Hutchison Paul: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15570] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The National Party is opposing the Historic Places Amendment Bill for a variety of reasons. We regard it as—and Jim Peters also pointed this out—absolutely unnecessary. I too pay tribute to the dozens of volunteers around this country who have supported the Historic Places Trust for many many years. Wonderful New Zealanders have spontaneously put their hearts and souls into the Historic Places Trust. That is an indication of one of the richnesses that New Zealand has and it certainly should be cultivated for years to come. But what do we see this Labour Government doing? Oh no it wants some central control of it. According to Jill Pettis the Government will also pour money into it—recklessly pour money into it and that is the huge problem with it. 
Firstly this legislation allows even greater ministerial control over the trust with ministerial appointees increasing from three out of 11 to six out of nine. That is another classic dose of the Helen Clark type of central control. This Labour Government just cannot help itself. If one thinks back to the recent New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill one recalls that it seemed harmless enough but in that legislation the Government wanted to prescribe the sort of music that New Zealanders listen to. The Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage over there said that she did not like dead men’s music that she did not like Mozart and Beethoven. That is exactly what she said although she has retracted it a bit; at the time that is what she said. On that legislation the Government wanted more central control. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am deeply concerned that I was badly misquoted by that member. I did not say at any stage— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: She protesteth a little too much. She certainly talked about dead men’s music and her dislike of it. 
But the second reason we are opposing this bill is that it fails to provide a satisfactory solution to the very contentious and sensitive issue of wahi tapu both for landowners and for Maori. Unfortunately the improvements in the bill are very minor when what is needed is much more substantial reform in order to protect the legitimate rights of landowners and to clarify for Maori what is a hugely important area for them. This bill fails to do that. 
I note that the general policy statement in the explanatory note states: “This bill amends the Historic Places Act 1993”—a good Act that was brought in by National—“to adjust and clarify its application.” Well when we look through this bill we do not see much clarity. I will talk about that later. The explanatory note goes on to state: “The Historic Places Act 1993 gives the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (Pouhere Taonga) (the Trust) a range of functions and powers.” I thought I remembered the Minister saying that the bill does not change the role or purpose of the original legislation. There is a lack of clarity as to what the bill actually does but here it states: “Among other things these concern protecting archaeological sites maintaining a Register of places of historical and cultural heritage and owning and managing heritage properties.”—all things that are very important to the National Party but I do not think the bill makes much difference in terms of their being done. It goes on to state: “Although the Trust exercises regulatory responsibilities and receives funding by parliamentary appropriation it is not currently regarded as a Crown entity.” This legislation needs to do more than simply make the Historic Places Trust a Crown entity. It is just another absolutely unnecessary exercise by the Labour Government to try to solidify central control of something. 
Then we get on to this very important explanation: “The Trust’s governance arrangements are strengthened by among other measures reducing the size of the Trust Board from 11 to 9 members”. Yes we love the reduction in size but when we see that the number of Crown appointments is to be increased from three to six we really see what the Labour Government is all about. Government members will be appointing their mates just to try to organise the control of this country that they want so much—let alone control of this country’s heritage. That is where it gets rather worrisome. We have a wonderful legacy of volunteers involved with the Historic Places Trust and once again the vice-like clamp of central control from the Labour Government is taking over. 
Going on to the section in the explanatory note dealing with amendments to the principal Act I note that clause 4 adds new paragraph (f) to section 20(6) of the principal Act and that paragraph (f) is supposed to clarify that “a court considering an appeal must have regard to the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands water sites wahi tapu and other taonga.” What does the Labour Government really think about those issues? I was very interested to hear Jim Peters saying there was nothing more confusing than the issue of wahi tapu. He says we need to sort it out to provide clarity. The councils are totally confused the planners are bedevilled by it and the local authorities find it absolutely difficult—let alone the applicants up and down the country. 
I think it is important to draw attention to the difficulties I have witnessed in Port Waikato with two major projects that the Government has rammed through. It has given little regard to wahi tapu. Under its interpretation of it it has just gone ahead with those two major projects; it has forgotten about that issue which it says is so important to it. Let me tell members about them. 
Firstly of course there was the Hampton Downs dump which is New Zealand’s biggest-ever landfill. It will take rubbish from the top half of the North Island for the next 60 years. It is of huge importance to the nation in terms of the way we treat garbage. Yet the Minister said that no it is a local issue and we should forget about the fact that the area between Meremere and Rangiriri is one of the most important areas in terms of New Zealand history. It has been described by people like Belich as being hugely significant. Certainly local Maori came to me and said how important it was to them. But the Labour Government said it was a local issue and it would ram through New Zealand’s biggest dump to be situated 500 metres from the Waikato River—which is again of huge importance to Maori—and a few kilometres up from Auckland’s latest water supply. 
Not only did it do that but it said it did not want the next Auckland regional men’s prison to be in a Labour electorate so it would put it in the northern Waikato heartland in the same area—between Rangiriri and Meremere. It just ploughed ahead irrespective of the very very important concept of wahi tapu. The Minister of Corrections over there was offered the opportunity of a prison being built where people actually wanted it. People in north Huntly wrote to him that they were prepared to have the prison north of Huntly where it would help unemployment but he refused to go ahead with that. That is what the Labour Government thinks of wahi tapu. It has total disregard for it yet it says this bill clarifies the issue. 
I see in this bill only a totally unnecessary set of Labour Government aims with which it plans to put more central control on the electorate.