Historic Places Amendment Bill

National is opposed to Part 2, the transitional provisions, because they are related to the appointments procedures. We have generally had the view throughout this whole process that this amendment bill tries to fix a problem that does not exist, and does not fix a very real problem that exists. I will come to that later. Let me deal first with the non-existent problem—the appointments procedures.

Let me recap the arithmetic, although the fundamental point should be well known to members. The Historic Places Trust currently has 11 members, three of whom are appointed by the Government. So the ratio of Government to non-Government people on the trust is a fraction under one to four. This amendment bill proposes to reduce the total number of trust members from 11 to nine, and to double the number of Government appointments, thereby shifting the ratio of Government to non-Government people from fractionally under one to four, to two to three.

One does not need a PhD in mathematics to predict the consequences this will have for the future operations of the trust, if this amendment bill is passed. It will move from a situation where we have essentially volunteers in partnership with the Government, which we consider to be an appropriate model, to a completely Government-dominated trust. It will change the nature of the trust in a very fundamental way. National members keep on asking why. We ask what the rationale is for doing this. All we hear are the words “better governance”, but the real issue is what is behind this formulaic explanation. Who has messed up and over what issues? What is the linkage between these alleged mistakes or shortcomings, the number of Government-appointed members, and the actual operations of the trust itself?

We know that there are already quite adequate tools to deal with mismanagement. The trust is considered to be a Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act 2004, and all the tools are there and available for the Crown to intervene in cases of mismanagement or cases of bad governance, so why are we moving to a Government-dominated trust in the future? There is no explanation, just the formulaic responses that have been given to us to date.

So, in the absence of any credible explanation, I ask what the real reason is for making this change. Is this just cronyism? Is it simply a Government that wants to have more baubles to pass along to its mates? Is that what it is about—or is it really about the underlying mentality of this Government, which is about control? We meet this in every facet of the political debates in this House. We meet it on this issue, which is not a central issue facing New Zealand, but we also meet it on issues of tax versus personal responsibility, or on welfare. We meet it on every single issue.

The Government has this fascination, this idea, that the Government knows best, that it can control affairs, and that it will make the decisions for us. The Government does not trust people to make their own rational decisions. National opposes the transitional provisions because nobody has given us a halfway credible and plausible reason why we should move towards a Government-dominated trust.

I am very disappointed by the approach National Opposition members are taking to this bill. I am particularly disappointed given the undertaking they gave a public meeting of the arts community in Auckland that they were going to take a more positive line, and given the bipartisan history between parties in this House on cultural and arts legislation, that they are being so negative.

The Historic Places Trust is an amazing organisation that Nick Smith, when he was Minister of Conservation, insisted—and, I think, quite rightly—should regionalise. National members also, quite rightly, have pointed out that, in spite of their desire for tax cuts, they think this area has been badly underfunded. Indeed, this Government has taken heed of that and has taken the funding for the Historic Places Trust from $3.7 million in 1999-2000, the last year of a National Budget—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Part 2 is about the transitional provisions and it is a very narrow part. We are not talking about the title or commencement; we are talking about the number of members who will be on the board. That is what the debate is about. The Minister is talking about funding issues, and talking about other issues that have nothing to do with the transitional provisions.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I point out that the Opposition member has gone on at some length about the lack of justification—as he understands it—for this. That is why he is opposing the transitional measures. I am supporting the transitional measures by explaining the questions that he asked.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that, Mr Tisch. That was by way of a rebuttal in the main and I expect the Minister to come back to the bill, or come to the bill.

I am speaking absolutely to the bill and to the questions that the National Party—in spite of the fact that this bill has been before the select committee for several years—appears not to have the answers to. I am very proud to say that this year the Government is supporting the Historic Places Trust, to the extent of granting it $10.4 million—up from $3.7 million in 1999-2000. The result of that change that Nick Smith and the last National Government put in place is that the Historic Places Trust has far more work. We are seeing extraordinary regional and national moves for New Zealanders to take charge of and support their own heritage. The result has been a huge call on the Historic Places Trust staff—and, indeed, on the Ministry for Culture and Heritage staff—for advice on the application of the law, for example, on the right to export. We say the Government needs good advice on developing this rapidly changing legislation. This bill is entirely a result of that call.

