Historic Places Amendment Bill

I move, That the Historic Places Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill amends the Historic Places Act of 1993. The Historic Places Trust was established in 1954 and is governed by a board of trustees. Its Māori Heritage Council has particular responsibilities for Māori heritage. The trust is charged with a range of functions and powers under the Act. That is in keeping with its purpose to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of historical and cultural heritage in New Zealand. The Historic Places Trust compiles and maintains a register of places of historical and cultural heritage. It protects archaeological sites, and it educates and informs New Zealanders about the ways in which their historic heritage can be preserved. It also owns and manages a range of heritage properties.

The trust works with individuals and organisations that have an active interest in the integrity of heritage places in New Zealand. The trust has important responsibilities under the Resource Management Act, whereby it works with local authorities to promote the preservation of heritage places within their areas. That role has taken on greater significance since amendments to the Resource Management Act were passed in 2003. Those amendments made historic heritage protection a matter of national importance that local authorities must recognise and provide for in the exercise of their functions and powers.

It is not proposed to review the purpose or role of the trust or its regulatory responsibilities in this bill. The amendments to this bill will strengthen the New Zealand Historic Places Trust’s governance arrangements by reducing the size of its board and increasing the number of Government appointees. The amendments will also enhance the trust’s accountability to the Government by designating it as a Crown entity, providing for greater public involvement in the process of registering historic heritage, and clarifying some sections of the Act that are unclear or difficult to administer. Reducing the number of board members will create a more cohesive and decisive group, and align it with statutory organisations of a similar size. Increasing the number of Crown appointees to the board will more adequately reflect the Government’s interest in the trust. It is expected that the overall effect will be to ensure a greater range of skills and experience in the make-up of the board, and to enhance its ability to fulfil its core functions.

The proposed redefinition of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as a Crown entity will enhance its accountability to the Government. The detailed amendments required to effect that change have been included in the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill that was introduced earlier this year. That amendment is particularly important given the increasing proportion of the trust funding that is now provided by the Government.

This Government is taking its obligations to the culture and heritage sectors very seriously, and has backed its commitment with a significant programme of funding and legislation. For the trust, this means that baseline funding has increased, and will increase, over successive years, from $4.5 million, GST inclusive, in 2002-03, to $7.5 million, GST inclusive, in 2005-06. In addition, the Government has established the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund, which is to be administered by the trust, to encourage the preservation of privately owned and nationally significant heritage properties that would otherwise be in danger of neglect or demolition. An additional annual sum of $563,000, GST inclusive, has been appropriated to that fund.

Other changes proposed in the bill will clarify meanings. For example, the term “historic place” will include all structures and a group of associated buildings, such as a house and its outbuildings. The amendments will also reinforce the registration process so that it is consistent across all four parts of the historic places register, which include historic places, historic areas, wāhi tapu places, and wāhi tapu areas. It will also provide for greater public involvement in the registration process, through public notification of all proposed registrations, and provision for submissions on all proposals that are being considered by the trust when making decisions on registration.

So in summary, the protection of our historic places requires a strong and effective heritage agency at the national level—an agency with an overview of historic heritage management issues. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust does a most valuable job in fulfilling its responsibilities as defined by the legislation at present. I thank the chair of the trust, Dame Anne Salmond, and the trust board members, and the Māori Heritage Council members, as well as the staff of the trust, for the enormous effort they make to do the job required by New Zealand’s heritage needs and by the legislation.

The Government recognises the significance of the existing heritage legislation and its infrastructure. It is also very aware of the need for robust mechanisms that will protect and manage New Zealand’s heritage for the benefit of the present, and for future generations. In reviewing and amending the Historic Places Act, the Government is looking to strengthen what is already in place and give them the tools they need to do the job even better. I intend to move at the end of this debate that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for its consideration.

In rising to speak to the Historic Places Amendment Bill, I want to confirm that the National Party likewise takes very seriously the protection of our historic heritage. In that regard, National would have been pleased to support this amendment bill, but we find that the amendments proposed by the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage do not go anywhere near fulfilling the responsibilities she has outlined, and National will oppose the bill.

