Historic Places Amendment Bill

I move, That the Historic Places Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Our heritage has an important role to play in our present and future lives. It helps us to understand who we are, in terms of our passage from the events of the past to the society of today. It contributes to our identity as a distinctive and diverse nation in a global environment. The Government is committed to ensuring that the places, treasures, and stories of our past are preserved, and that future generations have access to our unique heritage.

Although the protection of New Zealand’s heritage is largely the responsibility of communities and local authorities, there is also a need for strong leadership at the national level. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has a long and successful track record in promoting the identification, protection, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand. The Government values the role of the Historic Places Trust, and the role it has played within the existing legislation, and notes that demands on the trust’s services have been increasing massively over recent years.

The trust, formerly a statutory body and a non-Crown entity, has been established as an autonomous Crown entity through the Crown Entities Act, which was passed in 2004. The new structure that is proposed in this legislation ensures that robust accountability procedures, and obligations to act prudently in financial management, are maintained—for example, through the requirement to prepare and report against a statement of intent. The Historic Places Amendment Bill amends the Historic Places Act 1993. It is designed to strengthen the trust’s governance arrangements and consolidate its position as the national body with responsibility for historic heritage issues. The bill does not alter the purpose, role, or regulatory responsibilities of the trust. Rather than reinventing the wheel, the Government has focused on strengthening what is already in place.

The trust and relevant Government departments were consulted on all proposals incorporated into the bill. In addition, consultation on a position paper that was issued in May 2003 was undertaken with local authorities, nearly 50 iwi authorities, rūnunga, Māori organisations, relevant heritage organisations, and a range of national bodies that have an interest in historic heritage issues. As a result of that consultation on the position paper, 33 submissions were received. It was encouraging that all policy proposals were supported by a significant majority of those submissions. The bill was first read in September 2004, and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. The committee received eight written submissions from interested groups and individuals, and heard three of those submissions orally.

I turn to specific measures that are addressed in the bill. One of the bill’s primary purposes is to reduce the number of trust board members from 11 to nine, and to increase the number of Crown appointees from three to six. The provision for three board members to be elected by the trust’s voluntary members is retained. I am aware that the committee’s minority report opposes the increase in Crown appointments. The Government is satisfied, however, that those measures are appropriate, given the Government’s considerable interests in the trust and the importance of the trust’s regulatory responsibilities. Reducing the number of board members will enhance the efficiency of decision making and align the board with statutory organisations of a similar size. Increasing the proportion of Crown appointees will enable appointments to be informed by a better overview of the board’s needs, while retaining the valuable input of the board’s elected members. It is expected that the overall effect of the change will be to achieve a greater range of skills and experience in the make-up of the board, and to ensure that it is well positioned to fulfil its core functions.

I note that increasing the proportion of Crown appointees does not in any way compromise the trust’s free and non-political operation. Consequential amendments to the Historic Places Act in the Crown Entities Act state that the Minister may not direct the trust in respect of heritage matters, thereby ensuring that the trust will continue to perform its functions independently.

The bill also addresses the process for compilation of the trust’s register of historical and cultural heritage. The Historic Places Act, as it stands, requires the trust to notify proposals to register historic and wāhi tapu places, but does not require notification of proposals to register historic and wāhi tapu areas; nor is the trust required to invite submissions on proposals for any part of the register. It is the trust’s practice to publicly notify and invite submissions on all registration proposals. The idea that this practice should be laid down in legislation, rather than be reliant on the trust’s policy, was one of the recommendations of an independent review of the trust’s processes, which was commissioned by the trust and carried out by former Environment Court judge Professor Peter Skelton. Hence, the bill includes the requirement for the trust to publicly notify and invite submissions on all registration proposals, thus ensuring that those affected by any registration continue to have their views taken into consideration.

The bill also includes a range of amendments to clarify or adjust certain sections of the Act. These amendments aim to align the Act with other legislation, rectify inconsistencies, improve the effectiveness of some sections, and clarify aspects of the trust’s archaeological authority processes. The bill, for example, makes it explicit that the term “historic place” can include all historic structures in a group of associated historic buildings.

After consideration of all submissions, the committee has recommended a small number of amendments to the bill as it was introduced to the House last September, and the Government concurs with those recommendations. The main amendment relates to section 31(3)(b), in clause 11, and section 32(3)(b), in clause 12. The committee has recommended that written notice of proposals for registration of historic areas and wāhi tapu areas need be given only to people whose names and places of residence or business are available to the trust or to the local council. That is in response to a concern expressed by the trust that obtaining the names and addresses of all owners and persons with a registered interest may be impossible, especially given that any affected Māori land could have thousands of owners. The other change relates to clause 16. The committee has recommended that the time allowed for the trust to undertake a review of registration be reduced from 2 years to 1 year, providing for greater efficiency as well as certainty for property owners.

A number of issues arose during the process of considering the bill that did not result in recommendations for change but are worthy of note. The first of those relates to the requirements for Māori expertise on the trust board. The bill requires that at least three board members be appointed with regard to their knowledge of Te Ao Māori, or a Māori worldview, and tikanga Māori, Māori protocol and culture. That replaces the provision in the Historic Places Act 1993 that three members of the board must be of Māori ethnicity, and is consistent with similar provisions in other recent legislation. The trust presented oral and written submissions expressing its preference that the existing provision that requires at least three people of Māori ethnicity to be on the board be maintained. The trust considers that provision important to ensure credibility and understanding of issues relating to New Zealand’s Māori heritage. The committee did not recommend an amendment, however, on the principle that appointments should be made on the basis of skills, knowledge, and experience rather than ethnicity. The Government supports the committee’s view, and is confident that the skills and knowledge specified ensure that the trust can effectively perform its role with regard to Māori heritage.

