Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3883] 
Historic Places Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 21 June. 
Part 2 Transitional provisions 
TIM GROSER (National) 
:  
National is opposed to Part 2 the transitional provisions because they are related to the appointments procedures. We have generally had the view throughout this whole process that this amendment bill tries to fix a problem that does not exist and does not fix a very real problem that exists. I will come to that later. Let me deal first with the non-existent problem—the appointments procedures. 
Let me recap the arithmetic although the fundamental point should be well known to members. The Historic Places Trust currently has 11 members three of whom are appointed by the Government. So the ratio of Government to non-Government people on the trust is a fraction under one to four. This amendment bill proposes to reduce the total number of trust members from 11 to nine and to double the number of Government appointments thereby shifting the ratio of Government to non-Government people from fractionally under one to four to two to three. 
One does not need a PhD in mathematics to predict the consequences this will have for the future operations of the trust if this amendment bill is passed. It will move from a situation where we have essentially volunteers in partnership with the Government which we consider to be an appropriate model to a completely Government-dominated trust. It will change the nature of the trust in a very fundamental way. National members keep on asking why. We ask what the rationale is for doing this. All we hear are the words “better governance” but the real issue is what is behind this formulaic explanation. Who has messed up and over what issues? What is the linkage between these alleged mistakes or shortcomings the number of Government-appointed members and the actual operations of the trust itself? 
We know that there are already quite adequate tools to deal with mismanagement. The trust is considered to be a Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act 2004 and all the tools are there and available for the Crown to intervene in cases of mismanagement or cases of bad governance so why are we moving to a Government-dominated trust in the future? There is no explanation just the formulaic responses that have been given to us to date. 
So in the absence of any credible explanation I ask what the real reason is for making this change. Is this just cronyism? Is it simply a Government that wants to have more baubles to pass along to its mates? Is that what it is about—or is it really about the underlying mentality of this Government which is about control? We meet this in every facet of the political debates in this House. We meet it on this issue which is not a central issue facing New Zealand but we also meet it on issues of tax versus personal responsibility or on welfare. We meet it on every single issue. 
The Government has this fascination this idea that the Government knows best that it can control affairs and that it will make the decisions for us. The Government does not trust people to make their own rational decisions. National opposes the transitional provisions because nobody has given us a halfway credible and plausible reason why we should move towards a Government-dominated trust. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I am very disappointed by the approach National Opposition members are taking to this bill. I am particularly disappointed given the undertaking they gave a public meeting of the arts community in Auckland that they were going to take a more positive line and given the bipartisan history between parties in this House on cultural and arts legislation that they are being so negative. 
The Historic Places Trust is an amazing organisation that Nick Smith when he was Minister of Conservation insisted—and I think quite rightly—should regionalise. National members also quite rightly have pointed out that in spite of their desire for tax cuts they think this area has been badly underfunded. Indeed this Government has taken heed of that and has taken the funding for the Historic Places Trust from $3.7 million in 1999-2000 the last year of a National Budget— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Part 2 is about the transitional provisions and it is a very narrow part. We are not talking about the title or commencement; we are talking about the number of members who will be on the board. That is what the debate is about. The Minister is talking about funding issues and talking about other issues that have nothing to do with the transitional provisions. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I point out that the Opposition member has gone on at some length about the lack of justification—as he understands it—for this. That is why he is opposing the transitional measures. I am supporting the transitional measures by explaining the questions that he asked. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that Mr Tisch. That was by way of a rebuttal in the main and I expect the Minister to come back to the bill or come to the bill. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am speaking absolutely to the bill and to the questions that the National Party—in spite of the fact that this bill has been before the select committee for several years—appears not to have the answers to. I am very proud to say that this year the Government is supporting the Historic Places Trust to the extent of granting it $10.4 million—up from $3.7 million in 1999-2000. The result of that change that Nick Smith and the last National Government put in place is that the Historic Places Trust has far more work. We are seeing extraordinary regional and national moves for New Zealanders to take charge of and support their own heritage. The result has been a huge call on the Historic Places Trust staff—and indeed on the Ministry for Culture and Heritage staff—for advice on the application of the law for example on the right to export. We say the Government needs good advice on developing this rapidly changing legislation. This bill is entirely a result of that call. 
I am very proud of this legislation. The transitional period is about taking the old Historic Places Trust through into the new modern world. We as a Government take very seriously our responsibility to be accountable for public money just as we take very seriously our undertakings given to New Zealanders—whether at a meeting in Auckland or in this House. I am delighted to say that the wonderful people who work for the Historic Places Trust have agreed that they think the Government should have a more direct conduit to that advice and that accountability and they are delighted to give it. It is time National came to the party on heritage in this country and kept its word. 
