Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill

I move, That the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill be now read a third time. This bill repeals and replaces the Historic Places Act 1993 and seeks a better balance among the different interests in New Zealand’s heritage. It is a bill that retains and, indeed, renews the spirit of heritage advocacy, and it makes bureaucratic requirements less cumbersome for New Zealanders wanting to get on and do something with their houses and land. It recognises the Historic Places Trust’s longstanding role in ensuring the protection of New Zealand’s heritage, but it also looks forward, ensuring that the organisation has the appropriate structure and processes to meet the needs of heritage advocacy and property ownership in the future.

I was very pleased with the wide support the bill received both at the second reading and in the Committee stage, and I think that reflects the positive and workable nature of what we are trying to achieve here. Shortly I will say something about Supplementary Order Paper 444, which was developed after the second reading, but first a quick run-through of the main aspects of the bill. The initial driver for legislative change was the need for structural reform of the trust. The bill replaces the three elected board positions with two positions filled by ministerial appointment, and disestablishes the branch committees. These changes will remove any confusion between the trust’s statutory and advocacy responsibilities, and it will allow advocacy groups to campaign freely without the constraints of being part of a Crown entity. In reflection of its changed status, the trust is also renamed Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. Indeed, it has recently begun trading under this name as a first step in establishing its new identity.

The 2005 amendments making the trust a Crown entity were, frankly, sloppy and piecemeal—changing its legal status yet leaving vestigial remnants of a voluntary organisation, fettering local heritage advocates, and confusing the trust’s purpose. But I would like to think that this bill has tidied all that up, and, importantly, I can assure those concerned with preservation of New Zealand’s historic heritage that the bill will retain existing protections. However, as the consultation phase of the bill demonstrated, heritage preservation is an area in which sometimes people disagree, so it is important that the organisation and all its processes are as fair and transparent as possible, and that decisions are made taking the full story into account—in particular, the effects a decision may have on property owners. The bill therefore requires Heritage New Zealand, when considering an archaeological authority application to modify or destroy a site, to take into account the same matters as the Environment Court does. These include the interests of any person directly affected by the decision and any ways in which protection of the site may prevent or restrict the reasonable use of that site. When undertaking their advocacy roles, both Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council will need to recognise landowners’ interests.

The bill also introduces a speedier archaeological authority process for applicants. This, importantly, aligns it with the Resource Management Act, reducing the frustrations and hold-ups that people are experiencing when they want to develop their property. A lot of work has gone into that and also into emergency authorities, because those dreadful earthquakes in Canterbury actually occurred when the bill was in the early stages of development. It was immediately clear that the bill would need to respond to the potential for future disaster, so the bill recognises the need to be prepared for disaster and all its repercussions. It introduces a number of measures, such as an emergency archaeological authority, and it seeks to strike a sensible balance that minimises hold-ups while still protecting that vulnerable heritage.

Through this bill there is a National Historic Landmarks List established, which is a first. It is a definitive list of New Zealand’s most important historic places. It is a very positive step for heritage protection nationwide. It will have an agreed set of national priorities and it will be a strong statement about the value the Government and New Zealanders place on heritage.

Now I turn very briefly to Supplementary Order Paper 444, which is mainly about tightening up language in order to make the bill a clearer document. I acknowledge the good work of the officials in achieving this aim. I quickly want to summarise just some of the changes. I acknowledge Catherine Delahunty for her help in what is a very important one. When Heritage New Zealand appoints an archaeologist to work on a site of interest to Māori, it must be satisfied that the archaeologist has the requisite competencies for recognising and respecting Māori values and has access to appropriate support—a constructive amendment that will ensure that this work is undertaken with sensitivity and appropriate focus. A key policy intent of the bill is to achieve better consistency with provisions in parallel legislation, particularly the Resource Management Act. This Supplementary Order Paper has achieved this consistency. So, for example, the bill amends the time period for which an archaeological authority is current, aligning it with the Resource Management Act so Heritage New Zealand can give people the time they need to undertake large-scale projects. The provisions regarding liability for offences are also further aligned with the Resource Management Act.