The trust also pointed out that as a result of its new status as a Crown entity, there will no longer be specific provision for a permanent deputy chairperson on the board. Currently, the principal Act provides for the trust board to elect its own deputy chair, but that provision was repealed by the Crown Entities Act. The position of deputy chair has always been an important one, as only three positions are able to exercise some of the statutory delegations in the principal Act. This issue has now been addressed, not through a requirement for the responsible Minister to appoint a permanent deputy chair but through consequential amendments to the principal Act and the Crown Entities Act. Those enable the relevant statutory delegations to be exercised by any one of the ministerially appointed members of the trust board.

The final issue is one raised in the committee’s minority report and relates to the definition of wāhi tapu, which the report suggests is too broad to be meaningful. There is, however, no proposal in the bill to amend the definition of wāhi tapu, as the Government considers the definition in the principal Act to be adequate and the trust has shown it can work effectively within that definition.

I acknowledge the time and well-considered comments of all those who made submissions. I am also appreciative of the hard work of the members of the Government Administration Committee in considering submissions and fine-tuning the wording of the bill. I also pay my respects to staff of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, who have worked long and hard on this bill, along with the staff and members of the trust. The Government believes that this bill, with the amendments I have noted, will provide a firm foundation for the trust’s continuing operation, and I commend the process of this bill through the House.

I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to this bill. National opposes this bill on a number of grounds, which I will outline to the House in a few moments.

I say for a start that I do not think many members in the House would object to having a solid framework to protect our historic places. The work that the Historic Places Trust does around New Zealand is acknowledged, and I think most people are in support of it. I imagine the Minister, Judith Tizard over there, is asking why National opposes this bill. It is simple. We have heard debates in this House in the last few days about National’s potential involvement with some American bagman or funding. The Minister is asking what that has to do with historic places. I will tell the Minister. There has never been an involvement with American bagmen or suchlike in terms of National policy, but if there had been, how bad would that be? The next question asks whether it is better to have a close association with America or with Moscow. I suggest that when we look at the terms in this bill, we can find out its origins—and they were not out of the United States. They were straight out of—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Helsinki.

That is potentially right, but I would suggest that the member go further up the scale than that—right to the heart of socialism.

What do we find in this bill? For a start, we find that the Government will reduce the number of members on the Historic Places Trust board from 11 to nine. That is a fact of the bill. Further, when we look at the detail of that, we see that there will be an increase in the number of Crown-appointed members from three to six. Well, what do we describe that as if not socialism? What is that if it is not State control? The State is saying it knows best. The State is saying the board clearly is not competent, and it will appoint people to the board and will instruct the outfit on how it should run its business. The tentacles from the ninth floor that have been well documented by various magazines have now reached out into the Historic Places Trust and will manage it. I say to the House that the National Party will always oppose that kind of State intervention.

But let us go beyond that and look at the likely effects of that State intervention. When we talk about a historic place, we are being very subjective. Some people place much higher emphasis on certain types of historic structures and places than others. I will give members an example. If members were to travel in the electorate I represent, Taranaki - King Country, they would find a whole lot of derelict dairy factories. I will give a little bit of a history lesson now. Chew Chong, a Chinaman in Taranaki, was the founder of the New Zealand dairy industry. As a result, a whole lot of proprietary and cooperative companies sprang up, and they built factories, generally on the side of a river somewhere. Those factories were very much the hub of the community. As time went on, those factories were replaced. In the first instance, they were usually wooden structures. Some of them burnt down and some of them became inadequate, and they were replaced with substantial concrete structures based on British design that were designed to last for 200 or 300 years. So they were substantial structures.

Predominantly, the workforce in those factories was Māori—not entirely, but predominantly, they were of Māori descent. Around the factories sprang up little villages. Generally, there was a marae nearby. Māori did then what Māori do now: they endorsed their culture. I endorse the renaissance in Māori culture today. I think it is a great thing for New Zealand; it shows diversity.

But here is a question for members: if a major development were to go on in Taranaki today and it needed to go smack-bang through the middle of such a factory, would the factory be deemed historic, given that it has been derelict for 30 or 40 years? In some cases, no more than the concrete walls have survived, as the roof has long gone. If the Government wanted to put through a roading project or something like that, the factory would be demolished without even the slightest consideration. But if, in the process of doing that, someone were to dig up a former hāngi pit and find some pāua shells and a few hāngi stones, the project would be stopped overnight. I ask the House what the basis is for that kind of irrational thinking. Why is a much higher significance placed on one kind of artefact or historic circumstance, brought about by virtue of the geographical environment people are living in, although another kind is deemed to be valueless?

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before we rose for dinner, I was reminding the House of how hard and, at times, controversial it is to establish what people have in their minds when they think of a historic place. I used the example of the many old dairy factories in Taranaki. Of course, the dairy industry is New Zealand’s biggest export industry. There are many derelict dairy factories around Taranaki. A lot of them are being demolished by landowners at the moment. The point I made in trying to demonstrate to the House why the National Party is opposing this bill is that, over the years, those dairy factories were staffed predominantly by Māori. Typically, little villages sprung up around the factories and they adopted a lot of Māori culture. No doubt some Māori artefacts are buried around and near those factories.

