Groser Tim: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Groser Tim: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3887] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 First of all I did enjoy the earlier intervention from the member for Waimakariri Clayton Cosgrove. I think the problem was that he was so dazzled by the learnedness of my colleague Mr Finlayson that he got it into his head that he would single out Groser and Finlayson and ululate over their arguments. I think he needs to do a little bit more research before reaching his conclusions so quickly. 
Now as we are dealing with the substance of the matter let me explain in a little more detail the underlying problems here. First of all I would like to explain to the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard what bipartisanship really means and its limitations. I have two responsibilities: first to support our spokesperson on foreign affairs and trade on trade issues; and second to be spokesperson on arts culture and heritage. In both cases there is a strong degree of support from National for the underlying objectives but that support is always conditional. If the Government drops the ball on these issues as we think it has done in this case—and we will have exactly the same issue when it comes to the Trans-Tasman therapeutic drugs agency—that is where bipartisanship stops. 
Having dealt with the underlying issue let us go back go the fundamental point here of governance. Nobody has satisfactorily explained why we should move to a Government-dominated institution. The word “governance” is a formulaic response. It has been used to describe everything from the need for better policies in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe to provincial rotary clubs. We heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs today explain that the Government was giving $2.5 million for better governance in Indonesia. While I am on the subject of Indonesia and the Minister of Foreign Affairs let me take this opportunity to correct a small error of fact that the Minister made in response to the very reasonable and sensible point of my colleague who asked why the New Zealand Government—and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in particular—did not have the guts to stand up with the Australian Government— 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am having some difficulty trying to equate the comments the member is making with this particular bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Groser if you would come back to the bill please. I was waiting for a point he was about to make which was quite relevant actually. 
TIM GROSER 
: Well everything is related to everything else and the other way round. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take deep exception to the member’s comments about the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is not parliamentary to impugn the courage of any member and he did that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is correct. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Brian Connell 
: As we are having point of order season I say that it has been a long-held convention in this House that the Minister sitting in the chair does not interject. She has been at it throughout this debate. I ask you to ask her to stop it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It will not happen again thank you Mr Connell. And you want— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I would like him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If you would withdraw and apologise please. 
TIM GROSER 
: Let me move that issue aside. I will explain later to the Minister the position that the President of Indonesia actually fulfilled during that period because it was central to the point. 
What we are dealing with here in substance is an issue that the Historic Places Amendment Bill does not address. It is the elephant in the room—and not just this room but a number of rooms—and it is related to the economic development of this country. Some members will have read as I did a bitter critique of the Government’s approach to economic regulation in the  
National Business Review 
 this week. It started with a very cutting point about the Government’s inability to free up business decisions. Here we have a situation whereby no effort is made in the Historic Places Amendment Bill to clarify the ambiguities surrounding the term “wahi tapu”. The implications of that term for economic development in this country can on occasion be very considerable. That is the elephant in the room and the Government has decided to ignore it. It is trying to fix a non-problem and has not addressed the real problem. In National’s view the real central issue facing this country is that every decision of the Government should be measured against the test of whether it makes investment easier whether it enhances productivity and whether it helps further wealth creation or gets in the way of it. 
Here we have an opportunity to fix the problem of the completely nebulous concept of wahi tapu. Let me be very clear that the real concept of wahi tapu is absolutely central to preserving our heritage. That is exactly the point my colleague Mr Finlayson was making about the underlying position of the National Party. We totally accept that structure; we were responsible historically for putting it in place in the first place. So let us not caricature this debate as political. What we are talking about is not the fundamental need to protect key sites to different communities including the importance of legitimate wahi tapu sites. What we need is greater clarity. Landowners need it Maori need it and Maori landowners need it. The bill which would have been a wonderful opportunity to address that does absolutely nothing to do so. 
Why not? Well we are puzzled by this. Is this Government once again ideologically blocked from clarifying issues that are related to the national interest and the further economic development of this country? Is that the fundamental problem? Is it the same mindset that stops this Government from clarifying key issues in the Resource Management Act and that has it intervening in the Whangamata marina decision after years of legal process? Is it the same mindset that sends such negative signals to New Zealand business people New Zealand property owners and New Zealand creators of wealth? There is no signal that if those people come up with innovative proposals the Government will try to facilitate them rather than get in the way. 
But no we see no opportunity taken in this bill actually to fix the underlying problem. The elephant is still in the room and the Government wants to ignore it just as it wants to ignore it in more important contexts. I do not think we will get any clarity on this issue until such time as we have a Government that is not confused.