The changes I have outlined will contribute, I believe, to a strong and a well-targeted bill that will serve the interests of all New Zealanders. We are already seeing some of the provisions of the bill beginning to be played out, and I am very pleased that so many new advocacy groups have formed and are working constructively with Heritage New Zealand. I have also been very encouraged by the level of engagement during the development of the bill and the broad support it has received. I want to place on record the tremendous effort by the officials. I particularly refer to Peter Richardson and also to a Wellington lawyer, David Cochrane, who did a huge amount of work on the bill to polish it and make it fit for purpose.

It is interesting to note some of the great New Zealanders who have served on the Historic Places Trust over the years: the most recent chairs, Judge Shonagh Kenderdine and, before her, John Acland; and current members, including those who have sat on the Māori Heritage Council, Naida Glavish, Ian Athfield—a noted New Zealand architect—Dr Apirana Mahuika, and Sir Tumu te Heuheu. In earlier years trust members have included Judith Binney, Merata Kawharu, Dame Cath Tizard, Professor David Hamer, Alan Talbot, Keith Sorrenson, Māui Pōmare, Ken Gorbey, Sir Alister McIntosh, and “Duff” Daysh. This has been an organisation that has had some wonderful people working with it over the years, and I am sure that will continue in the future.

Can I conclude by thanking Heritage New Zealand and the new groups for their commitment to making the bill as effective as possible. I certainly want to acknowledge the current director, Bruce Chapman. I also want to mention John Daniels, who was the trust’s director for many years and since his retirement has retained a great interest in heritage matters. I want to acknowledge all those who have been members of branch committees. Their hard work and strong advocacy have made a very important contribution to New Zealand. For 60 years the trust has played a vital role in the protection of New Zealand’s heritage. I am delighted to give it a new name and statute, and a new lease of life. I look forward to a new era for Heritage New Zealand, positioned through this legislation to meet the needs of heritage and the people of New Zealand for many years to come. I commend the bill to the House.

It is not often, unfortunately, that we are able to debate issues around arts, culture, and heritage in this House, so I really relish this opportunity. I am sure you will forgive my indulgence if I traverse very briefly some of the wider issues that sit within this incredibly important portfolio. For Labour it always has been an incredibly important portfolio. That was probably recognised the most when Helen Clark decided to take on that portfolio as Prime Minister of New Zealand, because she recognised that the arts, and in particular heritage, were part of our national identity. It helped us create a sense of who we are, and heritage is intrinsic in that. In particular, Helen Clark’s passion for the history around our Anzacs behind our participation in World War I and in World War II drove a lot of the projects she championed, and she remains a great advocate in that regard.

I think it is really important to recognise that the arts, culture, and heritage portfolio does not sit as a passive portfolio that just needs to tick along in the status quo. There are so many things that we can be doing to support, grow, and ensure that that sector is flourishing. Actually, in recent times, unfortunately, the sector in many ways has been somewhat diminished by choices the Government has made. We need only to look at what has happened in public broadcasting. We have lost the charter. We have lost TVNZ 7. Yes, ensuring that we have an appreciation of our heritage is encapsulated by buildings is important, but it is also encapsulated by our stories and our storytelling.

Beyond that there are things like, for instance, appreciation of music in New Zealand. It is New Zealand Music Month. It is very important to acknowledge that. It was started in 2000. Those are ways we can celebrate New Zealand music not only domestically but internationally. Yet at the same time we seem to have ignored that we have a quota in New Zealand for New Zealand music. If we ignore what is a voluntary quota, we run the risk of, again, seeing a lack of commitment to ensuring that we are supporting our local artists, first domestically, so that we can ensure they succeed internationally.