One of the reasons why the National Party is uncomfortable with this bill is that if a major development—for example, a roading project—was to take place, and it was to go smack-bang through the middle of one of those dairy factories, not too much would be said. The factory building would be bowled over, even though it might have been constructed of solid concrete with walls up to 2 feet thick in places. It might have been designed by English engineers to last 400 years. The building may be very significant in terms of the history of the province, but it would be bowled over and not too much thought given to it. But if, during the course of bowling it over and putting in a road, the contractors were to discover, for example, a hāngi pit lined with hāngi stones and full of pāua shells, or similar things, then would the project be allowed to continue? That is the question.

That brings me to the point that the National Party made in its minority report in relation to the definition of wāhi tapu and issues relating to Māori history and artefacts. I put it to the House tonight that the definition is unclear.

There are many examples I could use to show that such a development would be stopped. Despite the fact that a substantial building has something to do with the history and fabric of the district, it would be absolutely bowled over. Potentially, the project would be stopped because of some buried artefact that was deemed to be culturally sensitive or a remnant of a bygone era. However, it is important to bear in mind that most of the building’s construction and development would have been in the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century, and therefore the building itself would be historic and significant.

The National Party opposes the bill on that basis—those two primary concerns. It opposes the proposal relating to the board membership. As I said earlier, the changes to the board give the ninth floor tentacles the ability to stretch out into even the Historic Places Trust. In other words, it is socialism gone mad. By taking out the elected members of the trust board and putting in Government plants—people who have got the tick from the ninth floor, who clearly will know what a historic place is, and who clearly will have a lot of respect for old dairy factories in Taranaki—the reality is that the Government will be deciding what decisions are made and when, and what is and is not a historic place. National objects to that. Further, I say to members of Parliament here tonight—[Interruption]

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a gentleman in the gallery throwing stuff and yelling out.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is being dealt with at the moment, Mr Tisch. I am sorry that happened. He was clearly very unhappy about something.

A disturbance took place in the gallery, and a member of the public was removed.

I am sure it was nothing to do with what I said.

The second point that the National Opposition opposes is the definition of wāhi tapu—and things Māori in that regard—and the ramifications of that definition.

So I say to members in the House tonight that they should go back and look at those issues. The Minister, Judith Tizard, has the chance to have another look, to bring in a finer definition, and to leave the trust board of directorate as it stands at the moment, rather than impose a no doubt well-considered ninth floor view of the world on the trust.

The Green Party will support the Historic Places Amendment Bill, as it did in the first reading. Generally, we are supportive of the bill and its focus on improving governance, tightening accountability, and clarifying definitions. But we have a couple of problems with it, and I foreshadow that we will be proposing a couple of amendments in the Committee of the whole House tomorrow.

I will say just a few words about the Historic Places Trust. Basically, New Zealand’s historic places are still largely unprotected. There is huge variation in the way regional and territorial authorities carry out their functions under the Resource Management Act in relation to heritage sites. Large areas of our heritage have been bowled already, and only just now are we are coming to understand and appreciate our heritage. European countries, and others, jealously protect their heritage and historic places. In New Zealand we are very cavalier. Huge amounts of our heritage have been demolished already, and our cities and the whole landscape are the poorer for it.

Unfortunately, the trust is something of a toothless dragon. It does not have the teeth or the strength to really protect our heritage. In my experience it mostly compromises and capitulates when confronted by an authority, such as a local body or Transit. In fact, I think Transit has an understanding with the trust that if it wants the site of a historic place to become a road, the trust will not stand in its way. The most historic area of Wellington, Te Aro, which is a wonderful heritage area, has basically been removed in order to build a motorway. Basically, the trust just capitulated and allowed 46 historic homes to be knocked down or shifted. So it is unfortunate that the trust does not have more teeth and is not more of an advocate for the preservation of New Zealand’s heritage. We wish that the bill conferred more power on the trust. Regrettably, it does not do so; it is focused almost entirely on changing the trust’s governance arrangements.

One of our amendments relates to the Māori membership of the board of the trust. The bill proposes that three members of the board no longer have to be Māori; they just have to have knowledge of Māori and of tikanga Māori. The trust and the Māori Heritage Council opposed that proposal; so do the Greens, for two reasons. It almost redefines the definition of Māori, so that in future there will not have to be Māori members on this or that organisation; all there will have to be is someone who claims to have knowledge of Māori or of tikanga Māori. That is an unfortunate precedent, which is what the trust stated in its submission on the bill. It stated that whakapapa is the foundation of Māori identity as tangata whenua, and it is the essential relationship between Māori and their historical and cultural heritage. So six of the nine places on the board remain open to non-Māori. We think a Māori should be defined as someone who is Māori. Therefore, we will put forward an amendment to that provision. Let us not just use the bill to redefine the entire definition of who is Māori and who is not.

We have another amendment to the bill. Under the bill the trust Board would be given discretion about whether it would impose an interim protection when publicly notifying of a review of a change of the category—say, from a category II to a category I status. Basically, we are concerned that giving the board discretion could effectively amount to a loophole that could mean it would not have to impose interim protections or injunctions. So we will propose an amendment that effectively provides that the board would have to issue a protection order unless it puts up very good reasons why it would not want to do so. They are minor amendments but they are important, and we hope we will get support in the Committee for them.

It is a tragedy that so much of our heritage and so many of our historic buildings have already been demolished. I know that most Wellingtonians were horrified last year when they woke up and found that a magnificent historic building on Lambton Quay was virtually being demolished under their eyes. They were horrified that the trust had not protected that building. Why is the trust not much more of an advocate? Why is it not protecting magnificent historic places and heritage buildings? It is something that mystifies many people. They also cannot understand why there should be such variations.