I am very proud of this legislation. The transitional period is about taking the old Historic Places Trust through into the new, modern world. We, as a Government, take very seriously our responsibility to be accountable for public money, just as we take very seriously our undertakings given to New Zealanders—whether at a meeting in Auckland, or in this House. I am delighted to say that the wonderful people who work for the Historic Places Trust have agreed that they think the Government should have a more direct conduit to that advice and that accountability, and they are delighted to give it. It is time National came to the party on heritage in this country, and kept its word.

I will try to deal with this matter slowly so the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage can pick up the various issues. We are not talking about the importance to New Zealand of the Historic Places Trust; National was in Government when it was formed. All the good work done in the 1950s by National has been continued by it throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. So, we are not talking about the importance of the Historic Places Trust; we are talking about Part 2 of the Historic Places Amendment Bill, which is the transitional provisions. Part 2 deals with clause 27 and there are three parts to it, dealing with transitional provisions relating to those elected to the board of the Historic Places Trust and those appointed to the board and what is going to happen with them. Clause 27(3) deals with appointments to the Māori Heritage Council.

We heard nothing from the Associate Minister about the key points raised by Mr Groser in his address a few minutes ago. This compels the National Party to oppose Part 2, given that we opposed Part 1 on the issue of the new governance structures of the Historic Places Trust. For the benefit of the poor old member for Waimakariri, let me recap.

On 13 June, I traced the governance structures of the trust from its formation by the National Government in 1954. Indeed, Mr Chairman, I think you were in the Chair at the time, I referred to the debate in 1954 when both the Acting Minister of Internal Affairs and Mr Duncan Rae, who was then the MP for Parnell—and who was really the sponsor of the new Historic Places Trust—outlined the trust’s membership and the rationale for it. It was a theme repeated in 1992, as I said, by the Hon Denis Marshall, another good National Minister responsible for the Historic Places Trust. He said the trust is not supposed to be a statutory quango. It has more than 23,000 fee paying members and an effective body of voluntary workers who form a network of distinct communities throughout New Zealand. It is that network of communities that needs to be reflected in the membership of the board of the Historic Places Trust.

I ask the Associate Minister to take down the following key issues and to address them through the Chair. I would like the Associate Minister to take note of these so we can have a sensible debate rather than a whole lot of raving, and what could be called ululations, about nothing.

The member for Waimakariri would not even know what ululation means. All he knows about is his new hairdo. Why has the 50-year-old governance philosophy of the trust been fundamentally altered by this amendment? Has the Associate Minister taken that question down? How does the change strengthen the trust’s governance arrangements, as the report on the bill asserts? The Associate Minister has to look up the dictionary—fair enough. How is accountability enhanced by this legislation, as asserted by the Government in the majority report, when the trust is already an autonomous Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act? Just like Creative New Zealand, it is an autonomous Crown entity already, so how do these governance arrangements necessarily enhance its accountability? If the Associate Minister could answer those questions I would be very grateful.

There is no justification for this fundamental change. It will not improve governance or accountability at all. As Mr Groser said, it is all about greater control by the Government of an organisation that has served New Zealand for many years. The Associate Minister and Mr Cosgrove are looking up the word in the dictionary. I am paying a lot of attention to this effort by the Associate Minister to—rather than focus on the issues—look up the dictionary.

💬 Brian Connell: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but the Associate Minister is having trouble with the spelling. I wonder whether you would be good enough to give her the first letter—“u”.

So there is no justification for the fundamental change. The Minister just will not address the central issues that are so important to the question of the governance and accountability of the trust.