There are also things like the Large Budget Screen Production Grant Scheme, introduced by New Zealand to support the film community in New Zealand. It was just left, after Labour introduced it, by this Government and not looked at closely enough in terms of bolstering that fund, until it was almost too late. This is not a portfolio that can just be left as the status quo with fingers crossed that everything will be OK, and yet that has happened far too much, I fear, within the arts, culture, and heritage portfolio.

A perfect example as well, I think, where not enough attention has been paid is heritage issues in particular. We absolutely accept that in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake, when the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act was introduced, there was a great need, for safety reasons, to ensure that assessments were placed on buildings with an eye to ensuring that the city and its inhabitants were safe. Section 38 meant that we saw some vigorous demolition, but the time has come for that provision to be removed. We have already seen 50 percent of central Christchurch heritage buildings gone—144 heritage buildings in the central business district alone. We are not arguing that there will not be cause for some of those buildings to come down in the future, but surely we can now rely on the robust process around the Resource Management Act to determine that rather than fast-tracking those demolitions through the arbitrary process engaged in by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority for these buildings—

💬 Maggie Barry: What’s this got to do with the bill?

—and that is what we are calling for. It has got plenty to do with heritage. We are debating heritage, and I think the survival of heritage buildings in Christchurch has got everything to do with the bill we are discussing now, the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill.

When we look at what has been proposed by the Government around the Historic Places Act, I do not think we can underestimate what a fundamental shift this is for the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. I concur with and would like to reiterate the vote of thanks the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage made to the many, many serving board members and volunteers who over the years have contributed to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Labour joins in thanking all of them for their service in the past and their ongoing service to heritage in New Zealand.

This bill has tackled a few issues around things like archaeological consenting processes. It has ensured that there is not duplication when it comes to the Resource Management Act. It has put the new organisation of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga on a statutory footing, forms a new governance structure around that body, and establishes transition provisions between the bill disestablishing branch committees, removing three positions for elected board members, and instead creating two new positions for board members appointed by the Minister. All of that is articulated by this bill.

We did express some concerns during this process around ensuring a proper transition from the Historic Places Trust to these new arrangements. We were concerned that the transitional arrangement proposed in one of the clauses could be stronger. It was a clause added by the select committee. We thought it could be made stronger by including support for the society’s incorporation of a branch and by providing standard or template rules to assist branches. I think we did that with a mind to the fact that volunteers have been involved in these organisations for so long that, surely, lending a hand in that regard could only have been helpful.

Ultimately, though, it has been our view that there were grounds for these changes. We did support them, but we also want to make sure that we put on record the ongoing issues around heritage protection in New Zealand that are significant, fraught, and not easily resolved, but, unfortunately, go un-debated in this place and have gone un-debated for far too long. I want to traverse a couple of those now. Obviously, the issue post the Christchurch earthquake has been increasing insurance premiums around heritage buildings. That is an issue, on one level, obviously, when they are Crown-owned buildings, for the Crown to cope with. But often, of course, we are seeing heritage buildings that are in private ownership where owners no longer see the fiscal gain in their owning a building that perhaps they might lease but now has a significant insurance cost attached to it.

If you were to take this example, for instance, and apply it to a small town like Te Aroha—[Interruption] I am not sure how many buildings they have that might be listed, but in Te Aroha there are a number of beautiful historic buildings in that place. Many of them will be in private ownership, and with insurance premiums being what they are, their ability to bring in rent to cover that is significantly diminished. So what are we likely to see in those cases? Well—not necessarily through any desire by a building owner—we will see, I am sad to say, demolition by neglect. What provisions are there to try to prevent that from happening in some of our towns and, indeed, our cities? Another challenge we consistently see is planning laws not meeting the public’s expectation around heritage protection. There have been countless examples in Auckland where we have heard the mantra again from heritage groups “This must never happen again.”, and yet it does, time and time again. The process of proper listing of heritage buildings comes up every time there is a review of a unitary plan in our city in particular as well.

