreation, or it could be more of an active recreation spot; we do not know.
Clause 4, “Purpose”, is the guts of what this bill is all about. The clause states that the bill vests the land in the Hamilton City Council as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and repeals the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. I happen to have the Act in my hand. The original 1958 Act was used mainly to change the use of the dwelling house, which had been handed over to the council for use as a children’s convalescent home, but as far back as 1958 that purpose was no longer suitable.
The purpose of the original Act was laid out as follows in the preamble: “Whereas George Parr, of Hamilton, farmer, deceased, who died on or about the twenty-sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, did by his last will, probate whereof was granted to the Public Trustee, give and devise his freehold property, being Number 3 River Road, Hamilton, and being part Allotment 219 of the Parish of Kirikiriroa, as the same is more particularly delineated on a plan deposited in the Land Registry Office at Auckland under Number S 3401 and thereon subdivided into Lots 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter called Parana Park), unto the Mayor, Councillors, and Burgesses of the Borough of Hamilton to be used as follows:”. I will not go into the exact uses, as we have covered those quite well.
That description is quite close to the description we saw in the original clause 3 of the bill as introduced. The purpose is to repeal the original Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958, which describes the piece of land in the terms used in the original interpretation. It was amended by the Local Government and Environment Committee, probably for very useful reasons but reasons that have not really been particularly well clarified in the House. The Department of Internal Affairs report to the select committee on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill recommended no amendments to clause 3. I should imagine that is because it fitted the purpose of this bill so closely, but that is a matter that we have moved on from now, although unfortunately it has not really been canvassed all that well during the debate tonight. It might be useful if the member in charge of this bill or the chairman of the select committee were able to clarify that matter. I think it would tidy up a few things.
The purpose of the legislation is to repeal the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act, and then to vest the land in the council as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. I note that the majority of submitters disagreed with clause 4(a) as it stands at present, and recommended that the land should be vested in the council as a historic reserve. It appears again that the select committee did not consider that was an appropriate action to take. The officials’ comment on this is that the clause gives effect to the advertised object of the bill to vest Parana Park in the council as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, and that the proposed amendment by the submitters would be outside the scope of that advertised object. But that does not really describe why that was considered to be an inappropriate course of action. It would be useful to the Committee if either the member in charge of the bill or the chair of the select committee could give members some explanation about that.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now put.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): I will pick up from where my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway left off, in raising the question of why the choice has been made to make the subject of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill a recreation reserve and not a historic reserve. There were, among the submissions received at the Local Government and Environment Committee—
Simon Bridges: You should be talking about Gloria Park.
PHIL TWYFORD: The member for Tauranga has a lot to say, and he thinks he is a bit of an expert on local government. But in 6 weeks of select committee hearings on the Auckland super-city legislation, the only thing that member asked about, after we had just sat through a long submission from the chief executive of the Museum of Transport and Technology, was the cost to get into that museum these days.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member knows why I am on my feet. It is about content; the member will focus on clause 4.
PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for refocusing this debate away from irrelevancies like the member for Tauranga.
The question at hand is why this legislation classifies Parana Park as a recreation reserve and not a historic reserve. That is the question, and it is highly relevant to the purpose section of this bill. The committee received a very interesting submission from the Waikato Tree Trust, and this was the main point that the trust made to the committee. It argued that clause 4(a) should be amended to vest the land in the council as a historic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. It made the argument that that would fit much better with the historic character of the area.
The trust also made the point that what really distinguishes Parana Park, right next to the Waikato River, is a fantastic stand of mature trees. The trust presented evidence to the committee that identified 27 historic trees in this reserve, including five English oaks that are more than 100 years old, and that were planted originally by George Parr as part of his settlement of the area. These trees are over 100 years old and were planted by George Parr himself. There is also an elm, a red oak, and London plane trees—all over 80 years old—that were also planted by George Parr. That really is the major reason for Parana Park to be considered a very special piece of the Hamilton landscape. To make it a historic reserve in this law would better recognise that.
The Waikato Tree Trust felt that the Hamilton City Council has not adequately recognised the importance of these trees. It proposed that in the schedule of trees, the council go and register and protect those trees, because as this Committee will know, the National Government has taken away the right of city councils and territorial authorities to protect trees of special significance by using group protection orders. So if councils want to protect our bush anywhere in their territories now they have to individually list every single tree, and that is precisely what the Waikato Tree Trust hoped to achieve in this submission. It felt that by making Parana Park a historic reserve instead of a recreational reserve, that would strengthen the protection of these mature trees. The trust noted that under the Reserves Act, historic reserves “are established primarily to protect and preserve in perpetuity places, objects and natural features of historic, archaeological, cultural and other special interest.” I think that it is arguable that that is a much more significant feature of Parana Park than the so-called passive recreation that we have spent some time discussing today in the Committee.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I want to pick up on what my colleague Phil Twyford was speaking about in relation to the purpose of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, which is set out in clause 4. I will address the issue he has just brought up. He mentioned the aspect of the value of Parana Park being historic as well as recreational. We have covered that issue quite a bit, particularly in respect of whatever passive recreation constitutes for the park. I imagine that passive recreation constitutes something along the lines of non-organised sport—something like people going to the park for a picnic and playing with a frisbee, rather than playing a full-scale rugby game or soccer game or whatever else. But there is an important point here, which was subject to some debate, and certainly a division emerged amongst the submitters on the bill.
The Hamilton City Council favoured having a recreational reserve over a historic reserve. I will just touch on the council’s thinking, because I think it is important. The council’s submission looked at the various classifications of the park. It looked at the possibility that the park should be classified as a historic reserve and thought that it had some merit for it to be classified as such, but on further investigation the council believed that the powers under the Reserves Act 1977 for a park to be a historic reserve focus on the historic values of the reserve, and the council felt that that did not adequately address the park’s recreational role. Therefore, the Hamilton City Council submitted that the recreational reserve option was strongly favoured, and I guess, from its perspective, we can see its point.
However, I think some of the submitters disagreed. Phil Twyford touched on the tree issue and on the number of very old and historic trees in the park, some of which, as he mentioned, could have been planted by George Parr himself—
Phil Twyford: They were—definitely were.
DAVID SHEARER: They were definitely planted by George Parr back in the 1860s. If we look at the park in relation to history, the park is on the banks of the Waikato River, and for the people of Tainui it has extraordinarily special significance in terms of its position and location by the river. It is right beside the Rangiriri area, as well, which is also of huge importance.
I will touch particularly on two submissions that were presented by Laura Kellaway during the course of the Local Government and Environment Committee hearings on this bill. She stated that “Historic parks”—and she made the differentiation between historic and recreational—“are special places that by capturing features relating to the community’s past, give insight into how the community was formed. This land, now known as Parana Park, can do that on many different levels”, and she went on to specify a number of them.