In a town like Wanganui, for example, the council has been fantastic in protecting Wanganui’s historic buildings. As a result, one of the great features of towns like Wanganui and Timaru is that they have fantastic heritage buildings. The city councils have advocated for those buildings and protected them. Now they are treasures, and they are the reason why people go to Wanganui and Timaru, and, indeed, to places like Dunedin. But other cities, like Wellington and Auckland, do not—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Ōāmaru!

Thank you. What would Ōāmaru be without those magnificent heritage buildings?

It is a shame that although there are councils that jealously protect their magnificent buildings, others allow them to be bulldozed and demolished—like Wellington, which has allowed the oldest, most historic precinct in our city to be demolished for a motorway. The Green members think that is tragic. Nevertheless, we will support the bill and its changes to governance and accountability so that the trust becomes a Crown entity. We wish that the bill gave more teeth to what is a rather toothless entity, but regrettably it has a rather narrow set of amendments. However, we hope we will have the support of members for the amendments we will propose in Committee tomorrow.

I speak on behalf of our spokesperson, Dr Pita Sharples, who is at another function at the moment. When the Historic Places Bill came before this House in 1954, Duncan Rae, MP for Eden, told Parliament that: “No country can afford to neglect its history.” Such a concept touches every Māori heart. The call: “Kia ū, kia mau ki tō Māoritanga” encourages Māori to be firm in holding on to the richness of our culture—our spiritual beliefs, customs, literature, myths, legends, and many other aspects that give meaning to our life.

Within that world view, Māori appreciate the enduring role of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in promoting the care of our historic places. For over 50 years the trust has protected and preserved heritage landscapes, sites, and buildings, including cultural sites of significance to Māori.

Concerning those early days, we were interested to read of the contributions of Eruera Tihema Tirikātene, a member for Southern Maori who served in this House from 1932 through to 1967. We have been here before. Mr Tirikātene talked about the importance of marking and maintaining places of historic value to the Māori people, and drew on the example of the Wairau massacre, which he referred to as “… not a massacre at all … but rather an unfortunate misunderstanding.” He challenged the trust to bring history up to date, in revitalising the debate to address the history known to Ngāti Toa, and in describing the tragic death of Rongo, Rangihaeata’s wife and Te Rauparaha’s relative. He concluded: “No doubt it will be the Trust’s function to record all such places and their history, so that they will not be lost to future generations.”

Such an incentive provides us with a strong foundation for our future. In order to shape a strong future, Māori have sought certainty in the development of legal and policy mechanisms to protect Māori cultural heritage, including mātauranga Māori. That is central to who we are, and this bill should have been, one would think, a key piece of legislation for Māori members of Government to have an input into. The Māori Party looked forward to considering this bill as an important means of preserving Māori heritage projects.

However, we have been disappointed with what we have found. There are three key areas of concern. The first is the appointment of board members. As with the Green Party, the Māori Party is also greatly concerned about the newly redefined requirements for Māori board members to serve on the board of the Historic Places Trust. New section 42(3), substituted by clause 19, requires the Minister to appoint at least three board members with “… knowledge of te ao Māori … and tikanga Māori …”, thus replacing the knowledge and ethnicity requirements of the principal Act as the prerequisite for board membership. Knowledge by itself does not necessarily bring understanding. Neither, for that matter, does ethnicity by itself. It is the combination of both whakapapa and knowledge that provides the wisdom required. As Kēri Hulme said in her Booker Prize - winning classic of literary heritage, The Bone People: “They are nothing more than people by themselves … But all together, they had become the heart, muscles and mind of something perilous and new, something strong and growing great. Together all together, they were instruments of change.” Instruments of change do not come through people who simply satisfy an academic requirement without knowing the cultural meaning of heritage. This concerns phenomenology; it concerns the lived experience.

It is for that reason we will be supporting the Green Party amendment that recommends the specific insertion of “be Māori …”. in new section 42(3), substituted by clause 19. Indeed, that amendment is in line with submissions from both the Historic Places Trust and the Māori Heritage Council. It is another tragic indictment on this Parliament that the select committee heard a range of submissions against that provision, but did not act on those objections. The Māori Party suggests that an even more effective means of achieving representation would have been to call for nominees mandated by hapū and iwi—that is, if the Government were genuine about effective Māori representation.

The second key failing in the bill is around the notification requirements. The bill proposes that in order to register a historic or wāhi tapu area, the trust is required to ascertain the names and addresses of people or owners with a registered interest. When we consider the reality of Māori land ownership, we know there are often hundreds, even thousands, of owners who have ownership in minute fractions. If such land were to be included in a proposal for registration, it might be impossible for both the Historic Places Trust and the relevant council to deliver to such unworkable expectations. However, the Māori Party objects, in the strongest of terms, to any suggestion, as posed by the select committee, that notice should be given only to such owners and persons whose names and places of residence are known to the trust or council. That makes an absolute mockery of the democratic process, if eligibility for notification relies solely on being known. If selection processes restrict that knowledge to only those who are known to the trust or council, the nation cannot be assured that the sacred responsibility of protecting wāhi tapu will actually be followed. On the basis of that reason alone, there is no way in which the Māori Party can support a bill that stands to exclude and marginalise so many of our people.

A third key objection the Māori Party has to this bill is in relation to its inability to provide appropriate protection for wāhi tapu. In approaching the bill, we asked whether the amendments would actively create positive protection mechanisms for Māori land or for water-based cultural landscape and heritage. As this House will be aware, numerous reports and reviews have set out major concerns for adequate protection mechanisms for Māori cultural heritage or landscape: namely, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment report of 1995 on Māori heritage, the Department of Conservation Historic Heritage Management Review of 1996, and the more recent Heritage Landscapes Think Tank of 2003.