All of this must surely lead to the conclusion that it is time for a national statement on heritage issues. That would be the way that we could set out the parameters, the guidelines, and the public expectations around heritage in New Zealand. Labour has called in the past for a select committee to review this issue and all of the tangled web of heritage issues that at a local level we continually come up against. Unfortunately, that was voted down by this Government. But I say again: yes, we support this bill, but we support a wider review of the considerable heritage issues we continue to face, which are particularly stark at present, and that will be only to the benefit of New Zealand’s future heritage and preservation of heritage.

I rise to speak on the third reading of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. As the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, who has shepherded this through the House, Christopher Finlayson, noted earlier, this is a new era for the Historic Places Trust. He paid tribute to the people who have served loyally in all the branches and in the management structures of the trust over some 60 years now. The names of Judge Shonagh Kenderdine, Naida Glavish, Ian Athfield, and Sir Tumu te Heuheu—these are people with enormous integrity who have put a lot of energy and time and effort into ensuring that the old Historic Places Trust did its job very well. But the purpose of this bill is to make the job of that trust—and it is a misnamed thing to call it a trust, because it does not accurately represent its role.

The purpose of this bill is to streamline, specifically, the archaeological authority process. That is a consent process for applicants under the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. When we look at some of the things that have been brought in as a result of the Local Government and Environment Committee process—and I was just reminding myself of it, because this bill had its first reading on 8 May 2012, and the submissions closed on 19 July. We took about 30 oral submissions on the bill, and they were very well considered. They were very well debated within the select committee process at the time when they were thought about and included, and the Minister’s own rather large Supplementary Order Paper 444 has taken due note of them. The aspects that make the role of archaeological consent more workable have been reflected in the changes the select committee made.

We have made practical and helpful suggestions—for example, ensuring that non-invasive activities such as walking across a site are not going to be considered as exploratory investigation. There were quite a few submitters who said to us that the idea that you could not even walk across a site was very unworkable, because how on earth do you do your job properly to actually assess what is there. We suggested clarifying that Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga access to sites with any assistance that is deemed necessary is also allowable—that is, vehicles, machinery, and equipment—but these are to be used sparingly and not, of course, in any way likely to damage the site.

I think that increasing the time that people are allowed to consider general policy statements from 12 to 18 months is also a very good thing, because these things need to have that time and need to take that time, and public consultation needs to be part of it. That was a message that came through very loud and clear.

I think, as well, when you are clarifying the limit for the National Historic Landmarks List—initially, it was thought that we had only 50 of those places in this country, and there was a lot of debate around this—how do you deem one building or one site to be more worthy than another of historic protection at the highest level? Eventually, the limit on numbers was thrown out, and places will be assessed on their own merits. For example, this building that we are in now is a precinct and it will be taken as one place and not as a series of buildings. So I think that there have been some very practical suggestions that have been listened to and will make the working of this piece of legislation all the better.

The other elements that have had to be duly considered, and perhaps the reason that this particular piece of legislation has taken such time, are contained within the bill and within the Supplementary Order Papers—and we reflected Catherine Delahunty’s Supplementary Order Papers 372 and 373 as well and they were incorporated as part of this legislation. I think that it is another good sign that there has been a degree of cross-party cooperation and a willingness for politicians to put aside the petty politics and concentrate instead on what needs to happen for this bill to be workable, for the sake of preserving our heritage. It was important that the Resource Management Act measures and the changes there have been aligned within this piece of legislation. Otherwise it might not be a workable thing.

It seems to me that one of the great strengths of what this bill is doing is that it is making the process more transparent and easier to follow, and, therefore, making it more likely that our heritage sites, which are so precious to all of us, will be protected in perpetuity. Also, I think, aligning things with the Environment Court is a very important thing. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

A lot of people have talked about the support and encouragement that they have drawn from that support for heritage. To me, this has been a rallying bill. It has brought people together. There was initial discomfort around the disestablishment of the branches, but it is now very apparent that people in various groups have welcomed the opportunity to examine what it is that we feel is important within our heritage and to understand the processes through which we need to go if we want to protect those heritage sites.