I mentioned the issue of the special significance of the park to Tainui, but right throughout history, from George Parr onwards, we see that Parana Park has special significance. The debate on the purpose of the bill, clause 4, that took place in the select committee as to whether the park should be a recreational reserve or a historic reserve is very, very significant. It is certainly significant to those people who submitted on the bill. I wanted to get on to this issue, because Laura Kellaway said: “In essence Parana Park is a historic place, as described in broad terms under the Historic Reserves Section 18(1) of the Reserves Act, and under terms of the Historic Places Act 1993.”
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I move, That the question be now put.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We are struggling for relevancy here. I will give the call to the Hon Steve Chadwick, with a caution to make it relevant.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): Mr Chair, I will be relevant to Parana Park, that is for sure, and relevant to the Local Government and Environment Committee members who considered this bill as part of the due process of examining any law that comes before the select committee.
I will talk about clause 4, the purpose clause of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. My colleagues speaking previously have touched on whether the park should be a historic reserve or a recreation reserve. As the spokesperson for heritage on this side of the House, I say Labour values the historical aspects of telling our stories as New Zealanders. I agree with what the Waikato Tree Trust and those from the Historic Places Trust told the select committee—on the day this bill was debated I was subbed on to the select committee.
I think that when we are looking to the future, how we look back on our past is of incredible significance. I think it is an opportunity lost that we are now calling this area a recreation reserve. I do not know what a passive recreation reserve is—it sounds like a legacy from the now-closed convalescent home that was on Pārana Park. There is an incredible history to this piece of land, going back to its confiscation from Tainui. That event is not commemorated in any way on this piece of land, and I think that is something the people of Tainui will go to the council over. It would have been even better if the council had reserved seats for Māori members, as the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001 allows. Tainui will say that part of their history as Tainui needs to be recorded on this land. We have lost an opportunity here.
We have lost an opportunity to have this land designated as a historic reserve—as a reserve that would have commemorated the great history of the past. Actually, the opportunity foregone by Hamilton City Council is really interesting, because George Parr himself was the son of a Mayor of Hamilton. It sounds like he was a great fellow in the past life of Hamilton as a member of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. This guy, George Parr, advocated for issues that are still being advocated today. The sponsor in the chair, David Bennett, needs to pick up on that. George Parr was looking to connect the Waikato River with Waiuku by means of a canal. That is a great idea for an electorate MP, and I am sure that my colleague Sue Moroney will pick up that bit of legacy, that bit of history that should have been commemorated in this land being designated a historic reserve in clause 4. What a pity that that has not happened! The other issue George Parr was a great advocate for—and let us remember our history here and tell our stories, for goodness’ sake—was for a train service from Kāwhia and Raglan to Hamilton. I think a visionary like Sue Moroney, who has advocated for the rail link with Auckland, will certainly pick up what needs to be done about rail links in the greater Waikato, in memory of George Parr.
There are all sorts of pockets of history related to this bit of land, from the confiscation onwards. Another rather charming piece of history that could be lost is a little stone bridge there that spans Gibbons Creek. It connects Parana Park with the memorial park. That bridge was built at the expense of Annie MacPherson, who died in 1928.
How beautiful it would have been if this bill had designated this land as a historic reserve rather than a recreation reserve under clause 4. Historic reserve status would not have precluded passive recreation—that would have been an enabling component—but would have been a great way for the people of the Waikato and of Hamilton City to tell their history, which is a history that has been built with the people of Tainui. So I think it is an opportunity lost. I understand that the purpose clause repeals the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act and vests it—
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 76
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 Land freed of trusts, etc, and vested in Council
SUE MORONEY (Labour): Clause 5 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is a very important clause. It is the clause that makes effectively null and void the last will and testament of George Parr, who gifted the land to the people of Hamilton. On the day after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent, the land is entirely vested in the ownership, if you like, of the Hamilton City Council. So it is actually a very—
Simon Bridges: Give us a families perspective.
SUE MORONEY: The legislation is very significant, actually.
Hon Tau Henare: What about a Māori perspective?
SUE MORONEY: I do not know why Government members want to heckle in the debate on this bill, particularly this part. But I invite Tau Henare to take a call—
Hon Tau Henare: Mr Chairman—
SUE MORONEY: Are you taking a call, Mr Henare?
Hon Tau Henare: Want to sit down?
SUE MORONEY: Are you taking a call?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It is disorderly for members to have a conversation across the Chamber. Contributions are to be addressed to the Chair, and the Chair alone. A member may ask another member to yield, and that member will yield if that is what the member wishes. We will not have a conversation. Contributions are to be addressed to the Chair, and I am ready, willing, and interested to hear what the member has to say.
SUE MORONEY: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am pleased that the Chair is ready and interested in what I have to say, as opposed to the members opposite, who just seem to want to heckle their way through this debate. But I look forward to their contribution. They will have a chance soon.
With regard to the vesting of the land in the council, this legislation is really an important matter. I want to make sure—and I would like someone from the Local Government and Environment Committee to give me this assurance—that an attempt was made to find any surviving relatives of George Parr, because this clause is effectively putting to rest his last will and testament. I do not want to do that lightly or without ensuring that any surviving relatives have had the opportunity to comment on this particular part of the bill. I would like to hear from someone on the select committee about that issue, because we are now laying to rest the Parr family’s official legal involvement with this very important piece of land, which, as we have already heard, is so important to the history of Hamilton.
George Parr, whose last will and testament we are about to part from in this clause, was an old and highly respected resident of Hamilton. He was 60 years of age when he gifted this land to Hamilton, and though he was 60, he obviously wrote into his last will and testament what he wanted this land to be used for. He wanted the land to be used for children. [Interruption] It was actually for children. I know that members opposite cannot understand why someone would be so interested in looking after children first and foremost. Those Government members over there have shown their colours—they have shown their lack of interest in children.
Simon Bridges: Next she’ll start to sing “We Are the World”.
Hon Tau Henare: She’s going to sing the “Red Flag”.
SUE MORONEY: They continue to do that by their interjections during my contribution on this bill. They do not want to hear about George Parr. They do not want to know about this man, who put children at the heart of what he was doing.
I will tell the Committee the other reason why those members do not want to hear about George Parr. George Parr was a visionary. He showed the sort of leadership that National could never imagine showing. When he was alive he was an enthusiast and an advocate for passenger train services in the Waikato. He was a visionary. I want to pick up that mantle, because I am the only Hamilton-based MP who is prepared to go out and advocate for a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland. Tim Macindoe is not interested in advocating for it, and David Bennett is on the worst end of the spectrum—he actively opposes a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland.