As the Minister has already said, the bill amends the Historic Places Act of 1993 to adjust both the governance and the accountability of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Among other matters, it also amends the provisions in relation to the registration of historic places, including wāhi tapu. The 1993 Act gives the trust a range of functions and powers, including protecting archaeological sites, maintaining a register of places of historic and cultural heritage, and owning and managing heritage properties. All New Zealanders depend upon this Parliament to make sure that we as a people, as a country—a nation—take all steps reasonable to maintain our historic heritage. So, of course, as I said earlier, National is very supportive of the underlying principles that surround the preservation of our historic heritage. But, as I said also, we have serious reservations about the amendments being proposed in the bill, and I will come to that presently.

Although the trust exercises regulatory responsibilities and receives funding by way of parliamentary appropriations, it is not currently regarded as a Crown entity, as the Minister said. Regarding such accountability arrangements, it is proposed that the trust become a Crown entity with the same accountability requirements as other Crown entities such as Te Papa and Creative New Zealand. Provisions for this change are included in a Supplementary Order Paper, currently before the House, that amends the public finance legislation advancing the reform of Crown entities. National is currently looking at those amendments. We have not quite come to a judgment whether those, in themselves, are appropriate or acceptable. So there is doubt, I think, as to whether the provision to make the Historic Places Trust a Crown entity is warranted or appropriate.

Regarding governance, the size of the trust board is reduced from 11 to nine members, and the number of Crown appointments is increased from three out of 11, to become six out of nine. I heard the Minister commending Dame Ann Salmond and the members of the trust for the fine work they have been doing. I have to wonder why, then, the Government sees fit to reduce the number of members of a board that has, clearly, been doing a good job—and within constraints at particular times. It now also sees fit to increase the number of members on that trust board to be appointed by the Government. As I said, the total number goes from 11 to nine, and three of those appointments, under the current legislation, are Crown appointments; under the provisions advanced here, the Crown presence on the board will go to six, out of nine members. From National’s point of view, it looks to us as if the Government wants to exercise even greater ministerial control over the trust. I cannot see how that fits with the praise that the Minister was giving the trust a minute ago for the way that it has been discharging its responsibilities. It looks to us like more “Helengrad” State control. One has to wonder whether, in the context of preserving our historic heritage, that is appropriate; we do not think it is. That is one of the reasons why we are opposing this bill today.

The other area is the very high profile area of wāhi tapu. With regard to the trust’s heritage responsibilities, which is the way that the new provisions have been characterised, the bill repeals and, supposedly, clarifies certain sections of the Act that deal with the registration of historic places and wāhi tapu, ostensibly to enhance the trust’s ability to fulfil its heritage responsibilities. But I have to say, speaking on behalf of National, that we believe that, whatever the Minister’s intentions were in dealing with this area, the bill fails to provide a satisfactory solution to the issue of wāhi tapu. We know how vexed an issue it is, and we know how much of a high profile matter it can become. National believes that the amendments proposed here today are minor, particularly given the background against which this matter has been debated over the last 3 or 4 years. Of course, we had substantial debates on it when we were doing the local government reform not so long ago, and it also arises in the context of the Resource Management Act. It is an issue up and down the country for both landowners and, I guess, Māori, who particularly look for appropriate protection of wāhi tapu areas.

We have no confidence that the changes proposed in this amendment bill will actually address some of the issues that arise, and have arisen over the last few years. As I say, we believe the amendments are minor, and that far more substantive reform is required both to protect the legitimate rights of landowners but also to bring some clarity and certainty to Māori, who assert rights over wāhi tapu from one end of the country to the other. It is an issue that has to be dealt with, certainly, in the regions and at local government level. We think it deserves changes that are fair to all sides of the equation and actually remove a lot of the angst and the sadness—quite frankly, sometimes these things have arisen in such a way as to make one cringe—that often occur when issues like wāhi tapu are discussed and are blown up to become quite controversial.

National opposes this bill. We think it just increases the opportunity for ministerial control. We do not see that as being appropriate. We also think that the contentious issues surrounding wāhi tapu—an important concept—are not being dealt with in a substantive way, and that the bill will bring neither clarity nor certainty to either landowners or those Māori tribal groups who seek both clarity and certainty.

This is an important bill, and I am very proud that this Government has taken its obligations to the culture and heritage sectors very, very seriously. We have put our money where our mouth is, so to speak. We have backed our commitment with a significant programme of funding and legislation. I was interested to hear the previous speaker concentrate on the reduction in board membership, but she failed to mention anything about dollars. Well, this Government has put up the dollars, and I know that that has been greatly appreciated by the sector. It is all very well to talk, but we have walked the walk; we have backed up the talk.