Of course, iwi and hapū are not confident that the Historic Places Trust can provide positive protection. They have instead resorted to their own internally or externally funded initiatives on tribal lands. Iwi and hapū have wanted to ensure that cultural and natural landscapes are maintained for future generations. As guardians and custodians of whenua, tāngata, and taonga, we feel a duty of responsibility and obligation to preserve our historic heritage for our future descendants.

In essence, the bill has no teeth. It is of the utmost importance that Māori customary and cultural heritage values be protected and preserved for those who will follow us. I think back to the decision from the Environment Court in 2004 that a 4-lane highway be built over an ancient burial ground adjacent to Takamore urupā, not that far from here. Did that mean that the direct descendants of Te Whiti o Rongomai, Te Puni Kokopu, of Te Ātiawa and Ngāti Mutunga o Waikanae were about to have their sacred grounds desecrated? Did the Environment Court really believe that those people, whose descendants lay in Takamore urupā, would allow a highway to be built over their wāhi tapu, carved waka, and buried whare? The Historic Places Trust stepped in to support the Takamore trustees and lodged its own appeal, but it all turned to nought. All appeals were dismissed, and the kuia and kaumātua were told to go home.

Our belief is that we must strengthen the protective powers of the Historic Places Trust and the Māori Heritage Council, not diminish them, but the bill does nothing to advance that. Māori are already taking responsibility for their land and water-based cultural heritage as responsible and obligated guardians for areas within tribal land, and particularly for wāhi tapu. The Māori Party recognises the significance of those practices in safeguarding taonga of heritage value, and we commend the long-term vision of the people in establishing a pathway forward. E kore e hekeheke, he kākano rangatira; the noble heritage will not perish. The Māori Party is not able to support this bill, but we will continue to support all brave efforts to make historic heritage protection a matter of genuine importance.

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.

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.

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.

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—Rāhotu, Pungarehu, Ōkato, 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 pāua 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 wāhi tapu. It does not clean up the definition. I looked through this bill and I failed to see any definition of wāhi 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 Māori Party and the Green Party. Quite rightly, this bill requires the appointment of three people who have a knowledge and understanding of ngā tikanga Māori. 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, (Māori 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 Māori or who can demonstrate Māori 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 Māori. 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 Māori, and he was the carving expert of that area. Yet he did not have a drop of Māori 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.

I rise to speak against the Historic Places Amendment Bill. This bill is yet another plank on the stairway of Labour’s limp legacy. Labour says it will be remembered for things—Labour’s limp legacy of gross over-regulation. When I come into the House week by week I am alarmed to see the ever-mounting movement towards over-regulation. One sees it in select committee work, one hears it in debates such as this one, and somewhat insidiously one hears about it in Orders in Council.

There are not many avenues in life left where this Government has left any life. It saps the life out of everything it touches, by stealth such as the on-again off-again approach to private property access by the public on farms, by tortuous manipulation of the real facts such as with Plunket or, in the case of this bill, by over-regulation and through supplanting the present governance system.

The intention is to reduce the present number of board members from 11 down to nine. We heard Government members say there are no problems with that; it is reducing bureaucracy, and that surely that is in keeping with National Party policy. But listeners know, as well as I do, that things are not always as they seem under this Government. I am truly sorry to say that I had hoped for better—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: So do we!

I am sure you do. In company with the many people I speak to in the community, some who perhaps previously supported Labour, we have to look at everything that Labour says to check for the hidden bits. The Government asks what is the problem in reducing board membership from 11 to nine. The problem is that of the nine, six will be appointed by the Minister. That flies in the face of community democracy.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Who are they appointed by now?

Read the bill. They are ministerial appointments. We will see the board stuffed with Labour Party ideological sycophants, a cluster of clerks, cronies, who come in all shapes and sizes nowadays, all crooning the party song. They will exploit the trust for party political ends, rather than serving the historical purposes of the trust. It is not even Labour philosophy, I would suggest. It is more about the institutions of Parliament being altered to better reflect the image of the Prime Minister’s personal programme.

That there is a programme is not in doubt. The Government is moving flat tack to batten down and lock up every free-thinking community representative body, as quickly as it can. What is wrong with having community elected representatives? The answer is that they will not necessarily follow the party line, and, increasingly, that is the requirement of the present Labour-Progressive - part-time New Zealand First - part-time United Future coalition Government. I say “present”, because I do not think it has much of a future.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Really!

I really do not. The talk is we are already seeing people sneakily, “leakily” showing bits of the Budget—fairly major bits—and stealing what little thunder the Budget might have had. The resultant document will be a pop rather than a bang. Why did that happen? Did someone wish to escalate himself or herself through being first with the news? Did someone wish to accelerate the demise of the current Minister of Finance? Who knows what the intentions are and what is lingering in the lobbies. But it is sad that the only plum that can be pulled out of the pie is that the Government is debt-free, at a time when “New Zealand Incorporated” has never been in greater debt. It is a little bit like Little Jack Horner pulling out a plum and saying: “Oh, what a good boy am I!” But I doubt whether there will be accolades on either side of the House.

The Historic Places Amendment Bill shows scant regard for the protection of property rights. Property rights of ownership must be superior to any other claim over the property, but I am apprehensive about that being the case if we have a stacked deck. Labour presently is showing scant regard for property owners’ rights, so I find it a big stretch of the imagination to expect a Labour-appointed board to show regard for private property rights. That is in the bill.

