Ardern Shane: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2946] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to this bill. National opposes this bill on a number of grounds which I will outline to the House in a few moments. 
I say for a start that I do not think many members in the House would object to having a solid framework to protect our historic places. The work that the Historic Places Trust does around New Zealand is acknowledged and I think most people are in support of it. I imagine the Minister Judith Tizard over there is asking why National opposes this bill. It is simple. We have heard debates in this House in the last few days about National’s potential involvement with some American bagman or funding. The Minister is asking what that has to do with historic places. I will tell the Minister. There has never been an involvement with American bagmen or suchlike in terms of National policy but if there had been how bad would that be? The next question asks whether it is better to have a close association with America or with Moscow. I suggest that when we look at the terms in this bill we can find out its origins—and they were not out of the United States. They were straight out of— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Helsinki. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is potentially right but I would suggest that the member go further up the scale than that—right to the heart of socialism. 
What do we find in this bill? For a start we find that the Government will reduce the number of members on the Historic Places Trust board from 11 to nine. That is a fact of the bill. Further when we look at the detail of that we see that there will be an increase in the number of Crown-appointed members from three to six. Well what do we describe that as if not socialism? What is that if it is not State control? The State is saying it knows best. The State is saying the board clearly is not competent and it will appoint people to the board and will instruct the outfit on how it should run its business. The tentacles from the ninth floor that have been well documented by various magazines have now reached out into the Historic Places Trust and will manage it. I say to the House that the National Party will always oppose that kind of State intervention. 
But let us go beyond that and look at the likely effects of that State intervention. When we talk about a historic place we are being very subjective. Some people place much higher emphasis on certain types of historic structures and places than others. I will give members an example. If members were to travel in the electorate I represent Taranaki - King Country they would find a whole lot of derelict dairy factories. I will give a little bit of a history lesson now. Chew Chong a Chinaman in Taranaki was the founder of the New Zealand dairy industry. As a result a whole lot of proprietary and cooperative companies sprang up and they built factories generally on the side of a river somewhere. Those factories were very much the hub of the community. As time went on those factories were replaced. In the first instance they were usually wooden structures. Some of them burnt down and some of them became inadequate and they were replaced with substantial concrete structures based on British design that were designed to last for 200 or 300 years. So they were substantial structures. 
Predominantly the workforce in those factories was Maori—not entirely but predominantly they were of Maori descent. Around the factories sprang up little villages. Generally there was a marae nearby. Maori did then what Maori do now: they endorsed their culture. I endorse the renaissance in Maori culture today. I think it is a great thing for New Zealand; it shows diversity. 
But here is a question for members: if a major development were to go on in Taranaki today and it needed to go smack-bang through the middle of such a factory would the factory be deemed historic given that it has been derelict for 30 or 40 years? In some cases no more than the concrete walls have survived as the roof has long gone. If the Government wanted to put through a roading project or something like that the factory would be demolished without even the slightest consideration. But if in the process of doing that someone were to dig up a former hangi pit and find some paua shells and a few hangi stones the project would be stopped overnight. I ask the House what the basis is for that kind of irrational thinking. Why is a much higher significance placed on one kind of artefact or historic circumstance brought about by virtue of the geographical environment people are living in although another kind is deemed to be valueless? 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Before we rose for dinner I was reminding the House of how hard and at times controversial it is to establish what people have in their minds when they think of a historic place. I used the example of the many old dairy factories in Taranaki. Of course the dairy industry is New Zealand’s biggest export industry. There are many derelict dairy factories around Taranaki. A lot of them are being demolished by landowners at the moment. The point I made in trying to demonstrate to the House why the National Party is opposing this bill is that over the years those dairy factories were staffed predominantly by Maori. Typically little villages sprung up around the factories and they adopted a lot of Maori culture. No doubt some Maori artefacts are buried around and near those factories. 
One of the reasons why the National Party is uncomfortable with this bill is that if a major development—for example a roading project—was to take place and it was to go smack-bang through the middle of one of those dairy factories not too much would be said. The factory building would be bowled over even though it might have been constructed of solid concrete with walls up to 2 feet thick in places. It might have been designed by English engineers to last 400 years. The building may be very significant in terms of the history of the province but it would be bowled over and not too much thought given to it. But if during the course of bowling it over and putting in a road the contractors were to discover for example a hangi pit lined with hangi stones and full of paua shells or similar things then would the project be allowed to continue? That is the question. 
That brings me to the point that the National Party made in its minority report in relation to the definition of wahi tapu and issues relating to Maori history and artefacts. I put it to the House tonight that the definition is unclear. 
There are many examples I could use to show that such a development would be stopped. Despite the fact that a substantial building has something to do with the history and fabric of the district it would be absolutely bowled over. Potentially the project would be stopped because of some buried artefact that was deemed to be culturally sensitive or a remnant of a bygone era. However it is important to bear in mind that most of the building’s construction and development would have been in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century and therefore the building itself would be historic and significant. 
The National Party opposes the bill on that basis—those two primary concerns. It opposes the proposal relating to the board membership. As I said earlier the changes to the board give the ninth floor tentacles the ability to stretch out into even the Historic Places Trust. In other words it is socialism gone mad. By taking out the elected members of the trust board and putting in Government plants—people who have got the tick from the ninth floor who clearly will know what a historic place is and who clearly will have a lot of respect for old dairy factories in Taranaki—the reality is that the Government will be deciding what decisions are made and when and what is and is not a historic place. National objects to that. Further I say to members of Parliament here tonight—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a gentleman in the gallery throwing stuff and yelling out. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He is being dealt with at the moment Mr Tisch. I am sorry that happened. He was clearly very unhappy about something. 
A disturbance took place in the gallery and a member of the public was removed. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am sure it was nothing to do with what I said. 
The second point that the National Opposition opposes is the definition of wahi tapu—and things Maori in that regard—and the ramifications of that definition. 
So I say to members in the House tonight that they should go back and look at those issues. The Minister Judith Tizard has the chance to have another look to bring in a finer definition and to leave the trust board of directorate as it stands at the moment rather than impose a no doubt well-considered ninth floor view of the world on the trust.