Mind you, I am not surprised at the comments that have been made by Opposition members in regard to this matter, because it is tough winning money for the cultural and arts sectors. It is not always hugely popular. One does have to spend a lot of time talking and listening carefully to the community. It is not like putting money into sport or other areas that everybody is almost afraid to say no to. Have members ever heard anybody say we should not put money into sport? Of course not. We do have to fight, lobby, and negotiate carefully to win money for the arts, and I am very proud of what our Government has done in the area of arts, culture, and heritage.

One of the rich ironies of that attitude, in respect of the National Party in the past, is that I remember sitting in the House during the Rt Hon Jim Bolger’s valedictory speech, and one of my abiding memories was his stating he wished he had done more for the arts—it was a bit like Bob Hawke saying he wished he had done more for the Aboriginal people of Australia. Nevertheless, Mr Bolger had had plenty of time to do something about it. It was a bit of a shame that he left it to his valedictory speech to mention anything about it.

I strongly believe that if we do not protect our past, we undermine our future. I pay particular acknowledgment, reference, and appreciation to the many volunteers out there in the New Zealand community who help to protect arts, culture, and heritage in New Zealand—those thousands of regional organisations, large and small, that keep fostering arts, culture, and heritage in our small and larger communities. I refer to the building owners who, at their own personal expense, ensure that their buildings are kept at a safe standard, maintained, and decorated in a style that befits the architecture of them. Also, there are the thousands of enthusiasts throughout New Zealand who help to give us all strength by what they do in a voluntary capacity.

One of the other indicative attitudinal responses from the National Party was the comment from Wayne Mapp—he is not misquoted, because it is from his own newsletter, the Mapp Report—that, in a National alternative budget in 2001 he wanted to cancel wasteful programmes and reduce spending on arts and culture by 30 percent. What a short-sighted approach! It is typical. Sadly, it appeals to the uninformed and perhaps less forward-looking members of the community, and National kowtows to them with that short-sighted approach. It was a foolhardy statement. Of course, National has consistently voted against protecting very, very important New Zealand cultural institutions, as it did with the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. It is just incredible in its short-sightedness.

This is a splendid bill, and I sincerely hope that many members around the House will support it. We do need to look after our past, and, by doing so, we are looking after our future.

What a strange, confused speech that was! It ranged over arts, occasionally touched on culture, then went back to arts. I thought that perhaps the member had the wrong bill. She said it was a splendid bill and she said it was an important bill. I looked at my copy of Brooker’s to see whether I could find what she was talking about—whether I could find a bill that included all those other issues around the Historic Places Act of 1993. Finally, I realised she was talking about the Historic Places Amendment Bill, a slip of a bill with no sound reason for it.

The only reason why New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee is that we want the opportunity for some of the issues to be well teased out by the wider public, because they need to be teased out—particularly when I see that, for some strange reason, section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act is being inserted, almost unobtrusively, by clause 4 into section 20(6) of the principal Act. No clarification is given. There is nothing to say what section 6(e) means—“The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.” Wāhi tapu is covered in the Historic Places Act of 1993, so why put into this bill a very important part of section 6 of the Resource Management Act—the section headed “Matters of national importance”?

Lest members think New Zealand First is not concerned about our heritage, I say we are. We are concerned about our culture, and we know what the arts are about, as well. We do not come to the House and make a grand speech that puts them all into one, as the previous member did, leaving me and other members completely confused.

The other issue that is strange about this bill is the matter of funding, which the member who has just resumed her seat spoke about. She spoke about the volumes of adequate funding going to the Historic Places Trust. The Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, who introduced the bill, spoke about the excellent work done by the chairperson of the board. Furthermore, the previous member told us about the numbers of volunteers out there who are doing excellent work. All of that would presuppose that the Historic Places Trust Act passed by the National Party Government in 1993, which includes all these issues, had no need of amendment. So why is there an amendment bill before us with a few little issues for us to look at?