This inability to address the issues was reflected also in the speech by Mr Donnelly in this debate, when he said that he did not understand all this historical analysis and that surely the National Party would be in favour of a smaller membership because we are in favour of less Government. But—for Mr Donnelly’s benefit—the issue is not so much whether the membership of the trust is nine, 10, or 15; it is the composition of the membership that is important.

So Part 2, which seeks to implement transitional provisions for the new governance structure, cannot be supported, because the National Party is not satisfied that the governance structures under Part 1 will really improve the situation at all. I ask the Associate Minister to please address my three questions so that we can move on to the long title.

For those who did not know it, that was Chris Finlayson, who rather sanctimoniously—as he does from time to time—was pontificating from on high. In talking to Part 2, “Transitional provisions”, I agree with the Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, that yet again the poor old National Party cannot depoliticise the simplest of issues. Who could politicise and play politics with the Historic Places Trust? Only the National Party could.

The previous speaker bleated on about the increase in Government appointees. It is true that out of 11 members of the board three were Government appointments, and it is true that the bill proposes that it appoint six out of a total of nine. Why is that, pray tell? Well, I am advised that, historically, a large amount of money accrued to the Historic Places Trust, and it came not from the taxpayer—part of it came from the taxpayer—but from the membership, hence the need to ensure that the governance structure reflected accountability to the membership for their money. Now, because this Government honours its promises, a lot more taxpayers’ money is going to this very venerable and respected institution. Hence, as the guardian of the taxpayers’ purse and being fiscally prudent, the Government has made the move—with wide consensus and after wide consultation—to increase its appointees on the board, because it is increasing the amount of taxpayer-funded dollars being put in.

It is pretty simple, I would have thought—a wee bit too simple for the non-QC over there, who still has not got over the fact that he ain’t a QC. He needs to get over it and lose the emotional baggage. I would have thought it was prudent to install more Government people—to have more Government representation—not only to guard the taxpayer’s purse but also to ensure there is accountability for the money, as the trust receives more money from the Government and less money from the membership on a percentage basis. But, oh no, what did we hear from that member? He loves to get up and, in some sort of archaic, esoteric way, bamboozle us with very long words. I was told that that member along with Tim Groser were the superstars of the National Party, on the escalator straight to success—a very apt description for one of them. And what has National done? It has sent down the C-team to passionately have a go at politicising Part 2, “Transitional provisions”. It could not even support that.

Essentially, National is saying that we can put in more taxpayers’ money and reduce our accountability. We say no to that. We are putting in more taxpayers’ money, because we support the Historic Places Trust. The National Party should support it, because it will be—and is—a historic place; it is an archaic appendage that hangs around this Chamber from time to time. But will National support a basic, prudent measure like Part 2, “Transitional provisions”, which has basic support around the country and which nobody wants to politicise? Oh no. It must be practice and audition day for the new superstars on the back bench. I am sure Mr Groser came into Parliament—with his great speech of gravitas—to politicise this issue, talking as he did about Part 2 and rendering it down to good old-fashioned politics. I am sure Mr Finlayson—that great lawyer of note, that learned gentleman who talks about himself more than anything else in the corridors of power, that superstar, that rising star in the National Party—came into Parliament, with all his intellect and gravitas, to politicise Part 2, “Transitional provisions”, of the Historic Places Amendment Bill.

I tell those two members to grow up and get a life. The people of New Zealand are not listening to the radio to hear a whole lot of hot air and politics from those two members. They should get over it. If those members want to stand up and have a go, they should have a go about a great issue of moment. They should not stand up just because they were sent down by Mr Tisch, the national whip, to get in a bit of practice and to politicise Part 2, “Transitional provisions”. It is no wonder that the people who listened to those two speeches scratched their heads. It is no wonder some members in this Parliament are perceived in the way they are. Those members should grow up, get over it, make a decent speech next time, and support the bill.