Ardern Shane: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3929] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Can I start by saying that there is not a member I do not think in this House who does not support and agree with the principles of the Historic Places Trust. To that end I think overwhelmingly there is support for the protection of our historic places. Where the National Party has a difference of opinion over the Government on this issue is that of governance—well this is one of the differences of opinion that we have. Let me just refer members to the commentary on the bill where it states: “This bill proposes to strengthen the Trust’s governance arrangements by reducing the size of the Trust Board from 11 to 9 members and increasing the number of Crown appointments from 3 to 6”. 
Now I put it to the House tonight that that is an oxymoron. How can one strengthen the governance of something by reducing the number of board members—those board members who are elected with expertise and chosen from within their various fields of expertise—and increasing the number of Government lackeys that are appointed? How is that a strengthening of the board or of the trust? That is the first question. I would like a Labour member or the Minister to take a call and explain that to us. That is the long arm of the State saying: “We know best. You poor common unwashed citizens out there have no knowledge of these issues and we the all-powerful State will know how to manage this better.” 
Well history will show any member who cares to spend more than 30 seconds studying it that that is exactly the opposite to what happens. When one gets the State involved in things that the State has no business in then the State generally speaking makes a worse job of it than those who have the expertise—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask that member over there from New Zealand First—a very good member of this Parliament—to please take a call. His colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly tried to sustain an argument and defend the indefensible but that member should take a call and tell us why he thinks the State is a better custodian of historic places than those who have a personal interest in these kinds of affairs. He I know would have difficulty with that because he comes from a quite principled position on most issues. So he should take a call and explain to us why that is the case. 
I also draw the House’s attention to the second issue that the National Party opposes in this bill and that is the definition of “wahi tapu”. Can I relay to the House tonight an issue— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: There’s no definition in the bill. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I have read the bill which the member is waving around. The definition of “wahi tapu” is an area of great concern. If people go to my electorate of Taranaki - King Country they will see some of the effects of these vague references we have had in legislation—and I cite the Resource Management Act as an example. We have had major roading infrastructure the upgrade of State Highway 3 held up for months and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars expended because a person who was not from the local iwi—local iwi wanted State Highway 3 roading project to go ahead—decided that she should object under the Resource Management Act to the progress of that highway based on six hangi stones being found in that road construction. Will that be able to happen once this bill becomes enacted? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: No it can’t happen. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well I am reassured by that. But I am more reassured by the next member from Wellington Central Chris Finlayson—a very good colleague who spoke earlier—when he said that he did not understand exactly what it meant. I am more reassured by the fact that there is a lot more to this than the member would have us believe. 
Let me say to those members over there who are baying with great enthusiasm that this bill was introduced to the Government Administration Committee on 9 September 2004. On 21 February 2005 it was reported from the Government Administration Committee back to the House. Now if this is an issue of such importance why has the Government dragged its feet with what can I say such an enormous amount of reluctance to proceed with it? I guess it was because they were rounding up the numbers and I guess that is what this is about. It is about politics rather than historic places. It was rounding up the numbers and getting a few more cronies on to boards so it could continue as the Government. 
I was interested in the Green member Sue Kedgeley’s contribution to the debate when she said that it was an absolute nonsense to have a person appointed to the board with expertise in Maoritanga who was not a Maori. Well I need to remind the Green Party that we have a Minister of Agriculture in this Parliament who is not a farmer. If that is not an irony what is? If a person has expertise it would not be my argument as the Hon Brian Donnelly put forward that that person should not be appointed on the basis of ethnicity. I would argue also that if a person was competent in the area of agriculture but was not a farmer then that person would make a reasonable agricultural Minister. The problem is we do not have a person who is competent in that area. We have a retreaded member—a former Labour Party president—who has been around this place for a long time who is better at spin than substance who has made an art form of politics and who is the great survivor of this institution but has no knowledge in the field of which he is the Minister. 
I say to the House this afternoon and to members here that this bill is a backward step and should not proceed. National will not support it going forward. It has been proven around the world that when one allows socialism to that extent—Stalinism or call it what you will; it has its origins somewhere offshore and not in the places where democracy was first thought of—it is anti-democratic. We should not support the notion that the Government knows best in its appointments and the suggestion that that somehow strengthens governance. 
We need only look at the things that Governments have been involved in over a long period of time. I am not being political; all sides have somewhat lacked ability to manage institutions non-governmental organisations or whatever that were under State control or had been brought back under State control. The Government used to be involved in all sorts of things—it had its own printing company at one stage; it used to build all the roads and nobody else could be involved. But over the years it has been found that not only in New Zealand but around the world when the State is removed from managing the infrastructure and non-governmental organisations things improve. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Look at electricity! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is a very good example. At present those State-owned enterprises are directly at the beck and call of the Minister and the lights are going off! That member strengthens my argument by suggesting that State involvement will guarantee safe electricity-generation. That is not the case. If he looks at what has happened since the State became more involved and all the small power trusts we used to have became less involved he will see that energy supply has become less reliable and investment in the sector has gone down—not up. The Minister should take a call and explain why the Historic Places Trust will be strengthened by reducing the number of board members from 11 to nine. So the number of those with expertise—the elected or appointed board members within the trust—will reduce and the number of Government-appointed lackeys will increase from three to six. In no way can the Minster justify that change but that is what is proposed under new section 42 in clause 19. 
The title is the Historic Places Amendment Act 2004. That is a surprising thing given that the Act was substantially altered in 2004. So why are we back before the House again with this proposed amendment? National does not support it.