So, as the Minister said earlier, it is a new name, a new statute, a new lease of life, and a new era. That is why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I rise to support the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill, as other speakers from the Labour Party have done as well. I do support the notion previous speakers have mentioned that this is a bill that has gained widespread support from around Parliament and, indeed, in the community. That is actually a tribute to the Local Government and Environment Committee, to those who have submitted to the select committee, and to the Government and the Opposition politicians who have been part of that. It is not an area where today, in contemporary New Zealand, there should be, I believe, any particular dispute about the importance of having an organisation within the system of government that does protect, enhance, and advocate for our heritage.

It was not always so. As I commented during the Committee stage of this bill, it is great to see within this bill the strong support for, for example, the importance of the protection of wāhi tapu, wāhi tūpuna, and historic places and historic areas of interest to Māori. The National Party, in the Don Brash era, during the political correctness eradicator times—Dr Wayne Mapp, that was, Mr Goldsmith, if you were wondering whatever happened—

💬 Darien Fenton: The MP for North Shore.

—that is right, the MP for North Shore—to the political correctness eradicator. During that period, the National Opposition, as it was then, was not all that keen on recognising things like wāhi tapu and sacred sites for Māori. So I think it is a good advance that this piece of legislation does that very clearly and very specifically. I point particularly to clause 7, which gives a special acknowledgment to the way in which this legislation gives effect to the Crown’s responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi. I welcome that change of heart from the National Government and the fact that we can now have a piece of legislation that gives good recognition to those matters.

Ultimately what this bill does, in addition to some of the specific points that have been raised by the previous speaker, Maggie Barry, is create a new entity. It creates a governance arrangement for historic places in New Zealand that changes from the model that many New Zealanders have known well: a Historic Places Trust where there are local branch committees that played an important role in the actions of the trust, which fed through to a national body, which in turn played an advocacy role at the national level in terms of historic places and heritage. The recognition is that by changing this to what is effectively a Crown entity—what is effectively a Crown agency—it makes the local branch committees inappropriate. It is not really possible for there to be voluntary branch committees that would feed into a Government entity in that way. So despite some reluctance on this side of the House, I would say, in seeing branch committees disestablished, we understand that the changed governance arrangements do make them inappropriate. I too want to place on record my thanks to all of those New Zealanders going back many decades who have contributed to the branch committees of the Historic Places Trust.

Many cities and towns in New Zealand would not be the places they are today were it not for those committee members. As I think I said in the Committee stage debate, I grew up in Dunedin, and anyone who visits the city of Dunedin can look around on a day-to-day basis and see what an amazing impact local people had on the cityscape and on the fact that those buildings have been preserved. I was actually in the city of Dunedin on the weekend, and I walked past one of the great historic buildings there, the old National Bank on Princes Street. In the building beside it, someone had put a sign up that said: “Sustainability begins with preservation”. I thought that was a very, very good statement of the kinds of values that lie behind the protection of heritage in our historic places. We will not be a sustainable community if we do not preserve what is around us, and that counts for historic buildings as much as it counts for our natural heritage as well.

So I do want to thank those branch committees. However, I do not think that we are here to pronounce the end of local advocacy and representation on heritage issues—far from it, in fact. I note that right around the country historic places trust branches have been re-establishing themselves as part of—I think the organisation is called—Historic Places Aotearoa, which is bringing together groups from right across the country. There is one in Napier, there is one in New Plymouth, and there is a very active one in Christchurch, given the issues that that city is facing. It is fantastic that those individuals and communities can come together and still be advocates for their local heritage, even though they are not officially members of the trust any longer. So I look forward to seeing the advocacy and support for heritage from those local committees when they are re-established as they are now.