I think that George Parr would wonder what on earth had become of representation and leadership in Hamilton, because the two local MPs are nowhere to be seen in terms of getting passenger train services established between Hamilton and Auckland. You know, for the people of Hamilton it is an absolute no-brainer. We have a track—about 121 kilometres—between Hamilton and Auckland. We own the train service—well, at the moment we own it; we may not if this Government gets another term—but those members will not support it.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I appreciate the opportunity to take a call, but I have to say I am surprised I did not see any of the Government members on their feet seeking to take a call, particularly the Hon Tau Henare, who has made such a lot of noise from the other side of the Chamber. He has wanted to hear all of the different perspectives. He wanted to hear the Māori perspective. He could have got up on his feet and given us his perspective, but he preferred not to—I will take that glass of water if the member wants to bring it over. He has nothing to say, but he will bring me a glass of water; he is a gentleman and I thank him very much.
Clause 5, as my colleague Sue Moroney has said, is somewhat like the purpose clause: it really gets to the heart of what the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill is about. It puts to rest, once and for all, the last will and testament of George Parr. But that is not to say, by any stretch of the imagination, that this legislation would in any way upset Mr Parr, or annoy Mr Parr, because it is a continuation of his legacy.
Hon Tau Henare: How can you upset him? How’s that possible?
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Mr Tau Henare has asked how that is possible. I said that it would not. If George Parr were still with us today, he would not be upset by this legislation, because he, unlike this Government—unlike those members on that side of the Chamber who are making so much noise—
Hon Members: Had a plan.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is exactly right; George Parr had a plan. He wanted to see New Zealand going forward. He had a plan for the economy in New Zealand, and he had a plan for New Zealand society, as well, because he was a visionary. Economically, he wanted to see passenger rail services between Hamilton and Auckland. I would love to know when he was advocating for that, but I bet it was around the turn of the 20th century. Here we are in the 21st century and the National Government still does not want to see that plan go ahead, because it has no plan for the economy in New Zealand.
Mr Parr also wanted to see the water from the Waikato River being linked to Waiuku. Waiuku, actually, is the town where I grew up. It would have been very useful if Waiuku had had that link for a water supply from the Waikato River back when George Parr was advocating for it. There was a man with a plan. There was some vision—the kind of vision that, sadly, is absolutely lacking from the members opposite, who are barracking and making so much noise on the Government benches tonight.
George Parr did not just have a plan for the economy; he had a plan for his society, as well. He wanted to give back to his community. He was a man who was interested in his community, which is why he gave the land in Parana Park back to the community—so that it was a public asset that the public would be able to enjoy. It was not to be hocked off to some foreign investment company; it was there for the public of Hamilton to enjoy.
Not only was that the case, but George Parr had an interest in children’s health and well-being, because he set up a children’s convalescent home at Parana Park. There was a man who wanted to see good things happening in his community. He did not want to see front-line health services cut. No, he did not. He wanted to put a children’s convalescent home in the park. Mr Bennett is indicating that I need to get back to the legislation, but I tell him that this has everything to do with the bill, because this is what George Parr wanted to see happen. We are changing the use of the land that George Parr gave back to the community, so we need to talk about what George Parr wanted to see happen. He was a man who wanted to see good-quality front-line health services for his community.
George Parr was not out of touch with ordinary Kiwis in the way that this Government is. This Government is completely out of touch. He wanted to support ordinary Kiwis who were struggling to make ends meet, and he did that by providing an asset that everybody was able to use. Would this Government do that? No way—no way! That is not the way this Government operates. Its members would not have touched that with a bargepole, because this Government is not working for us. It is not working for normal New Zealanders; it is working for its mates and foreign interests—the people it would have sold this land to, if it had had the chance. That is what this Government is about, and George Parr would not have wanted to touch that with a bargepole. He would not have had a bar of it.
George Parr was a man who wanted to see his success as a Waikato farmer shared with the community, and that is why he vested this land in his community and handed it over to the Hamilton City Council. This legislation solidifies that. It makes sure that George Parr’s legacy will be respected and honoured by the people of Hamilton.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway made some excellent points in his speech. I will pick up on the relevance of the great legacy of George Parr, the man who built a children’s convalescent home on the very piece of land we are discussing here tonight. It is obvious to everybody listening to this debate that this National-led Government would have closed down the children’s convalescent home if it had had the decision-making power over this important resource for the people of Hamilton.
We are debating clause 5, which comes under the heading “Vesting of land in Council and related matters”, and it is a very, very significant clause in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Because of this clause, the land is freed of trusts and vested in the council. The land is no longer subject to trusts or to the last will and testament of George Parr. I think that change is very relevant, because we have seen a track record of this National-led Government interfering in—tampering with—the trust New Zealanders place in their elected officials to manage, govern, and steward the resources of this nation, the assets that generations of New Zealanders have invested in.
We saw a very, very good example of that interference that is highly relevant to clause 5. Only a few months ago we saw this National Government repealing provisions in the local government legislation that guaranteed to New Zealanders the right to be consulted before a local territorial authority could dispose of, alter, or change the terms under which land had been given, bequeathed, or donated by people like George Parr. Under the local government legislation provisions that this Government repealed, the people of Hamilton and the descendants of George Parr would have had to be consulted before the designation of this land was changed. But because of Rodney Hide, the Minister of Local Government, and the way in which he has run the local government portfolio for the last 2 years, the people of Hamilton no longer have the right to be consulted about the future use, governance, and management of Parana Park. That democratic right has been taken away from them. I reckon it is worth reflecting on that as we debate clause 5, which is precisely about the vesting of this land in the council—the fee simple estate in this land being given to the council. It is no longer subject to the last will and testament or any trusts related to the legacy of George Parr.
That is an important principle. The key word is trust, and trust is something that the people of New Zealand are rapidly losing. They are losing trust in this National Government. Te Ururoa Flavell, who has been here during this debate, brought a bill to the House only a few months ago to look at the Public Works Act having been used to take property away from New Zealanders over generations. It is often the case that the land is then used for other purposes.
Once this bill is passed, the fee simple estate will pass into the hands of the Hamilton City Council. The descendants of George Parr and the trusts associated with the legacy of the land will no longer have any relevance, and the Hamilton City Council will be free to do whatever it wants with the land, within the terms of this bill. I think that is worth reflecting on.
This Government has developed a habit of riding roughshod over the interests of communities and the desire of New Zealanders for special assets such as Parana Park to be managed in trust for the people of New Zealand. This Government has no interest in that concept. If it was up to this Government, it would probably corporatise Parana Park and hand it over to a hand-picked board of directors made up of the mates of Rodney Hide and David Bennett to manage it and make a profit.