Why is the Government, in this bill, reducing the size of the board from 11 to nine members? Why is the Government appointing not three Crown appointees but six? Six out of the nine members on the new board will be direct placements by the Minister and the Government. Perhaps it is an early sign that the Government really feels it is on the way out, and so, before it goes some time next year, it wants to appoint its mates to this board, and thereby ensure the continuation of the present Government’s policies for the next 3 years. That may be the real intention of this bill. There are to be not just three Crown appointees but six Crown appointees—and, by the way, because there is a foreshore and seabed issue out there that happens to make some people quite concerned, it will make three of those appointees Māori. Despite the fact that the trust is doing good work at the present time, despite the fact that the Māori Heritage Council, which is a subgroup of the board, does excellent work, the Government wants to introduce on to this trust board more Māori and more Government appointees.

What will they do when they get there? They will have regard to clause 4, which comes from the Resource Management Act 1991. That is what they will do. They will have no definitions, no legal clarifications, no help in respect of what clause 4 means. I do hope that those who are listening will make submissions to help to flesh out for the select committee exactly what it could mean. New Zealand First believes that this insertion is completely out of place. It gives no definition, and if there is any provision that requires very clear definition and expansion today, because of what is happening out there in the field of jurisdiction and court matters, it is this very one. What is meant by “ancestral lands, water, sites, and waahi tapu”—not in the past but in 2004? For that matter, what does “wāhi tapu” really mean? When I look at Brooker’s I see explanations of the 1993 Act, and they appear to me to be quite adequate. The National Party Government of the day obviously found them very adequate, because it put them in its legislation. Why, therefore, is there this further intrusion of wāhi tapu into this amendment bill?

There is no more confusing issue out there than wāhi tapu. It bedevils district and regional councils. I am told that, just north of here, the South Wairarapa District Council this year alone will spend $175,000 of precious ratepayer money just to identify where wāhi tapu are. That may be money well spent, if there is clarity once and for all as to where they are. I suggest to the Minister that the issue of wāhi tapu areas gives one as little or as much as one desires, and thereby bedevils planners, local authorities, and, most of all, any would-be developer, applicant, or farmer. It is high time the Government looked at not extending some of these issues but at the current law and current practice, and noted the need for a very clear definition of each of those terms—not in respect of the past but as they are today. I am very pleased to say that there is no mention in the bill of Māori spiritual beliefs, which it was suggested be in the Resource Management Act. This party believes that spiritual beliefs are personal and play no part whatsoever in any matter such as the matters that are before us.

Regional councils have always been notified of changes, and this bill just makes that more certain. They have also always been notified of wāhi tapu. So I do not see those changes as being very significant at all.

To come to the end, New Zealand First has to question why this very slight bill is here. It does not materially add anything much to the Historic Places Act; it adds no more to what the Act does at the present time with regard to the register, and it adds no more to the ownership and management of heritage properties. By the way, despite what the previous member said about the Government’s funding, I could introduce members to people, at the present time occupying heritage sites that are directly under the administration of the Minister, who feel quite the contrary; they feel that there has not been sufficient funding with regard to the upkeep or present-day management of some of these heritage properties—but that is another matter for another time.

Lastly, does the bill strengthen governance? No. Does it enhance accountability to the Government? It might if the Government is able to appoint a sufficient number of its friends! Does it give any increased accountability by making the organisation a Crown entity? No. At the end of the issue, registration is adequate at the present time, and at a first glance I cannot see anything in the bill that makes it necessary, apart from the fact that it enhances the ability of the Government to influence the Historic Places Trust for the next 3-plus years. If ever there was a sign of an outgoing Government, that is it. Its mates are going to be appointed, and that will somehow ensure the continuity and the influence of its policies.

Although New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee, that is simply because we want to have an expression of opinion about the matters that I have raised— principally, why section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act is inserted by clause 4; it makes no sound sense. Also, the issues of wāhi tapu need to be explored and a clear definition provided, which has not been done in the past. And to have six appointees out of nine appointed directly by the Government and under its influence is a real change that moves a long, long way from the intention of the Government in 1993 to have an independent, objective group that takes a new look at heritage and culture. This amendment moves away from that, towards direct Government direction under the hand of the Minister. We resent that being in this bill, and we will do our utmost to ensure that those who make submissions on this very small amendment bill are fully aware of the implications of it.