I have great regard for the comments made by other colleagues who have been insightful in their consideration of the definition of wāhi tapu. Let us remember that when Europeans first came here, life would have been pretty rugged for the Māori people. I believe that the average male life expectancy was 22 years. The wāhi tapu will, of necessity, have been a small, discrete area of sacredness, as suggested by experts at Waikato University.Māori people would not have had the capacity to embrace large areas of land, any more than the early Europeans could, particularly in regions of difficult topography.

Coming to Parliament, as I do, from the West Coast and Tasman regions I am conscious of the feelings of people in those regions towards their heritage. That too is an added concern to me in relation to the representation on the board. For where does the interaction come from with local communities? That is a question that perhaps members opposite would care to answer. But I do not think they will. Coasters in particular have concern that the emphasis put on Coast heritage matters by those outside the Coast do not adequately represent the aspirations and views of the local people towards their heritage. Heritage is a very important factor down there. So much of the early heritage is at risk, and I am not sure that the amendments really serve the purpose that is required.

💬 Darren Hughes: I like your tie the best.

Thank you for your kind comments on my dress sense. I have never pretended to be particularly sartorial but if I dress in the best tradition of some of the previous leaders of the country, it is an emulation that is worthwhile.

💬 Hon Member: When he is the leader of the country?

No, but many have been, who dressed particularly well. I like my waistcoat because it hides the interconnection above the belt and below the belt.

The same concern over representation has been expressed by my Māori Party parliamentary colleague Mr Hone Harawira over Māori representation on the board. I have a feeling of support for his view.

To summarise, we have real concern over the stealthy move towards controlling the board by ministerial appointment, the weak definition of wāhi tapu, the lack of Māori representation, and the continuing limp legacy of Labour towards endless over-regulation. Finally, it occurred to me that there are more aspects of sanctity of things sacred than just property. We are not talking just about Māori issues. Indeed, on level 3 in Parliament House today I passed a portrait of Sir Winston Churchill. He was a truly great leader. His memory is sacred to me. I have stood where he stood and where he wrote. What he wrote I have read. I have listened to what he said, and I have known men whom he led. I have heard someone in this House claiming to be a namesake and to imply familiarity in emulation of the real Churchill—certainly through having the same spelling of his first name. I find that that can offend my memory of a great historic leader. For the same person to claim familiarity with a great leader, while clutching a file of other people’s correspondence—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I must insist. That member is making it up as he goes along. If he has one shred of evidence to back up what he is saying, he should please present it or stop lying.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I know the last word the member used, but I think the member is making reference to historical matters. That is his view of it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He was saying that I have claimed some affinity with my namesake—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think he did.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and holding a bunch of papers. I am saying to him—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know what the member is saying, but he did not say that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, he did. If you look at the Hansard you will see he made that claim, and I know I have never done that ever in this House, or outside it. The member is not going to get away with making up that sort of stuff, as the National Party is wont to do now. He has just made up a story, come down to the Chamber, and implanted it into people’s minds. It even made TV tonight—the 6 o’clock news—but they know it is not true. They got away with making out it is, and he is saying this right now. Frankly, he is not going to get away with it. If he keeps it up there will be disorder in this House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has not got away with it, because you have had your say. We will leave it at that point.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is a convention—in fact it is in the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings—that members are not allowed to call somebody a liar in this House. I ask you to ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to withdraw and apologise. My colleague has taken great offence to it. I ask you to do what is expected of a Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the context of what was going on, I did not propose to take any action. But the member at whom it was aimed is entitled to take objection. If he does, I will get the member to withdraw.

I take objection, Mr Deputy Speaker.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the member takes objection, he surely does so on the basis he has some integrity that is being challenged. Now, perhaps he could put it on the line by tabling the evidence he has or be a man and apologise to me.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is a debating matter.

To conclude, for the same person to claim familiarity with a great leader while clutching a file of other people’s correspondence to try to boost his own reputation at the expense of someone else’s is something that to me Winston Churchill would find repugnant.

He just did it again, and therefore I have seen a way out that may be a compromise. Given that the research unit obviously wrote that speech and got a number of the words out of sync with the way he spoke in his speech, I seek leave for an extension of time so that the member can finish his speech with the different ending that the research unit obviously wrote for him, because he repeated the sin twice.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot seek leave for another member. He may seek leave himself and the House may well grant it, but that is up to Mr Auchinvole.

I just want to say to the previous speaker—[Interruption] Oh yes, that is another genius from the National Party, who will be here for 5 seconds before she goes. I say to the previous speaker that he made a comment at the end of his speech about a claim that I had made. If he is any sort of a gentleman, he will produce evidence to this House tonight to back up what he said, or he will get up and apologise. I tell the MP from the West Coast not to listen to Mr Henare, but to listen to the member who is asking him to back up what he said, or be known around the West Coast as someone who does not behave like a West Coaster.

The previous speaker made a claim that he knows he cannot back up, and the reason is that the National Party drafted his speech for him and sent him here innocently, naively, and wantonly to repeat a lie—something that is not true and National knows is not true. It is just like Gerry Brownlee’s comment today about Mr Foote having got funds from America.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What’s that got to do with this speech?

He raised the issue. He made the point twice.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am allowing the member at least 2 minutes in rebuttal; then he will come to the bill.

Here is the real point. The member came to the Chamber with a National research unit speech. He was challenged on it, and he still could not finish the speech, after points of order, without repeating the allegation, which was false. I will ask him one more time.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: I seek leave to table my speech notes.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has sought leave to table his speech notes. He has sought leave at the wrong time, but he is entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I do not want people to find out that he was the person who wrote that speech. He was asked, during the time he was delivering it, who wrote that rubbish. He did not say he had done so, but now he is saying that.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we now come to the bill.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This has gone beyond making a point. [Interruption] I know the member has to speak, but he is implying that my colleague who has spoken was referring to him. I have been listening to this debate at length. There is no justification for what the member is saying, and I ask that he be pulled into line and asked to talk about the bill that is before the House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure he will talk about the bill. That is sufficient in rebuttal. But it is not right to say that the previous speaker was not referring to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He was referring to him. That is my view of it, and Hansard will show that, too.

