Finlayson Christopher: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3922] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 In answer to what the honourable member Darien Fenton said in her Labour research unit speech this is not a general debate about the value of cultural and arts institutions. National does not do anything other than strongly support the place of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. If the member knew her legislative history she would know full well that it was the National Government in 1954 that formed the Historic Places Trust and it was the National Government in 1980 and 1993 that instigated general reviews of the legislation. So my suggestion to that honourable member is that she should get off her flea-bitten old nag and look at the facts instead of engaging in her tired and tiresome rhetoric. 
But at least there was a contribution from that honourable member. The Committee stage of the debate was I regret to say a complete waste of time. No rigorous analysis was undertaken of the clauses of the bill. National the Maori Party and the Green MPs raised legitimate issues but I regret to say that the Labour MPs sat like comatose zombies and made no effort to engage in the debate. Unfortunately debating the issues—as evidenced by the previous speaker who debated irrelevancies—is not their strong suit. Why anyone would want to enter Parliament to become a Labour MP then to putrefy on the Labour benches and make no contribution to debates absolutely escapes me. 
National opposes the third reading of this bill and there are two key reasons for that. First the governance provisions proposed by clause 19 will destroy the character of the trust. In the Committee stage on two occasions I traced the legislative history of the Historic Places Trust since its establishment in 1954. I took honourable members in the Committee stage through each of the changes that had been made to the legislation and emphasised that although there had sometimes been major changes to the legislation since 1954 what had not changed was the basic underlying philosophy of the membership of the board which emphasised community involvement in heritage issues the principle of volunteerism and the need to have the trust’s board reflect those principles in its membership. Now as my colleague and friend Mr Groser has said membership of the board will be dominated by ministerial appointments. If one looks at clause 19 which substitutes a new section 42 one can see that only three of the nine persons on the board will be elected by members of the trust in accordance with certain regulations and six will be appointed by the Minister. 
The reasons given for this change to ministerial control of this great organisation are as follows. First ostensibly it is to improve governance. But we were never told why. We were also told it would improve accountability which is absolute rubbish because the trust is already an autonomous Crown entity. I refer members to section 7 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 and to the first schedule of that Act where the trust is named. Those important issues were never addressed. We were never told anything about governance; we were never told anything about accountability. 
The second key reason why we oppose the bill is that the proposed registration procedures lack rigour. I refer members to clause 9 of the bill which amends section 28 and to similar provisions in section 32A inserted by clause 13. If one looks at the various persons who can apply to register a historic place one can see that five types of organisations or persons can make applications including for example as stated in section 28(1)(d) inserted by clause 9: “any incorporated society or body corporate engaged in or having as one of its objects the protection of historical and cultural heritage:”. Frankly that could include a group of extremists who decide to form an incorporated society and say they support the protection of cultural heritage and who then have some kind of standing to make submissions on whether registrations should proceed. There is no rigour to the process to ensure the integrity of such a claim and it is important to note there is no provision in the bill for the appointment of independent experts to verify claims. 
In contrast I refer members to a bill that will be coming to the House in the next few days which is the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. Provision is made in that bill for the appointment in certain circumstances of expert examiners to determine whether permission should be granted for certain goods to be exported from New Zealand. The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage must be satisfied that the expert examiners with whom he or she consults are experts in the field relevant to the particular application for permission. We really need provisions of that kind in the clauses of this bill so that there can be the requisite rigour and so that when a decision is made by the trust to register—to quote the proposed amendment to section 31 set out in clause 11 of the bill—it can truly be “satisfied that the proposal is supported by sufficient evidence”. That is a very important phrase but no guidance is given as to what analysis is to be undertaken so that the trust can be satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence. 
Having come to this legislation and looked at it very closely in the course of the second reading and the Committee stage I am of the view that the Historic Places Act needs a thorough review. In that I endorse what my friend Mrs Kedgley said because I think she is right—it needs a good review. I say to members that only a National Government can and will do that. I remind honourable members once again that National established the trust in 1954 and updated the legislation in 1980 and 1993. All this Labour Government can do is to fiddle with various provisions and destroy the governance regime of the trust. 
Even then the legislative history of this bill is nothing short of appalling. I refer members to page 16 of the bill. This amendment bill was introduced on 5 August 2004 referred to the Government Administration Committee on 9 September 2004 came out of the select committee on 21 February 2005 and did not receive a second reading until 10 May 2006. Quite simply that is a disgrace. Thereafter things positively motored because we had the second reading on 10 May and the Committee stage later in May and again in June. 
But that is an example of how this House is not operating properly. The legislative history of this bill is crummy. This legislation is crummy and it really needs a thorough review. National opposes this bill and exhorts other parties in the House to do the same.