The Greens will support the referral of this legislation to a select committee. We are generally supportive of the new provisions. The effectiveness of the Historic Places Trust Board has more to do with the commitment, the understanding, and the resourcing of that board than it has to do with the numbers. However, we have some concerns about the number of Government appointments. We feel that at least half the members should be members recommended by the wider community.

The bill obliges the board to take on members with a greater awareness of te ao Māori and tikanga Māori, and we think that is vital. Much of the misunderstanding in recent years is a consequence of a lack of understanding of both those issues—that is, te ao Māori and tikanga Māori. Heritage is more than just places; it is the expression of an important part of our history. I was recently looking through some fairly old papers in Nelson, which mentioned the fact that in part of Nelson there are 400 acres of modified soils. That does not speak of a rather primitive culture; it speaks of a very well-developed and settled culture, in an area where, I might add, Nelsonians do not believe we have a Māori history. In fact, if a beefed-up board makes us more aware of that kind of history, then it is to be commended. The issue is not just about preserving our heritage; it is also about making us aware of our heritage.

We accept that there is a commitment by the Government to preserve heritage, but this legislation will bind future Governments. Can we be sure of a similar level of commitment from future Governments, and be sure that they will ensure the six Government appointees are suitably committed to the protection of heritage? We will seek to ensure that at least three of those appointees are from community nominations. We hope that under the amended legislation the board will move from simply protecting heritage and individually designated buildings and sites, to encouraging the kind of culture shift that is necessary to protect, to restore, and to value all of our heritage. At this stage I believe that most New Zealanders do not really care very much about heritage until there is something in their backyard that they think needs protection—that is, a particular building. All of us need to understand that all heritage is worthy of examination, protection, and understanding. That is the purpose of this legislation. The present legislation is not working well, and needs to be amended. Hopefully, our misgivings about this bill will be met by the hearings in the select committee.

Historic buildings and heritage sites frequently have considerable architectural and landscape merit. To just simply put that up for examination makes for a worthwhile exercise. Perhaps more important, our heritage is a reminder of a rich and an exciting past, and an awareness of that past is essential for an appreciation and a pride in our identity. That is of particular importance in our understanding of wāhi tapu and tikanga Māori. The issue is not that we should never alter those sites—it is not that they should not be touched, and not that they should not be even obliterated on occasions—because sometimes there is very little there. But before we do so, we need to make sure we know what is there, get it down in writing, and get it recorded so that future generations can also know what was there.

Heritage has value not just from an aesthetic point of view; it also has economic value. And in a country that makes a very large amount of money, now, from tourism—I think in Rotorua tourism is vastly more worthwhile in economic terms than dairying, for instance—the historic elements, the heritage elements, are an important part of the reason why people come to this country. Many of us undervalue our heritage. We are not aware of our heritage, and we are not even aware that we have a history of any consequence. Protecting heritage is about making us aware that it is there, and making sure that we do, in fact, respect and value it. Heritage has economic value, as well, in terms of buildings that are vastly more interesting than many of the buildings that we currently put up. I have watched a great deal of heritage in my city come down, because Nelson is a fairly well-endowed community and we have a habit of bowling buildings and replacing them with new ones of vastly less consequence than the previous ones. So valuing heritage is also about valuing its economic value. I know there are people in Parliament who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. But, in fact, while the protection of heritage may come at a price, the destruction of heritage also comes at a price. And in addition to the intrinsic value of heritage, there are very real economic values associated with retaining heritage.

I am thinking again of my own community, in which some heritage buildings have found new and very profitable uses, and in which some old buildings have high-tech uses. I am thinking of perhaps Radio Fifeshire in the old Harley homestead in Nelson, which has been double glazed. That homestead has been made to work as a radio station, and yet it is still an important part of a historic precinct in Nelson. That works very well, and that radio station gains considerable prestige from occupying such a building. I am also thinking of the other buildings in the neighbourhood—of my own office in upper Trafalgar Street in Nelson, and of the Victorian Rose Pub and Cafe. That building was earmarked for destruction by the city council, which once occupied it. It has now been preserved and restored, and it is an exciting building. It is one of the most profitable pubs in all of Nelson. When one goes in there, one senses the European history of my city. The idea that people will put some energy into those buildings because they have economic value is evident from the Victorian Rose Pub and Cafe in my community.

