Historic Places Amendment Bill

First of all, I did enjoy the earlier intervention from the member for Waimakariri, Clayton Cosgrove. I think the problem was that he was so dazzled by the learnedness of my colleague Mr Finlayson that he got it into his head that he would single out Groser and Finlayson and ululate over their arguments. I think he needs to do a little bit more research before reaching his conclusions so quickly.

Now, as we are dealing with the substance of the matter, let me explain in a little more detail the underlying problems here. First of all, I would like to explain to the Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, what bipartisanship really means and its limitations. I have two responsibilities: first, to support our spokesperson on foreign affairs and trade on trade issues; and, second, to be spokesperson on arts, culture, and heritage. In both cases, there is a strong degree of support from National for the underlying objectives, but that support is always conditional. If the Government drops the ball on these issues, as we think it has done in this case—and we will have exactly the same issue when it comes to the Trans-Tasman therapeutic drugs agency—that is where bipartisanship stops.

Having dealt with the underlying issue, let us go back go the fundamental point here of governance. Nobody has satisfactorily explained why we should move to a Government-dominated institution. The word “governance” is a formulaic response. It has been used to describe everything from the need for better policies in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, to provincial rotary clubs. We heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs today explain that the Government was giving $2.5 million for better governance in Indonesia. While I am on the subject of Indonesia and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, let me take this opportunity to correct a small error of fact that the Minister made in response to the very reasonable and sensible point of my colleague who asked why the New Zealand Government—and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in particular—did not have the guts to stand up with the Australian Government—

💬 Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am having some difficulty trying to equate the comments the member is making with this particular bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Mr Groser, if you would come back to the bill, please. I was waiting for a point he was about to make, which was quite relevant, actually.

Well, everything is related to everything else, and the other way round.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take deep exception to the member’s comments about the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is not parliamentary to impugn the courage of any member, and he did that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is correct.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Brian Connell: As we are having point of order season, I say that it has been a long-held convention in this House that the Minister sitting in the chair does not interject. She has been at it throughout this debate. I ask you to ask her to stop it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It will not happen again, thank you, Mr Connell. And you want—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: I would like him to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): If you would withdraw and apologise, please.

Let me move that issue aside. I will explain later to the Minister the position that the President of Indonesia actually fulfilled during that period, because it was central to the point.

What we are dealing with here, in substance, is an issue that the Historic Places Amendment Bill does not address. It is the elephant in the room—and not just this room but a number of rooms—and it is related to the economic development of this country. Some members will have read, as I did, a bitter critique of the Government’s approach to economic regulation in the National Business Review this week. It started with a very cutting point about the Government’s inability to free up business decisions. Here we have a situation whereby no effort is made in the Historic Places Amendment Bill to clarify the ambiguities surrounding the term “wāhi tapu”. The implications of that term for economic development in this country can, on occasion, be very considerable. That is the elephant in the room, and the Government has decided to ignore it. It is trying to fix a non-problem and has not addressed the real problem. In National’s view, the real, central issue facing this country is that every decision of the Government should be measured against the test of whether it makes investment easier, whether it enhances productivity, and whether it helps further wealth creation or gets in the way of it.

Here we have an opportunity to fix the problem of the completely nebulous concept of wāhi tapu. Let me be very clear that the real concept of wāhi tapu is absolutely central to preserving our heritage. That is exactly the point my colleague Mr Finlayson was making about the underlying position of the National Party. We totally accept that structure; we were responsible historically for putting it in place in the first place. So let us not caricature this debate as political. What we are talking about is not the fundamental need to protect key sites to different communities, including the importance of legitimate wāhi tapu sites. What we need is greater clarity. Landowners need it, Māori need it, and Māori landowners need it. The bill, which would have been a wonderful opportunity to address that, does absolutely nothing to do so.

Why not? Well, we are puzzled by this. Is this Government, once again, ideologically blocked from clarifying issues that are related to the national interest and the further economic development of this country? Is that the fundamental problem? Is it the same mindset that stops this Government from clarifying key issues in the Resource Management Act, and that has it intervening in the Whangamata marina decision after years of legal process? Is it the same mindset that sends such negative signals to New Zealand business people, New Zealand property owners, and New Zealand creators of wealth? There is no signal that if those people come up with innovative proposals, the Government will try to facilitate them rather than get in the way.

But, no, we see no opportunity taken in this bill actually to fix the underlying problem. The elephant is still in the room, and the Government wants to ignore it, just as it wants to ignore it in more important contexts. I do not think we will get any clarity on this issue until such time as we have a Government that is not confused.

