Groser Tim: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Groser Tim: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3921] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 Given the obfuscation that has surrounded the Historic Places Amendment Bill it might be useful for me to start with a description of what in National’s view this bill is not about. First of all it is not about the principle of which of the two major parties supports arts culture and heritage. I fully understand the wish of the Government to try to make it into a test of that principle but that is not in fact what this bill is about. Nor is it about the importance of preserving and enhancing New Zealand’s heritage and which party is in favour of that principle. 
As we just heard from the Minister supporting the Prime Minister Judith Tizard the Historic Places Trust was an institution established by a National Government in 1954. Further National Governments over the ensuing period have taken a very close interest in this issue. It is vital to our country that we have a proper structure in place to enhance and preserve New Zealand’s heritage; it is part of defining us as a people. Nor moving down the chain of specificity is the legislation about the desirability—in the case of Maori sacred sites wahi tapu—of having a structure in place to preserve and enhance those sites truly sacred to Maori people and which are a huge part of our national identity. 
On these central issues there is in fact a very high degree of consensus between the two major parties and no doubt it would be shared by some of the third parties also. That is not what National’s concerns are about. Our concerns are quite specific. First of all we are concerned about the implementation of those principles. It is about what really constitutes good and appropriate governance for the trust. We know—not just in this context but more generally—what constitutes the Labour Government’s default option on all governance questions. This is obvious and I think hardly registers on the political Richter scale. But if we look across at more important issues facing this country we can see quite clearly that the Labour Government’s default response to every governance issue is larger Government involvement equals better Government involvement. It is a mind-set that seems irrevocably part of its outlook and it inculcates its world view of practically all issues large and small. 
So when we come to see the application of this mind-set we see once again what it means. It means—as National members have explained previously—increasing very considerably the ratio of Government-appointed members to “volunteers” as one may wish to call them. This will have a dramatic effect of strengthening the bureaucratic control mechanisms. It is partly what the bill is about and we think there are severe limitations to this approach. 
The Historic Places Trust has operated on the basis of volunteers. It has proven its worth and there are absolutely adequate mechanisms in place for ensuring accountability of public funds. This institution has already been listed an autonomous Crown entity in the 2004 Act bearing that name. I have run an autonomous Crown entity—Asia 2000—in the past and I know that the Crown Entities Act has all the mechanisms in place to ensure accountability. Of course we agree that when public funding is put into any institution such as this trust there must be adequate mechanisms in place. But the 2004 Act fully provides the Government with the administrative governance and management tools to achieve those objectives without translating this into a mechanism for ensuring a more bureaucratic structure of control. Obviously this also raises the danger of cronyism. 
So what will we see in the future? More and more Government place holders put into the trust replacing the volunteers who have run this successfully over 30 40 and 50 years. This is a concern of members on the National side of the House. With a non-problem—as it were—having been fixed as National members have explained in the past what the Act does not do is then address the real problem. I referred to the elephant in the room in the Committee stage of this bill. 
The real problem—the fundamental problem—is the lack of clarity in the definitions in the Act on what constitutes sacred sites wahi tapu. We accept the principle; it is absolutely essential that the legitimate sites of great historical importance are adequately protected. But we all know that the Act as it stands—and this amendment does nothing to correct the situation—leaves people completely confused. It has confused landowners who may be Pakeha or Maori or landowners of any description. It has confused the councils and it has confused the planners. It has confused people who wish to develop this country. Given that this legislation was an ideal opportunity to address that deficiency we are concerned that no attempt has been made to impart some clarity to this decision. On this side of the House I think we know full well why. The reason this Government finds it so difficult to fix the compliance legislation in this country whether it is here or in the Resource Management Act or elsewhere is the same mentality of control. 
The Government does not seem to mind the huge time delays involved in this—the fact that developers are held back. There are legitimate reasons why these issues should go through a Government process. Once again it is not the principle; it is the way in which it is administered that imparts a degree of confusion. It is a very real issue for landowners in this country. We have a concept that is completely nebulous. It must be addressed in due course. This bill does not fix it and I think it is time that somebody stood up and did the business that would remedy it. Thank you.