Hon Member: Turn it into a dairy farm.
PHIL TWYFORD: They would! They would probably turn it over to a dairy farm, with the effluent running into the Waikato River.
Hon TAU HENARE (National): I move, That the question be now put.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am delighted to take a call on clause 5 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, which is David Bennett’s proudest accomplishment in his tenure as the member of Parliament for Hamilton East—his final months as the member of Parliament for Hamilton East. He wants this bill to be passed before the election, so that he can go out there and say to the people of Hamilton East that he has actually achieved something in the—what is it—5 years that he has been a member of Parliament. He has to have something to talk about, so he wants this legislation to be passed.
Clause 5 deals with the land freed of the trusts of the last will and testament of the late George Parr, and freed of the conditions imposed by that will. I have been very interested to read the biography of Mr Parr and some of the facts in it, but I have also been interested to read some of the history of the land itself, of course. It is interesting that there has been no contribution on this bill from the Māori Party, or from Tau Henare, Ms Parata, or Simon Bridges—because on reading through this information I have discovered that the land is confiscated land. It was Tainui land and it was confiscated land, so I am surprised that the Māori members on the opposite side of the Chamber have absolutely nothing to say about it at the moment—they have absolutely nothing to say about it at all.
The land is confiscated land. It changed ownership several times before it was bought by Mr George Parr, who, of course, later put it into a trust for the benefit of all the people of Hamilton. I am surprised by Mr Henare. He has been barracking and shouting a lot, but he could have taken a call, rather than moving a closure motion. He seems to have an awful lot that he wants to say, and he is getting himself very worked up over there. I am surprised that he is not keen to take a call and actually have a say on the bill.
I think that Parliament needs to be very cautious when we pass any legislation that potentially overrides somebody’s last will and testament. This is the second time, I think, in the time I have been in Parliament that I have been involved in a debate on legislation that does that. The first was a bill about Christ’s College, and freeing up money that was in trusts. This is the second piece of legislation. I think we really need to be careful about that. When people leave money, assets, land, or anything else behind, we need to be very careful that we do not override their last wishes about vesting that land and giving that land or placing it in trust. This land was placed in trust. We need to be very careful that what we do in this legislation is totally consistent with the objectives that Mr George Parr had when he set this land aside.
I sat through some of Local Government and Environment Committee proceedings on this legislation—not all of them, but some of them—and I wanted to be satisfied that Mr George Parr’s last wishes were being respected.
Simon Bridges: Whatever!
CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, this is a very serious matter, I say to Mr Bridges, and I care about making sure that people’s last wills and testaments are respected. I sat through the proceedings, and I was ultimately satisfied that his last will and his last wishes were being adequately dealt with by this legislation. That is one of the reasons why I will support it. I think it is important that we take the time to consider what those wishes were, and to consider what his motivations were in setting this land aside, because that will be particularly relevant when we come to the next clause of this bill, which is about the sort of reserve it should be.
Hon Tau Henare: You mean there’s another one?
CHRIS HIPKINS: We will debate that under clause 6—there are still four more clauses to go after this one, I say to that member. He can just knuckle down and look forward to it, I am sure.
George Parr was a very active member of the community, a very active—
Hon Tau Henare: He used to be!
CHRIS HIPKINS: I said “was”. He was a very active member of the community. From what I can see from the biography, he was from a very active family within the community. He was clearly very community focused—
Hon Tau Henare: Did you know him?
CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I did not know him, but I am sure, given Mr Henare’s his advanced years, that the member went to school with him. George Parr was clearly very community focused and active in the community. I am sure that would have been part of his consideration when he vested this land in his trust, so that all Hamiltonians could enjoy it and benefit from it. We need to make sure that we are being—[Interruption] He was a Rotarian in Hamilton, and I have a lot of respect for Rotarians.
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the question be now put.
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairman. Tū ake ana ahau i runga i te īnoi a tērā o tōku whanaunga a Tau Henare, i te mea, hiahia ana ia kia rangona i ngā whakaaro Māori e pā ana ki tēnei tautohetohetanga. Ēngari, titiro atu ahau ki tērā taha o te Whare, kite ahau tokotahi, tokorua, tokotoru, tokowhā me te hāwhe ngā Māori kei tērā taha, e mahara ake ana ahau he aha ai i horekau rātou e tūtū mai ana ki te whakaputa i ō rātou whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa. Mihi atu ki a rātou ēngari mehemea e hiahia ana a Tau Henare kia rangona i te taha Māori nō tēnei taha, māku e tū ake hei whakaputa i ōku whakaaro i roto i te reo Māori kia mōhio whānui ai tātou katoa i ngā whakaaro Māori e pā ana ki tēnei.
Tautoko kaha ana ahau i ngā kōrero a te hoa nei a Chris Hipkins me wōna kōrero mō te ōhākī o tēnei tangata a Hōri Parr; me te pātai he aha ai te ōhākī o ngā kupu mutunga o tēnei tangata e whakakorengia. Kua ngaro te mana i te mea, e huri ana te mana o tēnei wāhi whenua ki te kaunihera o Kirikiriroa, arā, ko Hamilton City Council. I ōku nei whakaaro, mehemea ko te ōhāki o ō mātou tūpuna ka mau tūturu rawa. Hōrekau mātou o Te Tai Tokerau e whakakorengia i ngā ōhākī o ō mātou tūpuna, pēnei i te ōhākī o tēnei tangata a Hōri Parr.
I rongo hoki anō i te whakaaro, nō hea tēnei ingoa a “Parana Park”. Ki tōku nei whakaaro, ehara tēnā he ingoa Māori ēngari, mahara ake ana ahau tērā pea, he whakaroatanga ake o te ingoa “Parr”. Ka whakaroangia kia “Pārana”. Tōku mahara tēnei. He īnoi ki te mema nāna nei i kawe mai tēnei pire ki te Whare, he aha tēnei ingoa i Parana ai? Nō hea tēnei ingoa i te mea, mōhio ana mātou ko taua whenua kei roto i te takiwā o Tainui. Mahara ake ana ahau, he aha ai i horekau he ingoa nō Tainui mō taua wāhi whenua? Nā reira, wēnei wētahi pātai e hiahia ana ahau kia rangona i ngā whakautu o te mema nāna nei i kawe mai tēnei pire ki te Whare.
He pātai hoki tāku, nā ngā tautohetohe, ngā whakawhitiwhitinga whakaaro i puta mai i te pō nei mō taua kotahi eka kua ngaro. Me te tautoko, tērā pea ko te hiahia o David Bennett kia whakatū tōna pāmu, tōna whare miraka kau i runga i taua wāhi whenua me te whakatupu i tōna kāhui kau i runga i tērā pito whenua. Me te āwangawanga hoki, tērā pea tētahi rangi, ka pahure ahau i tērā wāhi whenua ka kite ahau he whakapākokotia tino nui o te mema rā e tū ake ana ki tētahi kokonga o taua wāhi whenua.