When we look at the bill, it is important to look at the purposes and functions of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. In particular, I do want to note the fact that it still has an advocacy role and that it is not just a body there to monitor and receive applications and to make reports. Under clause 11(1)(b) of the bill, one of the purposes and functions of Heritage New Zealand is to advocate the conservation and protection of historic places, historic areas, wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, and wāhi tapu areas. So I want to make sure that we do not suddenly believe that advocacy is over by creating this Crown entity.

One of the criticisms that this side of the House has had of the National Government when it comes to the Department of Conservation is that the Government does not want to hear from the Department of Conservation about its advocacy role. It would rather that it went away—need anyone mention the Ruataniwha Dam, if they want an example of that. I want to put on the record of this House that the Labour Party recognises that part of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga’s role will be to advocate, and we support that role. It may mean that when we are in Government we may have some disagreements, but we welcome that. We welcome the fact that there is an organisation that has got a specific responsibility to advocate for conservation of historic areas. That is important in our society.

I want to refer to a couple of other areas. We have already had a reference by Jacinda Ardern, to, I guess, in many senses, the relationship between this organisation and the legislation that sets it up and the Resource Management Act. There was a lot of discussion at the select committee process, as I understand it—I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee—about aligning those two regimes. In fact, a chunk of the Minister’s very large Supplementary Order Paper 444 is about exactly that. That is important. We have seen too many examples in this House of legislation where alignment with the Resource Management Act has been forgotten about, and here I am thinking about the exclusive economic zone legislation. That is a very good example of that. So it is important that we align them.

But I think that what it draws out, and there were submissions—and I remember Federated Farmers getting quite upset about this bill at one stage, although it ultimately supported it, I think—in which there was concern that there was not enough of a partnership approach in how we support historic places and sites. I guess, representing farmers, that organisation was concerned about where those historic sites may be on particular farms. I welcome the idea of a collaborative and partnership approach, but there need to be clear rules and guidelines around that. I do support the idea of some kind of national policy statement around heritage, so that local authorities and those in the community who have to work in these areas understand the expectations at a central government level about the protection of heritage. I think it would be useful to do that.

One of the problems with the implementation of the Resource Management Act over many years is the absence of national level guidance in terms of national policy statements and national environment standards. In the absence of those it has been up to local authorities to come up with decisions. That is where some inconsistencies have grown up. That, if anything, is what needs to change about the Resource Management Act, not the fundamentals of it, and not tearing down the fact that it is about sustainable management, as this Government would do, but rather, actually, giving the national level guidance that allows local organisations to make their decisions. That applies as much to heritage as it does to any other topic.

So I think that is a conversation that we need to have, but this bill at least gives us an organisation that is now well founded within Government to provide support and protection for our heritage going forward, and therefore the Labour Party can support this legislation.

The Green Party is pleased to add its voice in support of the others who have expressed cross-party support for this legislation, the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill, in the House this afternoon. It is good to see a piece of very significant legislation like this proceeding with such a high degree of support across the House.

It is very timely because this bill is passing through Parliament at a time when heritage issues have probably never been higher in the public consciousness, particularly, of course, following the devastating Christchurch earthquakes, which, as the Minister for Arts, Culture, and Heritage pointed out, had not yet taken place when the bill was first contemplated but have certainly provided a backdrop for much of the discussion, particularly about built heritage, that has taken place with this bill. Also, of course, legislation that straddles the very fine line between heritage protection and the need for earthquake strengthening is also currently before the House. So these issues are very current and of great concern in the public consciousness.

In New Zealand we have a unique heritage. Our built heritage and, indeed, many of our other historic sites are a very vital and important part of our national identity. Sadly, we often perceive just how important they are only when they have been lost to us, as we have seen in the case of so many buildings in Christchurch. What makes us who we are and what identifies us as New Zealanders, as Cantabrians, or as people belonging to a particular place or site is often inextricably tied up with buildings, with heritage sites, and with archaeological sites, and their preservation is very important.