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. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 For those who did not know it that was Chris Finlayson who rather sanctimoniously—as he does from time to time—was pontificating from on high. In talking to Part 2 “Transitional provisions” I agree with the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard that yet again the poor old National Party cannot depoliticise the simplest of issues. Who could politicise and play politics with the Historic Places Trust? Only the National Party could. 
The previous speaker bleated on about the increase in Government appointees. It is true that out of 11 members of the board three were Government appointments and it is true that the bill proposes that it appoint six out of a total of nine. Why is that pray tell? Well I am advised that historically a large amount of money accrued to the Historic Places Trust and it came not from the taxpayer—part of it came from the taxpayer—but from the membership hence the need to ensure that the governance structure reflected accountability to the membership for their money. Now because this Government honours its promises a lot more taxpayers’ money is going to this very venerable and respected institution. Hence as the guardian of the taxpayers’ purse and being fiscally prudent the Government has made the move—with wide consensus and after wide consultation—to increase its appointees on the board because it is increasing the amount of taxpayer-funded dollars being put in. 
It is pretty simple I would have thought—a wee bit too simple for the non-QC over there who still has not got over the fact that he ain’t a QC. He needs to get over it and lose the emotional baggage. I would have thought it was prudent to install more Government people—to have more Government representation—not only to guard the taxpayer’s purse but also to ensure there is accountability for the money as the trust receives more money from the Government and less money from the membership on a percentage basis. But oh no what did we hear from that member? He loves to get up and in some sort of archaic esoteric way bamboozle us with very long words. I was told that that member along with Tim Groser were the superstars of the National Party on the escalator straight to success—a very apt description for one of them. And what has National done? It has sent down the C-team to passionately have a go at politicising Part 2 “Transitional provisions”. It could not even support that. 
Essentially National is saying that we can put in more taxpayers’ money and reduce our accountability. We say no to that. We are putting in more taxpayers’ money because we support the Historic Places Trust. The National Party should support it because it will be—and is—a historic place; it is an archaic appendage that hangs around this Chamber from time to time. But will National support a basic prudent measure like Part 2 “Transitional provisions” which has basic support around the country and which nobody wants to politicise? Oh no. It must be practice and audition day for the new superstars on the back bench. I am sure Mr Groser came into Parliament—with his great speech of gravitas—to politicise this issue talking as he did about Part 2 and rendering it down to good old-fashioned politics. I am sure Mr Finlayson—that great lawyer of note that learned gentleman who talks about himself more than anything else in the corridors of power that superstar that rising star in the National Party—came into Parliament with all his intellect and gravitas to politicise Part 2 “Transitional provisions” of the Historic Places Amendment Bill. 
I tell those two members to grow up and get a life. The people of New Zealand are not listening to the radio to hear a whole lot of hot air and politics from those two members. They should get over it. If those members want to stand up and have a go they should have a go about a great issue of moment. They should not stand up just because they were sent down by Mr Tisch the national whip to get in a bit of practice and to politicise Part 2 “Transitional provisions”. It is no wonder that the people who listened to those two speeches scratched their heads. It is no wonder some members in this Parliament are perceived in the way they are. Those members should grow up get over it make a decent speech next time and support the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
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. 
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. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to very briefly take up the point of the last speaker. I agree with him that we need and should have had here a comprehensive review of the Historic Places Trust. Basically over the last number of decades of the trust’s existence historic buildings throughout our country have been bulldozed. As the Associate Minister pointed out Labour has given additional funding to the Historic Places Trust and we are very pleased about that. But we think it is clear that what is needed is not simply additional money but additional powers because there are numerous examples of the Historic Places Trust being left wringing its hands in despair apparently powerless to act when magnificent heritage buildings are being bulldozed. 
Just recently a historic building in the old historic precinct of Petone was demolished. The Historic Places Trust opposed the proposed demolition of that building but in the end it could do nothing except wring its hands. So we agree completely with the National Party spokesperson in this area that a comprehensive review of the Historic Places Trust is needed. The time has come. The few tinkering technical amendments some of which are not so technical do not begin to get to the heart of the matter. Why are we not giving more teeth to the Historic Places Trust? Why are we sitting on our hands watching more and more magnificent historic buildings in New Zealand be demolished? 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 47 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.