Nā reira, wēnei ngā whakaaro i puta mai i tēnei te wāhanga tuarima o tēnei pire me te mōhio, e rima ngā wāhanga kei te toe tonu me tō mātou tino hiahia, kia haere tonu ngā whakawhitiwhitinga, ngā whakaaro e pā ki tēnei wāhi whenua; me te mōhio hoki, he whakamanamana ana mātou o te Rōpū Reipa i tēnei tangata a Hōri Parr me wāna whakaaro nui, ōna whakaaro rangatira mō ngā tāngata e noho ana kei roto Kirikiriroa; wāna whakaaro rangatira kia ōhākina tēnei wāhi whenua mō ngā tāngata katoa o Kirikiriroa; kia haerengia, kia whakatā, kia whakaokioki ai i ngā rā. Nā reira, mihi kau ana ki tērā tangata me wāna mahi hoki atu e pā ana ki ngā tereina me tana hiahia kia hangaia he huarahi tereina, mai i Tāmaki-makau-rau tae noa ki Kirikiriroa. He tangata tino whai whakaaro, rangatira ia i aua rā.
[Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise because of the plea by that one of my relatives, Tau Henare, that he wanted to hear Māori views relating to this debate. However, when I look at that side of the Chamber, I see one, two, three, 4½ Māori, and wonder why they have not made a contribution and why they have not sought the call to express their views. That aside, I acknowledge them. If the Hon Tau Henare wants to hear the Māori perspective from this side, then I will oblige him by expressing my thoughts in the Māori language so that we will all have a broader understanding of how Māori view this.
I strongly support the sentiments advanced by fellow member Chris Hipkins, his comments about the legacy gifted by this gentleman, George Parr, and the question of why the word of this man at his death was repealed. The legacy is no more, because the land is now vested in the Hamilton City Council. To me, if our ancestors made that testament on their deathbed, it would remain for ever. We of Northland would never break a testament like the one made by George Parr.
I heard the question, too, about where this name “Parana Park” came from. In my view it is not a Māori name, but I speculate whether it is actually an extension of the name “Parr” to become “Parana”. Anyway that is my take on this. To the member who brought this bill before the Parliament, I ask why the name became Parana. Where is it from? We know that land is in the Tainui region. I wonder why the Tainui name for that place was not picked. These are questions that I welcome answers to from the member who brought this bill before Parliament.
As a consequence of the points debated and commented on this evening, I have a further question, as well, about that single acre that is lost somewhere. Maybe David Bennett has plans to build his milking shed on that part of land, or raise his herd of cows on it. I have a concern, as well, that one day I might go past that acre of land and see a very imposing statue of that member standing on a corner of it.
These, then, are just some of the views that emerged in clause 5 of this bill, and there are five left. We really want the exchange of views in regard to this piece of land to continue. I know, too, just how proud we in the Labour Party are of this gentleman, George Parr, and his great intentions for the people living in Hamilton in bequeathing this piece of land to them to stroll about and relax on in future years. So I really acknowledge that man and all he has done. He had a significant interest in trains, and a desire to establish a railway line all the way out to Hamilton from Auckland. He was a person of great foresight, and a leader of his time.]
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now put.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have not heard from Kris Faafoi. I look forward to an enlightened speech.
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Taloha ni. Malo to the Hon Hekia Parata, who requested that I speak a bit of Tokelauan before I address clause 5 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I would speak entirely in Tokelauan if we had a Tokelauan interpreter in the Chamber—at least, I would give it a good go—but unfortunately members will have to listen to me speak in English.
Clause 5 is the fifth clause of 10 in this bill, so we are halfway. We are only halfway. We are looking in great detail into some of the very important implications of this bill. There are three subclauses in this clause and I want to address, first, especially for Mr Tau Henare’s benefit, subclause (1), which states: “The land is no longer subject to the trusts of the last will and testament of George Parr.” It basically takes away the influence of George Parr, who gave the land to the Hamilton City Council in 1929. As we have talked about many times tonight, he was a visionary, a man who cared about how children would be looked after, especially in Hamilton. His intention was that the land was to be used as a playground for children, and for over 80 years that is what it has been used as. I am sure that David Bennett has enjoyed Parana Park himself, with his children and perhaps with his parents, and it is because of the vision of George Parr that many generations of Hamiltonians and visitors to Hamilton have enjoyed Parana Park.
We also know that the house left by George Parr, who passed away at 60 years of age—a few years too early—was supposed to be used as a convalescent home for children, but over the years it has not been able to be used as that. So the Hamilton City Council for some time, and thanks to the local member who is sponsoring this bill, has allowed—
Hon Tau Henare: What’s his name?
KRIS FAAFOI: The Hon—no, sorry. He is sitting in the Minister’s chair—David Bennett. I will take away the “Hon”!
This bill allows the Hamilton City Council to use the land in the spirit in which the council and the people of Hamilton want to use it, and not necessarily specifically for the purposes set out by George Parr. Sue Moroney said before that during the investigation of this bill the Hamilton City Council exhaustively tried to find the descendants of Mr Parr. I believe that that has not been possible. Clause 5(1) allows us to move on, and allows the city council to take complete ownership and control of Parana Park for its own purposes.
Clause 5(2) is very simple. It states: “The land is no longer subject to the provisions of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958.” My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway referred to that much earlier on, so I will not touch on it. But I will touch on clause 5(3), which states: “The fee simple estate in the land is vested in the Council.” That basically gives the council full ownership of this land.
I want to bring up a point that my colleague David Shearer mentioned before on the mystery around the missing acre. It could be a simple mistake, but I hope that the member responsible for the bill will investigate that. Maybe he could call on the resources of the council. It may need the services of a simple calculator or it may need quite a lot of resources to find out where this missing acre is. I would like to congratulate David Shearer on pointing it out. It is interesting that this bill got as far as the Committee stage and no one realised that a complete acre of land that is meant to be gifted to the Hamilton City Council at this stage seems to be in no man’s land.
Clause 5(3) states that the fee simple estate in this land is vested in the council. We have talked about George Parr and the fact that he was a visionary who gifted this land at his passing. We know that he was very interested in making sure that this land stayed in public ownership. This subclause makes sure that it stays in public ownership, as it vests it in the Hamilton City Council. I guess that that is something a little bit foreign to National at the moment, because National is quite happy to sell off or mine some of our most beautiful parks and assets.