💬 Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the course of the point of order raised by the chief National whip, he was interjected on very loudly by Mr Henare. I wonder whether you heard that, because you did not appear to reprimand him for interjecting on his own whip. There is an understanding that members will hear points of order in silence. I cannot see why Mr Henare does not believe there should be one law for all, in that regard.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is absolutely right, and perhaps I was a bit lenient.

What has been evidenced—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: When did you get a copy of the bill?

It has been around a long time, whilst that member was out of Parliament for the last few years—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: And look what happened.

—whilst that member was not in Parliament. The listeners to tonight’s radio broadcast of Parliament will have detected that National Party members are very good at dishing it out, but boy, do they have a thin skin when they have to take it—and take it, they will. This is an unfair contest, actually; they should all be here. While I am at it, where is the “Dead Man Walking”?

Anyway, I come back to the point I wanted to mention in particular. Clause 19 of the bill inserts new section 42, “Membership of Board”, into the principal Act. Subclause (3) provides: “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)”—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Te Ao Māori.

That was no expert in Māori language who just shouted out over there. People can just ask any Māori in this Parliament whether or not he is an expert.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: More expert than you are, bro.

Well, that is true, but in a very limited way. Subclause (3) goes on to state: “and tikanga Maori (Maori protocol and culture).”

What is important is that that is the way to make appointments: on the basis of qualifications, capacity, and ability, rather than just by saying we will make an ethnic choice and hope for the best. New Zealand First has always subscribed to doing that—which is one of the reasons why, having argued for a long, long time for appointments to be based on ability and talent, regardless of race, we were disappointed to have a political party come along and purloin our policies. [Interruption] Oh, yes! Do members see? As I said at the time, it is one thing to walk out of a saloon and steal a man’s horse, but it is something else to stay on its back while he is heading out of town.

The National Party is voting against clause 19. National is not voting for it; it is voting against it. Although that party can purloin policy, it does not have any understanding of, commitment to, or comprehension of what is being said here. That is why one day those members support the Māori Party, and the next day they do not. National’s deputy leader has said he wants the Māori seats to remain, and the leader says that he does not want that.

💬 Paula Bennett: What year are you in?

National members say they are in favour of the Māori Land Court one day, and it goes the next day. Then those members walk out on a pōwhiri. Along come the three women—so-called—steeped in Māori culture, of course. One of them, Ms Bennett, is sitting over there. They say they do not care what Māori protocol is, and that it has to be changed to their protocol because they are National Party MPs—or, in other words, they are goddesses.

💬 Eric Roy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have cautioned the member to come to the bill now, and he is again attacking members in a way that has no relevance at all to the debate that should be in progress.

I am trying to make an analogy—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know what you were trying to do. Could you come back to the bill, please.

Well, how was I going? [Interruption] Do members see the issue? If they look at subclause (3) of clause 19 and have it explained to them by people who do know what they are talking about—namely, Mr Donnelly and myself—then they will see that that is the way to choose people for their positioning, rather than on the basis of ethnicity and the hope that somehow, because a person is Māori, he or she will be right and good for Māori culture. On many occasions in the past, that has not been what has happened.

Just by way of illustration, I say we have to understand Māori culture in order to comprehend what Mr Donnelly and I are saying, and what New Zealand First is saying. Members cannot go swanning along to a pōwhiri, sit themselves down the front, and say they are goddesses of the National Party—they are MPs—and, regardless of what Māori have been doing for a thousand years, because those members are so important they want Māori to change their protocol. When we look at subclause (3), we have to understand the full ambience and nuances of Māori culture. I could ask those of us who are Scottish whether they have ever seen a Scottish clan led by a woman. Aha, we do not see that, do we? It is OK for the National Party to behave like that, but when it comes to Māori, those members are all over the place—and I knew that when Tau arrived in this House, he would be no help at all in that respect.

It is good to see the leader of New Zealand First here in the House after 7.30 p.m.—absolutely! I tell you what, I love democracy! I love democracy and the way the people in New Zealand First could let him be leader. That is OK. Democracy says that anybody can be leader—and he is a glaring example of the fact that anybody could be leader of a ragtag bunch of spent, silly old men. That is what they are. But more to the point, when the leader of New Zealand First talks about culture and about taha Māori and Te Ao Māori, I would have expected that he would at least be able to pronounce his own native tongue properly.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Oh, they do not like it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is why I seek leave to table our caucus minutes for the relevant caucus day when Mr Tau Henare sought to mount a coup and could not get a seconder.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although I love the comedy act coming from the other side of the House, the problem I have with it—[Interruption]—and there is another shining example of what I am about to say—is that for 6 months that man over there, who purports to be the leader of New Zealand First and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has continually abused the Standing Orders by seeking a point of order when it is not actually a point of order. Somewhere—[Interruption] And again we have interjections on a point of order. It is the same thing that Mr Ron Mark was talking about this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker. What are we to do?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are to continue with discussion on this bill.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sought leave—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member hold on, please. There have been some exchanges, and I have to say that Mr Peters did not start it. I am not going to say who started it. Those exchanges are welcome in this Chamber, and it is good to put some life into it. But do not get too personal, and do not get too touchy about it. That is my advice.

