Auchinvole Chris: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2953] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak against the Historic Places Amendment Bill. This bill is yet another plank on the stairway of Labour’s limp legacy. Labour says it will be remembered for things—Labour’s limp legacy of gross over-regulation. When I come into the House week by week I am alarmed to see the ever-mounting movement towards over-regulation. One sees it in select committee work one hears it in debates such as this one and somewhat insidiously one hears about it in Orders in Council. 
There are not many avenues in life left where this Government has left any life. It saps the life out of everything it touches by stealth such as the on-again off-again approach to private property access by the public on farms by tortuous manipulation of the real facts such as with Plunket or in the case of this bill by over-regulation and through supplanting the present governance system. 
The intention is to reduce the present number of board members from 11 down to nine. We heard Government members say there are no problems with that; it is reducing bureaucracy and that surely that is in keeping with National Party policy. But listeners know as well as I do that things are not always as they seem under this Government. I am truly sorry to say that I had hoped for better— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So do we! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I am sure you do. In company with the many people I speak to in the community some who perhaps previously supported Labour we have to look at everything that Labour says to check for the hidden bits. The Government asks what is the problem in reducing board membership from 11 to nine. The problem is that of the nine six will be appointed by the Minister. That flies in the face of community democracy. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who are they appointed by now? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Read the bill. They are ministerial appointments. We will see the board stuffed with Labour Party ideological sycophants a cluster of clerks cronies who come in all shapes and sizes nowadays all crooning the party song. They will exploit the trust for party political ends rather than serving the historical purposes of the trust. It is not even Labour philosophy I would suggest. It is more about the institutions of Parliament being altered to better reflect the image of the Prime Minister’s personal programme. 
That there is a programme is not in doubt. The Government is moving flat tack to batten down and lock up every free-thinking community representative body as quickly as it can. What is wrong with having community elected representatives? The answer is that they will not necessarily follow the party line and increasingly that is the requirement of the present Labour-Progressive - part-time New Zealand First - part-time United Future coalition Government. I say “present” because I do not think it has much of a future. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Really! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I really do not. The talk is we are already seeing people sneakily “leakily” showing bits of the Budget—fairly major bits—and stealing what little thunder the Budget might have had. The resultant document will be a pop rather than a bang. Why did that happen? Did someone wish to escalate himself or herself through being first with the news? Did someone wish to accelerate the demise of the current Minister of Finance? Who knows what the intentions are and what is lingering in the lobbies. But it is sad that the only plum that can be pulled out of the pie is that the Government is debt-free at a time when “New Zealand Incorporated” has never been in greater debt. It is a little bit like Little Jack Horner pulling out a plum and saying: “Oh what a good boy am I!” But I doubt whether there will be accolades on either side of the House. 
The Historic Places Amendment Bill shows scant regard for the protection of property rights. Property rights of ownership must be superior to any other claim over the property but I am apprehensive about that being the case if we have a stacked deck. Labour presently is showing scant regard for property owners’ rights so I find it a big stretch of the imagination to expect a Labour-appointed board to show regard for private property rights. That is in the bill. 
I have great regard for the comments made by other colleagues who have been insightful in their consideration of the definition of wahi tapu. Let us remember that when Europeans first came here life would have been pretty rugged for the Maori people. I believe that the average male life expectancy was 22 years. The wahi tapu will of necessity have been a small discrete area of sacredness as suggested by experts at Waikato University.Maori people would not have had the capacity to embrace large areas of land any more than the early Europeans could particularly in regions of difficult topography. 
Coming to Parliament as I do from the West Coast and Tasman regions I am conscious of the feelings of people in those regions towards their heritage. That too is an added concern to me in relation to the representation on the board. For where does the interaction come from with local communities? That is a question that perhaps members opposite would care to answer. But I do not think they will. Coasters in particular have concern that the emphasis put on Coast heritage matters by those outside the Coast do not adequately represent the aspirations and views of the local people towards their heritage. Heritage is a very important factor down there. So much of the early heritage is at risk and I am not sure that the amendments really serve the purpose that is required. 
Darren Hughes 
: I like your tie the best. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thank you for your kind comments on my dress sense. I have never pretended to be particularly sartorial but if I dress in the best tradition of some of the previous leaders of the country it is an emulation that is worthwhile. 
Hon Member 
: When he is the leader of the country? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No but many have been who dressed particularly well. I like my waistcoat because it hides the interconnection above the belt and below the belt. 
The same concern over representation has been expressed by my Maori Party parliamentary colleague Mr Hone Harawira over Maori representation on the board. I have a feeling of support for his view. 
 To summarise we have real concern over the stealthy move towards controlling the board by ministerial appointment the weak definition of wahi tapu the lack of Maori representation and the continuing limp legacy of Labour towards endless over-regulation. Finally it occurred to me that there are more aspects of sanctity of things sacred than just property. We are not talking just about Maori issues. Indeed on level 3 in Parliament House today I passed a portrait of Sir Winston Churchill. He was a truly great leader. His memory is sacred to me. I have stood where he stood and where he wrote. What he wrote I have read. I have listened to what he said and I have known men whom he led. I have heard someone in this House claiming to be a namesake and to imply familiarity in emulation of the real Churchill—certainly through having the same spelling of his first name. I find that that can offend my memory of a great historic leader. For the same person to claim familiarity with a great leader while clutching a file of other people’s correspondence— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I must insist. That member is making it up as he goes along. If he has one shred of evidence to back up what he is saying he should please present it or stop lying. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I know the last word the member used but I think the member is making reference to historical matters. That is his view of it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He was saying that I have claimed some affinity with my namesake— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not think he did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —and holding a bunch of papers. I am saying to him— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I know what the member is saying but he did not say that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes he did. If you look at the  
Hansard 
 you will see he made that claim and I know I have never done that ever in this House or outside it. The member is not going to get away with making up that sort of stuff as the National Party is wont to do now. He has just made up a story come down to the Chamber and implanted it into people’s minds. It even made TV tonight—the 6 o’clock news—but they know it is not true. They got away with making out it is and he is saying this right now. Frankly he is not going to get away with it. If he keeps it up there will be disorder in this House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He has not got away with it because you have had your say. We will leave it at that point. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is a convention—in fact it is in the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
—that members are not allowed to call somebody a liar in this House. I ask you to ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to withdraw and apologise. My colleague has taken great offence to it. I ask you to do what is expected of a Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: In the context of what was going on I did not propose to take any action. But the member at whom it was aimed is entitled to take objection. If he does I will get the member to withdraw. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I take objection Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the member takes objection he surely does so on the basis he has some integrity that is being challenged. Now perhaps he could put it on the line by tabling the evidence he has or be a man and apologise to me. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No it is a debating matter. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: To conclude for the same person to claim familiarity with a great leader while clutching a file of other people’s correspondence to try to boost his own reputation at the expense of someone else’s is something that to me Winston Churchill would find repugnant.