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 77
New Zealand National 57; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1; Independents: Carter C, Harawira.
Noes 43
New Zealand Labour 42; Progressive 1.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 Council to hold land as recreation reserve
SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to clause 6 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. This is an interesting clause because it not only declares the land to be a recreational reserve rather than a historical reserve—and I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee debated that at some length, by the looks of the report from the committee—but also recognises in legislation for the first time the park as being named Parana Park and officially calls it Parana Park.
Hon Tau Henare: Wow!
SUE MORONEY: Well, Tau Henare does not seem to understand the significance of this. It is completely obvious that National members have no interest whatsoever in what happens in Hamilton. They have absolutely demonstrated tonight that they do not take any interest whatsoever in what happens in Hamilton. It just shows the lack of influence that the local members have when their own caucus members will not even get up and support them in respect of this bill going through the House. They are not prepared to get up and support them at all.
I am very proud of the Labour caucus members who have supported Nanaia Mahuta and me by getting up and showing at every occasion just how important Hamilton is to them. I am really appreciative of that, and I thank my colleagues. I probably should have warned them a little earlier, though, that I am an administrator of a Facebook page called “Don’t bag Hamilton”. A few of those members were coming perilously close to being reported on that website, but they have pulled back from the brink now and have become very, very supportive of this bill, on behalf of the Hamilton people.
I want to come back to the issue of the name of the park, because I think it is really important. It came to my attention at the second reading, when my colleague Trevor Mallard pointed out that officially changing the name to Parana Park may not be as uncontroversial as it sounds. Although for a section of the community it has been known for many decades now as Parana Park, for other sections of the community that is not the case. Trevor Mallard said that Pūtikitiki is the name that the Māori community know Parana Park by.
Hon Hekia Parata: Really?
SUE MORONEY: I know that that is news to Hekia Parata. She does not know that. She has not heard of that before. But here we are legislating to officially change the name to Parana Park, yet, as Trevor Mallard pointed out earlier, we have not gone through the normal process of naming that we would do for every other piece of land. There is an Act of Parliament that governs how that is to be done, through the Geographic Board. That is normally how it is done. Yet, for some reason that has yet to be explained to me, we are departing from the process dictated by that legislation and we are instead officially recognising a name for a piece of land that has not gone through the Geographic Board process. I think we need to—
Hon Tau Henare: Whoop-de-doo.
SUE MORONEY: Tau Henare says: “Whoop-de-doo.” I wonder what most Māori in New Zealand think of Tau Henare’s response: “It doesn’t matter if there is a Māori name. Let us just use our Pākehā institution to change the name to whatever we think it should be.” Obviously Tau Henare thinks there is no issue in being really careful in this Parliament about what we name important pieces of land with historical significance. Maybe that does not matter to Tau Henare, but I can inform the Committee that most serious members of Parliament who take this job seriously recognise that there is a point to a process, particularly when it comes to naming pieces of land that are important to us. We must take that very seriously. We cannot decide on a whim to call it anything we like. Would Tau Henare be happy if we decided to call this Smith Park? Would he be happy with that? Oh well, maybe Government members do have plans for the 0.4 of a hectare that has gone missing in the calculations. We still have not discovered what has happened to that, by the way. But perhaps we could call this Pūtikitiki, which is what Trevor Mallard understands it is being called.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I want to take a call on clause 6 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It would be lovely also if Government members would take a call. They seem to be venting a lot of frustration about the fact that we are paying a lot of attention to this bill, clause by clause, tonight. There are two issues that I want to cover.
I am a bit disturbed at hearing from the banter across the Chamber tonight that Government members do not seem to care about the naming of this park; it is just preserving the status quo by calling it Parana Park in the new bill. I think my colleague Sue Moroney brought up a very good issue tonight. She said that the Geographic Board would have been the more appropriate place to put the naming of this park to. I am glad to see Pita Sharples look wisely across the Chamber, over his glasses, at me. As Minister of Māori Affairs I think he will be concerned, now that he has heard that the Waikato District Council just decided that tonight in clause 6 we will enshrine the name Parana Park. I have seen the Minister of Māori Affairs go: “My golly. Here’s a lost opportunity. My golly, I think I will get the Geographic Board to have a look at this. My golly, it could have been called Pūtikitiki. It could have been called Kirikiriroa.” There are many names.
An opportunity has been lost by this Government, as its members are demonstrating tonight. They are saying to push this through. They want to get on to the next item of business on the Order Paper. Well, Opposition members do not. We want to give this bill due concern and due consideration. I am pleased that I am receiving very good vibes from the Minister of Māori Affairs. He might just go to the Geographic Board. That board came up with “Whanganui”, which we think was a wonderful decision. In fact, when I was Minister of Conservation I too thought that a lot could be done about giving several areas in New Zealand their proper names—their names before Pākehā confiscation. That would have settled a lot of wrongs. But this Government is determined that we are going to look at huge Supplementary Order Papers, we are not going to get legal advice, we are not going to refer the marine and coastal bill back to select committee, we are just going to ram it through—that is why we are debating this bill tonight. I think that during the debate tonight we have brought up some wonderful points. I have seen Pita Sharples writing on his BlackBerry.
Let us have a look at this Parana Park bill. It is called the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, and I would like to see the Minister take up the opportunity to put a referral to the Geographic Board to say: “How the heck can some of these bills just include a roll-over name like Parana Park?”, which is what clause 6 does. I think that is a pity. The park was called Parana Park. Parana Park had its time and place. I say to Pita Sharples that this very park was on confiscated land, for goodness’ sake! It was ultimately freeholded, and that is how it got into George Parr’s ownership. He made a very generous and benevolent gift to Waikato, but this bill causes another opportunity to redress a wrong of the past. I think the naming as enshrined in clause 6 will cause some concern in the future. Tainui will look at it. This is not necessarily an uncontroversial bill, and I think that is why we want to debate it very vigorously.
Clause 6 also talks about the recreation reserve. It enshrines the recreation reserve. I think that has been rather charmingly done. I want to congratulate the Hamilton Beautifying Society—[Interruption]—if I can, I say to Mr Henare. It is nice to say thank you to those who have contributed positively. The society has done a lot of good voluntary work in Parana Park. It has built a children’s paddling pool.
Hon Tau Henare: Good on them!
Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I would not demean the society.
Tim Macindoe: It’s been there all your lifetime.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK: That is what the Hamilton Beautifying Society did. Then it put a lovely picnic shelter where the stables were, and then a brick fireplace was built by the Rotary Club of Hamilton and presented to the Hamilton Girl Guides. Bless them.
