Finlayson Christopher: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3889] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 It was very interesting to see Minister Tizard nodding furiously when the member for Waimakariri was speaking. It must be the first time she has ever agreed with him on anything given that he is known around this place as “Mini-Mike”. Clayton Cosgrove has modelled his entire political career on former Prime Minister Mike Moore—although why anyone would want to do that I do not know. We all know that Minister Tizard is from the Clark faction of the Labour Party so it is great to see that unity has broken out between the residual Moore faction and the Clark faction of the Labour Party. It has all happened because of the transitional provisions of the Historic Places Amendment Bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sure I do not have to draw your attention to this. That erroneous drivel has nothing whatever to do with the bill and it might be prudent to explain to the new member that he has to adhere to the Standing Orders. He is a lawyer but he may not understand the Standing Orders. It might be prudent to bring him back to the bill. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am most grateful to the member for Waimakariri for educating me as a former clerk or whatever he was. I am very grateful to him for that guidance. 
The other point I will make is that the Minister seems to think about the arts culture and heritage in the following way: if someone disagrees on any aspect of the arts culture or heritage then that person is somehow some kind of cultural wrecker. As National members have said all along a former National Government formed the Historic Places Trust and if members trace the legislative developments over the years they will find that National has been responsible for updating the trust. The National Party is utterly committed to the Historic Places Trust just as it is to other great arts and cultural institutions. So it is absolutely vacuous for the Minister to stand up and use that kind of argumentation instead of getting down to the detail. 
The issue is not whether the National Party supports the Historic Places Trust or is not pleased that further money is to be put into it so that historic places and wahi tapu sites can be preserved. The key issue for the National Party—which the Minister has failed to address—is the issue of governance. As I have said the Historic Places Trust under the Crown Entities Act is already an autonomous Crown entity. That means the trust must have regard to Government policy when it is directed by the responsible Minister. So there is adequate governance oversight already. Even at this late stage of the debate I would appreciate it if the Minister could explain why we need to alter the governance structure of the trust so that instead of having a broad wide-ranging membership representing distinct communities around the country we need ministerial control. The trust does not need ministerial control because it is a Crown entity. 
If the Minister could answer that very simple question I would be very grateful because I fail to understand how accountability is enhanced by this legislation as asserted by the Government in the commentary on the bill. The commentary states: “The bill proposes to strengthen the Trust’s governance arrangements …”—well how?—and to enhance its accountability. So if the Minister could answer that question even though we are now talking about the title and clauses 1 and 2 it would be very useful. We say—and I will say it once again—that these governance mechanisms are unnecessary. They run counter to the history of the trust since 1954 they are undesirable given the nature of the body and they are unnecessary given the fact that it is already an autonomous Crown entity. 
The only other point I would make picks up a point raised by Ms Kedgley in her speech. She was very concerned about what could be called the toothlessness of the trust where the protection of historic buildings is concerned. I thought the member raised a number of interesting issues. However those issues pertain to Parts 1 and 5 of the Act which are not affected by this bill. Although her speech was interesting and raised a number of points it was largely irrelevant to this bill. But I pick up what the member said and perhaps the time is coming for a comprehensive review of this legislation. It was last reviewed comprehensively by a National administration in the early 1990s. 
Hon Member 
: Who was the Minister? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister then was a fellow called Denis Marshall—another fine MP for Rangitikei like Mr Power—who gave a great deal to the conservation cause in the 6 years that he was the Minister. The legislation was last reviewed under a National Government and perhaps the time is coming for further review.