It was very interesting to see Minister Tizard nodding furiously when the member for Waimakariri was speaking. It must be the first time she has ever agreed with him on anything, given that he is known around this place as “Mini-Mike”. Clayton Cosgrove has modelled his entire political career on former Prime Minister Mike Moore—although why anyone would want to do that, I do not know. We all know that Minister Tizard is from the Clark faction of the Labour Party, so it is great to see that unity has broken out between the residual Moore faction and the Clark faction of the Labour Party. It has all happened because of the transitional provisions of the Historic Places Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sure I do not have to draw your attention to this. That erroneous drivel has nothing whatever to do with the bill, and it might be prudent to explain to the new member that he has to adhere to the Standing Orders. He is a lawyer, but he may not understand the Standing Orders. It might be prudent to bring him back to the bill.

I am most grateful to the member for Waimakariri for educating me, as a former clerk or whatever he was. I am very grateful to him for that guidance.

The other point I will make is that the Minister seems to think about the arts, culture, and heritage in the following way: if someone disagrees on any aspect of the arts, culture, or heritage, then that person is somehow some kind of cultural wrecker. As National members have said all along, a former National Government formed the Historic Places Trust, and if members trace the legislative developments over the years, they will find that National has been responsible for updating the trust. The National Party is utterly committed to the Historic Places Trust, just as it is to other great arts and cultural institutions. So it is absolutely vacuous for the Minister to stand up and use that kind of argumentation instead of getting down to the detail.

The issue is not whether the National Party supports the Historic Places Trust, or is not pleased that further money is to be put into it so that historic places and wāhi tapu sites can be preserved. The key issue for the National Party—which the Minister has failed to address—is the issue of governance. As I have said, the Historic Places Trust, under the Crown Entities Act, is already an autonomous Crown entity. That means the trust must have regard to Government policy when it is directed by the responsible Minister. So there is adequate governance oversight already. Even at this late stage of the debate I would appreciate it if the Minister could explain why we need to alter the governance structure of the trust so that, instead of having a broad, wide-ranging membership representing distinct communities around the country, we need ministerial control. The trust does not need ministerial control, because it is a Crown entity.

If the Minister could answer that very simple question, I would be very grateful, because I fail to understand how accountability is enhanced by this legislation, as asserted by the Government in the commentary on the bill. The commentary states: “The bill proposes to strengthen the Trust’s governance arrangements …”—well, how?—and to enhance its accountability. So if the Minister could answer that question, even though we are now talking about the title and clauses 1 and 2, it would be very useful. We say—and I will say it once again—that these governance mechanisms are unnecessary. They run counter to the history of the trust since 1954, they are undesirable given the nature of the body, and they are unnecessary given the fact that it is already an autonomous Crown entity.

The only other point I would make picks up a point raised by Ms Kedgley in her speech. She was very concerned about what could be called the toothlessness of the trust where the protection of historic buildings is concerned. I thought the member raised a number of interesting issues. However, those issues pertain to Parts 1 and 5 of the Act, which are not affected by this bill. Although her speech was interesting and raised a number of points, it was largely irrelevant to this bill. But I pick up what the member said, and perhaps the time is coming for a comprehensive review of this legislation. It was last reviewed comprehensively by a National administration, in the early 1990s.

💬 Hon Member: Who was the Minister?

The Minister then was a fellow called Denis Marshall—another fine MP for Rangitikei, like Mr Power—who gave a great deal to the conservation cause in the 6 years that he was the Minister. The legislation was last reviewed under a National Government, and perhaps the time is coming for further review.

I would like to very briefly take up the point of the last speaker. I agree with him that we need, and should have had here, a comprehensive review of the Historic Places Trust. Basically, over the last number of decades of the trust’s existence, historic buildings throughout our country have been bulldozed. As the Associate Minister pointed out, Labour has given additional funding to the Historic Places Trust, and we are very pleased about that. But we think it is clear that what is needed is not simply additional money but additional powers, because there are numerous examples of the Historic Places Trust being left wringing its hands in despair, apparently powerless to act when magnificent heritage buildings are being bulldozed.

Just recently a historic building in the old historic precinct of Pētone was demolished. The Historic Places Trust opposed the proposed demolition of that building, but in the end it could do nothing except wring its hands. So we agree completely with the National Party spokesperson in this area that a comprehensive review of the Historic Places Trust is needed. The time has come. The few tinkering technical amendments, some of which are not so technical, do not begin to get to the heart of the matter. Why are we not giving more teeth to the Historic Places Trust? Why are we sitting on our hands watching more and more magnificent historic buildings in New Zealand be demolished?