Donnelly Brian: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Historic Places Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:3526] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 One of the standards by which we need to judge political parties is the consistency of their stance and particularly their philosophical consistency. I want to give a bit of background to the point I am trying to make. Recently I was reading the report back from the Education and Science Committee on the Education Standards Bill from some years ago. Alec Neill gave the bill its name. One of the things that bill did was to set up the New Zealand Teachers Council and one of the things it charged the council to do was to establish a code of ethics for teachers. 
The original bill said that the code of ethics then had to be approved by the Minister. New Zealand First I have to say to Mr Ardern was able to convince the Labour Party to step back from its socialist roots in the name of professionalism and to come away from that particular stance. New Zealand First was even able to convince the Alliance to step back from its ultra-socialist roots. We were not able to convince National to move back. The minority report states that National insisted that the Minister should have to approve the code of standards for teachers that was established by that body. 
Now I come to this particular bill and I ask where the consistency is in National’s stance. National is saying that rather than outside organisations having the majority power to appoint members to a body that is really fulfilling national tasks or the Government’s tasks and certainly it is funded largely through the taxpayer—that no no it should not be the elected representatives of the people who put those people on the board—it should in fact be people who have been elected by some 25000 members of bodies. New Zealand First says there is an inconsistency in National’s stance on both of those positions. 
The second inconsistency is that this bill will cut the number of members of the Historic Places Trust. We hear day after day members from that side of the Chamber saying that we need to cut back on the number of people in such positions across the board. We have all these so-called party hacks who are being put up to those positions they are costing the taxpayer oodles and oodles of money and it is irresponsible to the taxpayer. Yet when the Government finally comes up with some legislation to cut the numbers National says: “No no you can’t do that. We’ve got to keep the numbers as high as possible.” What New Zealand First is saying is that there is a total inconsistency in the position that the Opposition has taken. It is trying to play the old first-past-the-post politics. The Opposition still does not understand that we are now in an era of MMP. We have been since 1996. It is something that the National Opposition still does not seem to understand. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Is that what this speech is all about? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: It is not about that. It is about the fact that National has not come to grips with MMP. New Zealand First has come to grips with MMP. We heard in the debate on the last bill how National had achieved something. We will give it full credit for achieving that. The one thing that National has achieved in 7 years is that it has led a debate quite justifiably around some legislative changes that were needed. That is the one thing that all the people who voted for National have got. For the people who voted for National in 1999 in 2002 and in 2005 that is it. That is as good as it gets. National is being inconsistent in its approach. It is not trying to play constructive politics which MMP demands. New Zealand First says that that will not help things. [ 
Interruption 
] At least I did not have to go back to Holyoake to get my quotes. 
There is another part of this bill that New Zealand First completely and utterly agrees with. It is the part that changes the definition of the members who are to be appointed under it. I want to read what the clause says: “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 worldview) and tikanga Maori (Maori protocol and culture).” 
New Zealand First totally agrees with that way of putting legislation. The focus is upon the knowledge the understanding and the skills that are to be brought to the task rather than on the ethnicity. I am speaking of this because there is a Green Party amendment that says the persons who are appointed under this particular legislation have to be ethnically Maori. The logic of this is that Kiri Te Kanawa could not sit on the board of National Opera of New Zealand because she is not Italian. When we think about it she does not have Italian genes. That is exactly the same logic that is behind this particular provision. We know that Inia Te Wiata was an expert in opera. He also carved the pou at New Zealand House. I have heard from people in the know and I could be wrong but I am just saying this—it is something I have heard; it is hearsay—that he did not have a great deal of knowledge about carving and the history and traditions behind carving. The logic of this says that he should be able to have input into an area that he did not have a great deal of expertise in because of his ethnicity but he should not be able to be on the board of any organisation that was making decisions around opera in which he was world renowned. 
We could take it even further—to the stupidity of the logic that flows from this amendment. Turi Carroll could not have become Acting Prime Minister of New Zealand given that the Westminster system grew from the British experience. That is how stupid this particular legislation is. In fact it probably also says that the 80 percent of the Kiwi rugby league team who are Samoan should not be able to play rugby league because it was born in the north of England. That is ludicrous and it is ludicrous to define who can or cannot sit on boards because of the peculiarities of their DNA. It is their life experiences and the knowledge that comes from that which is the important factor. New Zealand First has to confer with the wording of this part of the bill because it is something that we and particularly our leader have been arguing for for many many years. Thank you Mr Chairman.