Well, now we know—

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Despite what the Hon Tau Henare has just put to you—and I understand he has been away from the House for a very long time, so he may not be familiar with the Standing Orders any longer—the point of order put to you was to seek leave. That is a perfectly legitimate point of order. Mr Henare, as a former aspiring leader of New Zealand First, knows that it is. His point of order, therefore, becomes a non - point of order, and it behoves you, as Deputy Speaker, to put the leave.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which is exactly what I have done. I asked members, and the member speaking, to get on with the debate and to come back to the bill. I have been quite lenient up to now, and I have enjoyed it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

My point of order is that you have the audacity to say to me to get back to the bill after what we have heard.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: When I say “go back”, you know what I mean. Do not use that word in this Chamber directed at me. Withdraw it and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I will go back to the bill. What we heard from that member over there, who conveniently came down to this House after 7.30—it is now half-past 8—speaking on this bill, and he did not even have the courtesy to pick up a copy of the bill until 2 minutes before the end of his speech. He knows nothing about it. I thought he might be a good lawyer, but I am sorry—even in 2 minutes he did not understand it. The Hon Brian Donnelly said that wāhi tapu was mentioned nowhere in this bill. Is that what the member said? [Interruption] Oh yes, he did! We were all here, and he said so—and he can check the Hansard. He said that nowhere in the bill was wāhi tapu mentioned. But hang on—I love doing these quizzes—I have found at least three mentions of it, and they are not even in the commentary. [Interruption] I must have hit a raw nerve. The whole caucus of New Zealand First has taken time off from their extracurricular activities to come down to the House—[Interruption] At least one of them is on duty. I wonder what the other four are doing down here after 7.30 p.m.

💬 Hon Member: Falling asleep.

That is right. The Minister over there is falling asleep. He does it every time. He comes to the House and falls asleep. Anyway, I will get back to the bill. The last half-hour of debate was really good until the Rt Hon Winston Peters made a fool of himself. [Interruption] Mr Donnelly says that there were only five people on the Government Administration Committee, but hello, that was in the last Parliament. I know about early-stage dementia. That is what this is—loss of memory. In the last Parliament five people were on the committee, but now this is a new Parliament.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table page 5 of the report back from the select committee, which states the committee membership and clearly shows that there were five members on the select committee that reported this bill back to the House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a point of order to seek to table something, but members should do it at the end of a member’s speech. Please do not break up the member when he is making so much noise. Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Let us get down to the tintacks of wāhi tapu. I have spent more time than I really should have on that Minister over there—the one who said he paid for all the wine-box stuff but did not. The amount of $1.5 million was paid by the Government to the member’s lawyer, Brian Henry.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, under the Standing Order about relevance. I do not believe that this has any relevance to the report back of this legislation.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we go back to the bill, please.

Absolutely. The amount of $1.5 million went to Brian Henry.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member must go back to the bill, otherwise his speech could be terminated. I did not say it would be, but it could be.

I got out what I wanted to say, and everybody heard it. The whole of the country is wāhi tapu. The whole of the country could be classed as wāhi tapu. That is why there is no clear definition of wāhi tapu in this bill, nor in any other bill. This bill is called the Historic Places Amendment Bill, even though on three or four occasions it mentions wāhi tapu—not only in the commentary but also in a number of clauses. That is why the National Party opposes this legislation. It is not the only reason we oppose this bill; we also oppose it because it makes reference to the affected parties. [Interruption] Yes, the member Ron Mark used to be the whip—he used to have some sort of authority in New Zealand First. That will not last very long. The bill refers to: “any incorporated society or body corporate engaged in or having as one of its objects the protection of historical and cultural heritage:”. That means that anybody in New Zealand can have a go at a so-called wāhi tapu or so-called historic place. That cannot be right when the only people are “relevant parties”. The beginning of the bill refers to “relevant parties”, but later on it states that any group in this country is an affected party as long as it is either a body corporate or a trust that is set up specifically for historic purposes. Anybody in this country—

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: But you want to keep the membership that has been voted on by the Historic Places Trust. You’re confusing your own argument.

Oh, dear. The member said that he used to teach in Te Araroa. Let me tell this House that every one of those 162 people who live in Te Araroa are absolutely happy that he is not there any more. They are absolutely happy that he is a member of Parliament. But I shall get back to the bill. National has another issue. I do not know whether to say that it borders on totalitarianism, but the Government is now seeking to appoint nearly everybody—in fact, the vast majority of members—on to the trust. [Interruption] I would rather the Historic Places Trust did it than the bozos up on the ninth floor. Labour will not consider and will not consult with the wider community. It will be “jobs for the boys”—or in this case, “jobs for the girls”—that gets people on to that Historic Places Trust.

💬 Shane Jones: Accountability.

That is the word! That is the member who has a job outside the House. That comes from a member who has a job outside the House but pretends to be an MP by day. We are talking about jobs for Shane Jones’ mates. We are talking about jobs for Darren Hughes’ mates. We are talking about—[Interruption] No, he has. There was a person in the Chamber just before who is after a job. Unfortunately, there will be no jobs in it for anybody else, because those people do not have mates. Rima Edwards will be on the trust, Shane Jones’ auntie will be on it, and Darren Hughes’ auntie will be on it, because all those members can do is put their mates on it, not the people with the intelligence—[Interruption] Oh, come on. Have another one. There has been no consultation.

💬 Hon Members: Tahi, rua, toru, whā, haere rā!

No, members should have said that to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The imbecile from the north should have said that to the person who really has an appalling grasp of this bill. That is why National opposes this bill.

Amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority agreed to.