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now put.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): It is a pleasure to take yet another call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. We are now considering clause 6, but in looking at clause 6 I realise that clause 7 of the bar 1 bill has been incorporated into clause 6 of the bar 2 bill. I ask whether there will be a renumbering of the bill as it stands at the moment, in order that we do not jump from clause 6 to clause 8. I am fairly new to Parliament, but I would have thought that would be corrected when the final draft comes through. It is possible that the deleted clause 7 remains in the bar 2 bill just to show that it was originally there. Nevertheless, I wanted to bring that to the Committee’s attention as I start to talk about clause 6.
Hon Tau Henare: There are some people whom I really like to listen to, and this guy’s not one of them.
DAVID SHEARER: I was just about to compliment you on your wonderful right arm over the wicket bowling action.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The Chairperson—[Interruption]. I say to members that this is a debate, and the debate is addressed to the Chairperson. Private conversations are for the Ayes lobby, the Noes lobby, or Copperfields. This is a debating chamber. Debates will be through the Chairperson, and I do not have a fine overarm action. I invite the member to continue with his presentation on clause 6, which is the subject of members’ discussion.
DAVID SHEARER: Of course I do not believe that you have a strong overarm action, and hopefully not underarm either. The second issue I want to talk about in this clause comes back to the nearly half-hectare that disappeared as a result of this legislation coming through. One acre has disappeared from Parana Park.
Hon Tau Henare: White man’s magic!
DAVID SHEARER: Well, I would like to ask David Bennett whether he could investigate that, and find out where that 1 acre has disappeared to.
I was reading through some of the history that has been supplied to us, and some of the submissions that were given to us, and I was particularly looking at the submission by Laura Kellaway. It was an excellent submission, and it is relevant to this park. I note that she mentioned the property that George Parr gifted included the house. She stated that the house probably dates from 1906 to 1910, and has been fenced off for many years, and has been used by the council park staff. That is interesting in itself, but it would have been nice to know whether the house, as well, is part of Parana Park.
The questions I am posing to the member in charge of the bill are, firstly, what has happened to the 0.4 hectares, and, secondly, what is happening to the house. It occurred to me, as I was looking at that material, that perhaps the area around the house might be the 1 acre that we have lost somewhere in the course of this debate. I do think it is an important point. We understand that the house is being used by the council staff themselves. It might be useful to know.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I move, That the question be now put.
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): I stand on behalf of all descendants of Hoturoa, the chief of the Tainui waka, to address the travesty of justice that is being perpetuated in the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill by it calling this park Parana Park. We do not know where that name came from. We descendants of the Tainui waka know that this sacred tūpuna ancestral land has been known for mai rānō, since time immemorial, as Pūtikitiki, not Parana Park. We do not know where the name Parana Park came from. Someone named it that back in 1920-something, when old George Parr passed away. Although I was born and bred in Ngāpuhi and am from way up north, I also draw on my Tainui links, and I stand here on behalf of Tainui and say that I think Tainui should have had a say in the name of this park. This bill will vest this piece of land, otherwise known as “David Bennett’s Farm”, in the Hamilton City Council, and it will be known as Parana Park. It is a travesty of justice that we do not recognise its ancestral name of Pūtikitiki.
I heard Tau Henare opposite, my whanaunga, with his northern dialect, say that he thought the name was “Pūtikotiko”. Well, I tell you what, that means something totally different, so I want to make clear that the proper pronunciation is “Pūtikitiki”. Parana Park can be pronounced Parāna Park or Pārana Park. I was a bit scared they might call it “Panana Park”, which means “Banana Park”. If we can call it just anything, such as Parana Park, why do we not call it “Panana Park”, “Pa Park”, “Bennett Park”, the “Bennett Farm”, or the “Bennett Homestead”? After all, it is a memorial to David Bennett. As has already been mentioned in the Chamber tonight, this bill is his greatest achievement in 5 years. He is even reputed to say that this beats his passing School Certificate back in 1982.
We need to address this issue. Pūtikitiki is the ancestral name of Parana Park, but because of this bill it will be known as Parana Park. I think it is right that we acknowledge the ancestral name, the true name, of that piece of land. The bill has probably progressed too far now to change that but let us at least acknowledge it. We did kick up a big stink over the whole Whanganui/Wanganui debate, and how we as Māori were really particular about the “h” in the name. Our whanaunga opposite Tau Henare says who cares that it is not named Pūtikitiki, and that it will be known instead as Parana Park. That is a bit of a laugh, because we went to all those lengths to make sure Whanganui had the “h” put into it and was not spelt Wanganui. I remember the debate about Michael Laws when he got stuck into those kids from Ōtaki School who dared to challenge him on the whole adding the “h” thing. We stood up and defended those kids and their belief that their ancestral names and the correct names should be used. Here we have Tau Henare, my whanaunga from up north, saying who cares about Pūtikitiki—let us call it Parana. We know that Tau Henare wants to get home tonight and he wants this debate to end. He is tired; he is jaded. We have been sitting for a good day and a half this week and he is feeling a bit jaded from all the work.
Hon Steve Chadwick: He’s trying to bulldoze the House.
KELVIN DAVIS: My colleague Steve Chadwick is right. But I have to admit that we in Labour do enjoy his interjections, because they makes us feel lively and really want to keep going. They make us really want to get into this debate and to continue on. There are four more clauses to this bill that we are happy to debate.
I think it is important that we recognise that Parana Park does have a Māori name, a name from way back, and it is Pūtikitiki, not Pūtekoteko, not Pārana, or Panana, or anything else. The name Pūtikitiki is the name that the ancestors of the Tainui people bestowed upon this piece of land. I will not carry on too much longer. I just wanted that point to be well and truly made. Kia ora.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I will address some of the detail of clause 6 of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, which is all about the council being able to hold the land as a recreation reserve. Clause 6(1) refers to the Reserves Act 1977 and states that Act applies now to the land as if the council had declared that the land be held for the purposes of a recreation reserve under section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of that Act states that a “local authority may … declare any land vested in it to be a reserve”. That is all about ensuring that local authorities have the power to set aside portions of land as reserve land that is available to all of the citizens that fall under their authority. It is very much about providing a service for the public, which everybody is able to access. Section 14 of the Act also refers to other sections, sections 17 through to 23. Those are the sections that lay out the type of reserve that a council will vest a piece of land as being. The choice was made for this land to be a recreation reserve under section 17 of the Act.
Earlier in the debate we questioned why the Local Government and Environment Committee chose a recreation reserve over a historic reserve, which is allowed under section 18 of the Act, and which a number of submitters had suggested would be possible. But if we look at those parts of the Act we see that it does make sense that Parana Park be a recreation reserve rather than a historic reserve. Recreation reserves are classified as being reserves “for the purpose of providing areas for the recreation and sporting activities and the physical welfare and enjoyment of the public, and for the protection of the natural environment and beauty of the countryside,”, and a range of other provisions, as well, which would be shared with a historic reserve. But historic reserves, on the other hand, are classified as being reserves “for the purpose of protecting and preserving in perpetuity such places, objects, and natural features,”.