We are supporting the amendments provided for in this bill, but not without reservations. We hope that those reservations can be met by the amended legislation because, as I said before, currently the legislation is not working adequately. We are hopeful that the new membership will be more committed than the present board, and that perhaps with the additional funding that the Government has supported, it will have the resources to do its job more adequately. So we are pleased to support the legislation. We hope that changes will be made, and I am hopeful that the rest of the House will, in fact, get behind this legislation. If members have misgivings about the bill, then they will have the opportunity to have those misgivings addressed during the Committee stage. We will be there with our fingers crossed, and we are prepared to make the improvements that are necessary.

The State has enormous powers, and when the State abuses those powers it can ride roughshod over the lives and the property of citizens who are minding their own business, who are not hurting anybody else, and who have their property rights stripped away from them. This bill is all about enabling the State to abuse its powers even further. There is no need for this bill, as Jim Peters has already pointed out. I can remember when people used to be proud to belong to the Historic Places Trust. I was proud to belong to the trust, and I used to go on trust tours around the Wairarapa. People used to hold their little card, and they used to be involved in saving buildings. It was a community effort, and it was something to do with the people of New Zealand. Over the years successive Governments, and not just this Government, have taken that power away from people and put it into the hands of the State, and the State, under legislation like this, is very, very easily able to abuse other people and push them around.

Jill Pettis talked about adequate funding now under this Government. When has the Historic Places Trust ever gone to any Government and said it has enough money, and should not be given any more? That was an absolute nonsense, and that member knows that that is a nonsense. There will never be enough funding if the trust is totally reliant on Government funding. Do members know why the trust is more and more reliant on Government funding? Because this sort of legislation excludes people. Why has membership dropped off, year after year, from the trust? It will drop off even further when people see what is being done under this legislation, where six out of nine members on the board of the trust are to be Crown appointees. The reason for that is so that the Government—the State—can have more power over what happens to people’s private property. This legislation will not affect people who live in nice villas in Ponsonby, Grey Lynn, Kelburn, Khandallah, or Fendalton. But farmers should be very, very afraid, because the power that the Government—the State—will have to ride over people’s land and to do what it wants with that land will be huge.

The Minister talked about the need to preserve our culture in our old buildings. Where was she when the Gummer and Ford building was being demolished, or is still being demolished, just about 100 metres from this place—the P and O building? Did she care about that building? Where was she when His Majesty’s Theatre was destroyed? I have been involved in putting my personal money where my mouth is, in terms of saving old buildings. That is what we should encourage people to do, rather than take their money off them and give it to the State.

I want to tell the House the story of how the Historic Places Act enabled the State to abuse the private property rights of a farmer in Northland. That is a travesty, and it has never ever been resolved. It was under the old Act—it was pre-1993—and it demonstrates exactly why Mr Peters was right when he said that this bill is not necessary. It concerned a man called Mr John White, who bought 586 hectares of farming land in Northland. The land had been running sheep and cattle for 132 years, without destroying any of the archaeological sites on the land. Mr White was proud of the fact that the land would be named as one of the world heritage sites listed in the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee, alongside such sites as the pyramids. Under the district plan Mr White was allowed to subdivide the land into separate lots. In the subdivision he made provision for public walkways and boards that would guide the public as to where the archaeological sites were that had been identified by an archaeologist from Auckland University.

The trust was not at all interested in cooperating with Mr White. Under the Act, the trust had the power to destroy his rights on that land. The matter went on and on. Mr White gave the Crown an option to purchase the land—if it wanted to buy it, it could have it and do what it liked with it. The Crown stuffed around with that right to purchase the land. The matter went on and on. Mr White consulted with local iwi. He was aware of the wāhi tapu on the land. There was a mountain that was considered to be a wāhi tapu. He gave that mountain to the Tai Tokerau Māori Trust Board, but that was not enough. The issue went on and on. In the end Mr White had to sell that land. He sold it—it cost him a million dollars—and he took what he could get for it. The land had so much history and so many notifications on it that anyone who was interested in buying it was scared off. When Mr White sold the land it was developed, and all the things that he was not allowed to do went ahead and were done. That is why we oppose this legislation.

