Finlayson Christopher: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3885] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will try to deal with this matter slowly so the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage can pick up the various issues. We are not talking about the importance to New Zealand of the Historic Places Trust; National was in Government when it was formed. All the good work done in the 1950s by National has been continued by it throughout the 1960s 1970s 1980s and 1990s. So we are not talking about the importance of the Historic Places Trust; we are talking about Part 2 of the Historic Places Amendment Bill which is the transitional provisions. Part 2 deals with clause 27 and there are three parts to it dealing with transitional provisions relating to those elected to the board of the Historic Places Trust and those appointed to the board and what is going to happen with them. Clause 27(3) deals with appointments to the Maori Heritage Council. 
We heard nothing from the Associate Minister about the key points raised by Mr Groser in his address a few minutes ago. This compels the National Party to oppose Part 2 given that we opposed Part 1 on the issue of the new governance structures of the Historic Places Trust. For the benefit of the poor old member for Waimakariri let me recap. 
On 13 June I traced the governance structures of the trust from its formation by the National Government in 1954. Indeed Mr Chairman I think you were in the Chair at the time I referred to the debate in 1954 when both the Acting Minister of Internal Affairs and Mr Duncan Rae who was then the MP for Parnell—and who was really the sponsor of the new Historic Places Trust—outlined the trust’s membership and the rationale for it. It was a theme repeated in 1992 as I said by the Hon Denis Marshall another good National Minister responsible for the Historic Places Trust. He said the trust is not supposed to be a statutory quango. It has more than 23000 fee paying members and an effective body of voluntary workers who form a network of distinct communities throughout New Zealand. It is that network of communities that needs to be reflected in the membership of the board of the Historic Places Trust. 
I ask the Associate Minister to take down the following key issues and to address them through the Chair. I would like the Associate Minister to take note of these so we can have a sensible debate rather than a whole lot of raving and what could be called ululations about nothing. 
 The member for Waimakariri would not even know what ululation means. All he knows about is his new hairdo. Why has the 50-year-old governance philosophy of the trust been fundamentally altered by this amendment? Has the Associate Minister taken that question down? How does the change strengthen the trust’s governance arrangements as the report on the bill asserts? The Associate Minister has to look up the dictionary—fair enough. How is accountability enhanced by this legislation as asserted by the Government in the majority report when the trust is already an autonomous Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act? Just like Creative New Zealand it is an autonomous Crown entity already so how do these governance arrangements necessarily enhance its accountability? If the Associate Minister could answer those questions I would be very grateful. 
There is no justification for this fundamental change. It will not improve governance or accountability at all. As Mr Groser said it is all about greater control by the Government of an organisation that has served New Zealand for many years. The Associate Minister and Mr Cosgrove are looking up the word in the dictionary. I am paying a lot of attention to this effort by the Associate Minister to—rather than focus on the issues—look up the dictionary. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but the Associate Minister is having trouble with the spelling. I wonder whether you would be good enough to give her the first letter—“u”. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: So there is no justification for the fundamental change. The Minister just will not address the central issues that are so important to the question of the governance and accountability of the trust. 
This inability to address the issues was reflected also in the speech by Mr Donnelly in this debate when he said that he did not understand all this historical analysis and that surely the National Party would be in favour of a smaller membership because we are in favour of less Government. But—for Mr Donnelly’s benefit—the issue is not so much whether the membership of the trust is nine 10 or 15; it is the composition of the membership that is important. 
So Part 2 which seeks to implement transitional provisions for the new governance structure cannot be supported because the National Party is not satisfied that the governance structures under Part 1 will really improve the situation at all. I ask the Associate Minister to please address my three questions so that we can move on to the long title.