Cosgrove Clayton: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3886] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 For those who did not know it that was Chris Finlayson who rather sanctimoniously—as he does from time to time—was pontificating from on high. In talking to Part 2 “Transitional provisions” I agree with the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard that yet again the poor old National Party cannot depoliticise the simplest of issues. Who could politicise and play politics with the Historic Places Trust? Only the National Party could. 
The previous speaker bleated on about the increase in Government appointees. It is true that out of 11 members of the board three were Government appointments and it is true that the bill proposes that it appoint six out of a total of nine. Why is that pray tell? Well I am advised that historically a large amount of money accrued to the Historic Places Trust and it came not from the taxpayer—part of it came from the taxpayer—but from the membership hence the need to ensure that the governance structure reflected accountability to the membership for their money. Now because this Government honours its promises a lot more taxpayers’ money is going to this very venerable and respected institution. Hence as the guardian of the taxpayers’ purse and being fiscally prudent the Government has made the move—with wide consensus and after wide consultation—to increase its appointees on the board because it is increasing the amount of taxpayer-funded dollars being put in. 
It is pretty simple I would have thought—a wee bit too simple for the non-QC over there who still has not got over the fact that he ain’t a QC. He needs to get over it and lose the emotional baggage. I would have thought it was prudent to install more Government people—to have more Government representation—not only to guard the taxpayer’s purse but also to ensure there is accountability for the money as the trust receives more money from the Government and less money from the membership on a percentage basis. But oh no what did we hear from that member? He loves to get up and in some sort of archaic esoteric way bamboozle us with very long words. I was told that that member along with Tim Groser were the superstars of the National Party on the escalator straight to success—a very apt description for one of them. And what has National done? It has sent down the C-team to passionately have a go at politicising Part 2 “Transitional provisions”. It could not even support that. 
Essentially National is saying that we can put in more taxpayers’ money and reduce our accountability. We say no to that. We are putting in more taxpayers’ money because we support the Historic Places Trust. The National Party should support it because it will be—and is—a historic place; it is an archaic appendage that hangs around this Chamber from time to time. But will National support a basic prudent measure like Part 2 “Transitional provisions” which has basic support around the country and which nobody wants to politicise? Oh no. It must be practice and audition day for the new superstars on the back bench. I am sure Mr Groser came into Parliament—with his great speech of gravitas—to politicise this issue talking as he did about Part 2 and rendering it down to good old-fashioned politics. I am sure Mr Finlayson—that great lawyer of note that learned gentleman who talks about himself more than anything else in the corridors of power that superstar that rising star in the National Party—came into Parliament with all his intellect and gravitas to politicise Part 2 “Transitional provisions” of the Historic Places Amendment Bill. 
I tell those two members to grow up and get a life. The people of New Zealand are not listening to the radio to hear a whole lot of hot air and politics from those two members. They should get over it. If those members want to stand up and have a go they should have a go about a great issue of moment. They should not stand up just because they were sent down by Mr Tisch the national whip to get in a bit of practice and to politicise Part 2 “Transitional provisions”. It is no wonder that the people who listened to those two speeches scratched their heads. It is no wonder some members in this Parliament are perceived in the way they are. Those members should grow up get over it make a decent speech next time and support the bill.