Donnelly Brian: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2952] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call because New Zealand First did not have a member on the Government Administration Committee. Looking through the composition of the select committee I see that it was really quite an unusual one particularly for the last Parliament and for this one as well in the sense that it is made up of only five members—three of whom are from Labour and two of whom are from National. This is almost a first-past-the-post select committee. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: There were three each. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Not according to the report back which has Dianne Yates as chairperson Shane Ardern as deputy chairperson and Steve Chadwick the Hon David Cunliffe and Lindsay Tisch. That makes five members. If there were three each I ask the member how he gets the sixth. I am reading the report back which is what we are debating. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You stupid stupid man. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No hang on a second that is— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but I think a quite unparliamentary comment was made by Tau Henare and he should withdraw. I hope Brian Donnelly will get the respect he deserves from members in this House. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: My colleague used the term “silly man”. I do not know that that is unparliamentary. It is a debating point at the end of the day and I do not think it was unruly. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Whatever was said was directed at Brian Donnelly. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: If I was called a silly man which of course comes from the Old English “shallow” at least I know what three and three makes; it is six and not five. I actually knew that when I was in my first year at school. Obviously after all the years that Tau Henare was at school he still does not understand that three and three does not make five. 
I was trying to make the point that we have a select committee here that really operated under the old first-past-the-post system. I do not necessarily agree that the National minority view was totally and passionately believed in by the members themselves. I want to make a couple of points about the view they have taken. The first is that they are concerned that the number of members of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust is coming down from 11 to nine. That seems a bit stupid because they keep saying that we should be reducing bureaucracy all the time but now they want to maintain high levels and it does not fit. The inconsistency of National policy continues to flow across this House. 
The second point is that at the present time six of the board members are elected by the trust. What the bill is saying is that those members should be put in place by the elected representatives of the people who have a direct concern or interest in this themselves. New Zealand First says that the balance has to be there. We believe that it is those people—the Government—who have been elected by the people of New Zealand and who are spending taxpayers’ money to ensure that these activities are going through who have the primary responsibility in ensuring their objectives are achieved through the selection of people to go on that board. New Zealand First does not have a great concern. There will still be three people who will be selected by representatives of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and we think that is good. 
I listened to the speech made by Shane Ardern just before tea. He made a very interesting point because I know exactly the area—Rahotu Pungarehu Okato etc—that he was talking about. He was saying that one can get rid of the dairy companies and take down the old buildings but if there is a paua pit down below unfortunately that has nothing to do with this particular bill. [ 
Interruption 
] That is in the principal Act not this bill. The member was on the select committee and he knows it has nothing to do with this. 
I make another point that the National minority view also states that the bill fails to provide a satisfactory solution to the contentious issue of wahi tapu. It does not clean up the definition. I looked through this bill and I failed to see any definition of wahi tapu in it. There is no definition in there at all. In other words what National members are saying is that they are opposing this bill because of a definition in other legislation. Well clean up the other bill. I ask those members to put up a member’s bill and clean up the other bill but do not oppose this. Their behaviour is typically first-past-the post behaviour in that they are opposing for the sake of opposing. They do not sit there and think what is in the best interests of New Zealand or the taxpayers of New Zealand. 
I want to make one other point—and I think it is an important one. It is a very important point to New Zealand First and it is where we disagree with the Maori Party and the Green Party. Quite rightly this bill requires the appointment of three people who have a knowledge and understanding of nga tikanga Maori. Section 42(3) in clause 19 states: “At least 3 of the persons appointed under subsection 1(b) must in the opinion of the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs be qualified for appointment having regard to their knowledge of te ao Maori (Maori world view) and tikanga Maori (Maori protocol and culture).” New Zealand First believes that that is the right approach not that there should be three people who are Maori or who can demonstrate Maori ethnicity. It is in fact the knowledge that people have that should be brought to bear on the decision making of that particular body. 
It is absolutely true that there will be very few occasions when those people who are appointed under that clause will not be Maori. That would be very unlikely. I taught in Te Araroa on the East Coast. [ 
Interruption 
] Tau Henare knows Te Araroa; he has a property there. There is a school called Te Waha-o-Rerekohu. We had a teacher in Maori and he was the carving expert of that area. Yet he did not have a drop of Maori blood in him but he did have an expertise and knowledge that was greater than others in that area at that time. I am not saying that he had the level of expertise to go on this board—I do not believe that would be right—but I believe that the approach the bill is taking to those issues is the right one. It is the one advocated by New Zealand First and therefore we endorse it. This is not a huge piece of legislation but it is one that New Zealand First will be voting for because we think it makes some sensible changes to the current arrangements.