If we go back to the original purpose that George Parr had for this land, we see that it was very much to be a space that was accessible to everybody for recreation. It was to be a place where children could play as well as having the building in which children could convalesce. That was his original purpose, and I think that although this bill ultimately overrides his final will and testament, the desirable outcome is that we stick as closely to his original intentions as possible. So having a recreation reserve that is available for all of the public is appropriate.
There were other choices available for Mr Parr. He did not have to offer that land up for the public. He could have kept it in his family, he could have had it sold on for private personal gain, or he could have denied the public access to it. But, no, he chose to do something quite different from that. He did something that was—frankly, I suppose there is no better way to put it than this—for the many and not the few. That was a laudable outcome, I think. It is great that we had someone as far back as that who was thinking in those terms. Clause 6 reinforces that.
There is some controversy about the name that has been chosen. We have traversed that quite extensively. Often these areas of land are known by common terms that are accepted by the people in the area, though the names are not a legal term and have no legal strength. But clause 6 says this area will be known as Parana Park, despite the fact that there are a number of different options and probably a number of different ways that people will continue to refer to the land. One can legally change the name of something.
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the question be now put.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1; Independent: Harawira.
Noes 52
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C.
Motion agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): We now come to clause 7—sorry, clause 8. Clause 7 no longer exists; I think it is with the half-hectare of land.
Clause 8
Vesting of land not gift, supply of services, or disposition, for certain purposes
SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. You have reminded us that we still have not found that missing 0.4 hectares, which I believe probably add up to about an acre. Before the end of play tonight it would be really great to find out what has happened to the 0.4 hectares, if the member in charge of the bill would please enlighten us. It is obvious from the contributions of Labour members that it is of concern to the Labour Opposition. We are supporting the bill, so we want to make sure that our votes are being cast in good faith. We are placing some trust in the member on this issue, but to be fair we would like to know before the close of play tonight the situation with regard to the missing land.
Clause 8 is interesting, in that the Hamilton City Council is ensuring that it does not have any unforeseen financial liabilities as a result of having this land vested in it. It is interesting that Hamilton City Council had some real foresight in drafting this particular provision. Did it ever see this National Government coming! The council really worked out what this Government would be up to. The first thing the council has said is that it wants to make sure that the land, by being gifted to, and now vested in, the council, does not draw gift duty. We know that the National Government announced some time ago that it would get rid of gift duty. We have not yet seen any legislation come back before the House that I recall.
David Bennett: Yes.
SUE MORONEY: We have? Has it had its first reading?
David Bennett: It’s before its second reading.
SUE MORONEY: No, I am sorry; I do not recall it. I am relying on the member in charge of the bill, David Bennett. I remember that the Hon Peter Dunne made some grand announcements about getting rid of gift duty, but I do not recall having seen a bill be introduced to do that yet. Labour has made its position on gift duty clear. We do not believe that it should be abolished, and here we are with the council saying it does not want it. The council wants to make sure that it does not get landed with gift duty from the vesting of the land in the council.
Subclause (b) of clause 8 is even more interesting, as it is about making sure that the vesting of the land is not subject to GST and to the Goods and Services Tax Act. Did the council ever see what the National Government would get up to! I am sure that when the council drafted the bill, most of New Zealand still believed that when John Key promised he would not put up GST, he would not. Most of New Zealand still believed that to be the case when the council drafted the bill. But the council has it worked out here that it could not trust what John Key said at election time. The council knew then that it could not trust him.
Iain Lees-Galloway: Visionary.
SUE MORONEY: It was absolutely visionary. The council has absolutely made sure that it would not be subject to the increased GST that the National Government landed upon everyone in this country from 1 October last year.
I imagine that the council was probably drafting this bill before the 2008 election. For the bill to have reached this stage, it must have been drafted before this Government came into office. In this bill the council was making absolutely sure that it would not be subject to any increased GST rate from an incoming National Government, even though at the time when it was drafting this bill it would have been hearing the then Leader of the Opposition, John Key, saying that if he was elected as Prime Minister, there would be no increase in GST. The city council probably would have heard those words. Clearly it heard what John Key was saying, but it did not trust him. It did not trust him at his word, because when the council was drafting this bill it made doubly sure that it would not be pinged with National’s increased GST by having this land vested in it.
If only the rest of New Zealand had had the wisdom to see what the Hamilton City Council saw then. If other people had been able to look into the eyes of John Key when he promised not to increase GST and had had the wisdom to think that he did not mean that, then families would not be facing the increased costs that they face today, with every single thing that they buy having an increased rate of GST on it—petrol prices, food prices, you name it.
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): We are coming towards the end of the debate on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, but I wanted to take a quick call on clause 8. As we pointed out before, clause 7 has quietly disappeared into the miscellaneous provisions.
Clause 8 refers to the vesting of land and explicitly states: “Vesting of land not gift, supply of services, or disposition, for certain purposes”. The “vesting of land” is referring to the trusts of the last will and testament of George Parr. Clause 5 refers back to that trust, and I was wondering what sort of trust it might be. I can almost guarantee that it would not be a blind trust he was able to dip into every now and then for whatever he wanted. This would have been one of those trusts that he set up as an honourable man, as a man with vision, as a man with real compassion for his community, and as a man who saw the need, for example, for a rail link to Auckland. This was a man whom we could easily vote in as Prime Minister, for example. This was a man who had a legal trust and had vision. He probably had a plan as well.
This bill vests this land to ensure that it is vested in the council for the people of Waikato, and, in particular, the people of Hamilton.
I touch on clause 8(b), which states that the vesting of land will not be subject to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985. This clause makes the land—as I read it, anyway—one of the few exceptions in this country where people will not have to pay GST on something. Everybody else in the Hamilton area is paying GST on fuel prices and on their groceries, which they are barely able to afford. In this bill we see an exception being made. It is a correct exception, but nevertheless an exception that does not apply to the rest of the people of New Zealand. The rest of the people of New Zealand are paying their GST and being promised that they will be recompensed by a reduction in income tax, but they realise they are being cheated in that regard, and that the people at the other end of the scale—the rich people in this country, and I include the Prime Minister in that group—are earning $1,000 more a week as a result of that tax cut.
The third point I raise is the fact that the vesting of this land has the agreement of Waikato-Tainui. We talked about the fact that this land is descended from the raupatu in 1863. This land is actually historically taken land.
Progress reported.
Report adopted.
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.