The ACT party does believe in preserving our culture and our heritage. However, we believe that we should do it, and that the process should not be State controlled. Money should not be taken off people and given to the State, so that the State can decide what people can do with their own land. The greatest measure of conservation is to protect people’s private property rights. All we have to do if we want a blatant example of that is to go to the Eastern bloc countries where there are no property rights, and to see what happened to their culture and heritage. They were totally obliterated. The more that this Government, or any Government, passes legislation like this, appointing six out of nine members on a board as Crown appointees, the more we go down that path.

We have the nebulous concept of wāhi tapu, which is not defined and can be anything that anyone thinks it is. If someone wants to stuff up a development, he or she should mention wāhi tapu and see people’s property rights be taken off them. People still own the land—they still pay the rates, and pay for gorse control, pest control, and all the other things. In fact, under a wāhi tapu notification, if landowners want to plant native trees and preserve the land by turning it into bush, they still have to get permission to do that. They still have to consult with local iwi. Even though people own the land nominally, it is taken away from them in terms of what they can do with it. There is a word for that: it is national socialism. It is something that all the names around the walls of the Chamber signify we do not want to have in this country.

We vehemently oppose this bill. I say to all landowners out there who are listening to this debate, especially if they are in rural areas, that they should make a submission to the select committee and oppose this bill with all their might.

The National Party is opposing the Historic Places Amendment Bill for a variety of reasons. We regard it as—and Jim Peters also pointed this out—absolutely unnecessary. I, too, pay tribute to the dozens of volunteers around this country who have supported the Historic Places Trust for many, many years. Wonderful New Zealanders have spontaneously put their hearts and souls into the Historic Places Trust. That is an indication of one of the richnesses that New Zealand has, and it certainly should be cultivated for years to come. But what do we see this Labour Government doing? Oh no, it wants some central control of it. According to Jill Pettis, the Government will also pour money into it—recklessly pour money into it, and that is the huge problem with it.

Firstly, this legislation allows even greater ministerial control over the trust, with ministerial appointees increasing from three out of 11, to six out of nine. That is another classic dose of the Helen Clark type of central control. This Labour Government just cannot help itself. If one thinks back to the recent New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill, one recalls that it seemed harmless enough, but in that legislation the Government wanted to prescribe the sort of music that New Zealanders listen to. The Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage over there said that she did not like dead men’s music, that she did not like Mozart and Beethoven. That is exactly what she said, although she has retracted it a bit; at the time, that is what she said. On that legislation, the Government wanted more central control.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am deeply concerned that I was badly misquoted by that member. I did not say at any stage—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

She protesteth a little too much. She certainly talked about dead men’s music and her dislike of it.

But the second reason we are opposing this bill is that it fails to provide a satisfactory solution to the very contentious and sensitive issue of wāhi tapu, both for landowners and for Māori. Unfortunately, the improvements in the bill are very minor, when what is needed is much more substantial reform in order to protect the legitimate rights of landowners and to clarify for Māori what is a hugely important area for them. This bill fails to do that.

I note that the general policy statement in the explanatory note states: “This bill amends the Historic Places Act 1993”—a good Act that was brought in by National—“to adjust and clarify its application.” Well, when we look through this bill we do not see much clarity. I will talk about that later. The explanatory note goes on to state: “The Historic Places Act 1993 gives the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (Pouhere Taonga) (the Trust) a range of functions and powers.” I thought I remembered the Minister saying that the bill does not change the role or purpose of the original legislation. There is a lack of clarity as to what the bill actually does, but here it states: “Among other things, these concern protecting archaeological sites, maintaining a Register of places of historical and cultural heritage, and owning and managing heritage properties.”—all things that are very important to the National Party, but I do not think the bill makes much difference in terms of their being done. It goes on to state: “Although the Trust exercises regulatory responsibilities, and receives funding by parliamentary appropriation, it is not currently regarded as a Crown entity.” This legislation needs to do more than simply make the Historic Places Trust a Crown entity. It is just another absolutely unnecessary exercise by the Labour Government to try to solidify central control of something.

Then we get on to this very important explanation: “The Trust’s governance arrangements are strengthened by, among other measures, reducing the size of the Trust Board from 11 to 9 members,”. Yes, we love the reduction in size, but when we see that the number of Crown appointments is to be increased from three to six, we really see what the Labour Government is all about. Government members will be appointing their mates, just to try to organise the control of this country that they want so much—let alone control of this country’s heritage. That is where it gets rather worrisome. We have a wonderful legacy of volunteers involved with the Historic Places Trust, and, once again, the vice-like clamp of central control from the Labour Government is taking over.

Going on to the section in the explanatory note dealing with amendments to the principal Act, I note that clause 4 adds new paragraph (f) to section 20(6) of the principal Act, and that paragraph (f) is supposed to clarify that “a court considering an appeal must have regard to the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu, and other taonga.” What does the Labour Government really think about those issues? I was very interested to hear Jim Peters saying there was nothing more confusing than the issue of wāhi tapu. He says we need to sort it out, to provide clarity. The councils are totally confused, the planners are bedevilled by it, and the local authorities find it absolutely difficult—let alone the applicants up and down the country.

I think it is important to draw attention to the difficulties I have witnessed in Port Waikato with two major projects that the Government has rammed through. It has given little regard to wāhi tapu. Under its interpretation of it, it has just gone ahead with those two major projects; it has forgotten about that issue, which it says is so important to it. Let me tell members about them.

Firstly, of course, there was the Hampton Downs dump, which is New Zealand’s biggest-ever landfill. It will take rubbish from the top half of the North Island for the next 60 years. It is of huge importance to the nation in terms of the way we treat garbage. Yet the Minister said that, no, it is a local issue and we should forget about the fact that the area between Meremere and Rangiriri is one of the most important areas in terms of New Zealand history. It has been described by people like Belich as being hugely significant. Certainly, local Māori came to me and said how important it was to them. But the Labour Government said it was a local issue and it would ram through New Zealand’s biggest dump, to be situated 500 metres from the Waikato River—which is, again, of huge importance to Māori—and a few kilometres up from Auckland’s latest water supply.

Not only did it do that but it said it did not want the next Auckland regional men’s prison to be in a Labour electorate, so it would put it in the northern Waikato heartland, in the same area—between Rangiriri and Meremere. It just ploughed ahead, irrespective of the very, very important concept of wāhi tapu. The Minister of Corrections over there was offered the opportunity of a prison being built where people actually wanted it. People in north Huntly wrote to him that they were prepared to have the prison north of Huntly, where it would help unemployment, but he refused to go ahead with that. That is what the Labour Government thinks of wāhi tapu. It has total disregard for it, yet it says this bill clarifies the issue.

I see in this bill only a totally unnecessary set of Labour Government aims with which it plans to put more central control on the electorate.

As speakers before me have indicated, National will oppose the first reading of the Historic Places Amendment Bill. We have some grave concerns about the way in which the Government is attempting to restructure the governance arrangements of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Although the explanatory note to the bill states that the Government is keen to increase and strengthen accountability measures, it is clear from the provisions of the bill that the Government wishes to increase its stranglehold on the trust in a way that would see its independence and, frankly, its credibility threatened because of the way this bill proposes to adjust governance arrangements.

The explanatory note states: “The Trust’s governance arrangements are strengthened by, among other measures, reducing the size of the Trust Board from 11 to 9 members”. Although members on this side of the House would, on the face of it, applaud fewer positions on Government boards and the like, what concerns us more is that, when one reads further through the explanatory note, it states that the bill would increase the number of Crown appointments from three members to six on a board of nine members. So six members out of a total of nine would be Crown appointments.

I have left it to the very capable Georgina te Heuheu and Paul Hutchison to outline other details relating to our opposition, but I will just ask how and on what basis could the governance of the trust be strengthened by increasing Government representation on the board. Once again, this Government has formed the very ideological view that the Government knows best how to govern arrangements and boards such as this, and that it is not for the public or any other organisations to make appointments that would accurately reflect those with an interest or a stake in this particular trust. Instead the Government, in all its benevolence, will know exactly who should make up the members of that board and, with the majority of those members being Government appointments, who is most appropriate to sit on that board.

Members on this side of the House say that that is not good enough. This Government cannot resist constantly digging its fingers, claws, and clutches further into organisations, everyday life foundations, and the like, that do a pretty good job without the Government interfering in their day-to-day governance arrangements. I think, as members on this side of the House do, that the Government is selling the Historic Places Trust short by saying “We know best.” Members on this side of the House dispute that strongly. I endorse the comments made by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu—our lead speaker on this bill—and Dr Paul Hutchison. I reconfirm that National will be opposing this bill.