Heritage issues obviously stir the passions of many New Zealanders because they are controversial issues—witness the strength of debate in Christchurch about the future of the Christchurch Cathedral, for example—so it is important that we get the legislative framework right for having these debates, and I think we are pretty close with this bill.

Just as our built heritage is an important part of our national identity, so, of course, has been the iconic Historic Places Trust, which has been a very important, membership-based advocacy organisation for many, many years, and I think that every member of this House and many members of the public will have positive associations with their local Historic Places Trust organisation. Largely thanks to the dedicated efforts of passionate volunteers at the branch level, many, many buildings have been preserved, many sites have been saved, and many iconic sites have been brought to public attention and promoted to be enjoyed by members of the public as a result of the work of the branch committees of the Historic Places Trust. So it is with some sadness—and it was with some degree of misgiving when this bill first came into the House—that we witness with the passage of this bill the disestablishment of branch committees of the Historic Places Trust.

We understand, of course, that this change has not been uncontroversial, particularly amongst local members of branch committees around the country, and the Local Government and Environment Committee heard from a number of these people, who were concerned that their hard work in the past might not be sufficiently recognised under the new model or that their voices and advocacy might go unheard in future. That is a real concern. However, we do acknowledge that under the current, soon-to-be-past model, there was a mismatch between having the Historic Places Trust as a Crown entity and having a branch membership structure at the local level. So there is some logic in the changes that this bill makes. But I think it is going to be very, very important to keep a close eye and to ensure that local membership of heritage advocacy committees under the new model will continue and that these groups will be able to focus very strongly on their advocacy role. The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage has indicated that he hopes that will happen, as well. Of course, for them to be able to do that, they do need to have the right level of support, and we are pleased to see that some transitional financial support has been made available to local organisations. The Green Party, along with our colleagues in, I think, the Labour Party argued at the select committee that we would have liked that support to be greater, and we do think it is a shame that it is not. But we will watch this area closely.

I would like to echo the comments of my colleague Grant Robertson, who has just spoken, about the importance of advocacy. Although the Minister has indicated that he thinks that the new heritage advocacy committees at the local level will be able to focus their efforts on advocacy, and rightly so, there is still an important heritage advocacy role that the new Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga organisation can, and should, fill. We have seen, of course, a parallel with the Department of Conservation, which also has an advocacy role as a Government department that in the past has exercised that advocacy role completely independently and free of any political interference. We in the Green Party are concerned, and I know that many others are concerned, that that independent advocacy role of the Department of Conservation has been recently eroded somewhat, and the Ruataniwha Dam is a good example. So we think it is going to be very important that although we still have heritage advocacy committees at the branch level to do advocacy, it should not be siloed to just those groups. If there is a significant heritage issue that Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga should be advocating on, then it will, and should, do that in the future, and the Green Party will certainly be watching very closely to ensure that that happens.

Similarly, we think it is very important that although the interests of landowners obviously need to be considered very carefully in any heritage decisions, they also need to be considered alongside the interests of others and alongside the interests of heritage so that greater weight is not given to landowners’ interests over the interests of other stakeholders.

One of the other things that makes our heritage in New Zealand so unique, of course, is our tangata whenua, and it was always going to be vital to ensure that tangata whenua and mana whenua are adequately involved in heritage decisions on land in their rohe and, indeed, over historic sites that relate to Māori history. So we were pleased to see the select committee recommendation to widen the range of parties that Heritage New Zealand must work with to include tangata whenua as well as Government agencies.

One of the major areas of change in the bill, of course, is around new archaeological authorities for the exploration of a potential new heritage site. I would like to join others in acknowledging the work of my colleague Catherine Delahunty for her constructive work with the Minister to ensure that when a new architect is appointed to work on a site of significance to Māori, mana whenua have a say in that appointment. That is a very important and significant change, which was made in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 444 during the Committee stage of this bill. We are very pleased to see that change was made and very pleased that the Minister was able to work constructively with our colleague Catherine Delahunty to make that change. It will make a big difference for many mana whenua who are dealing with archaeological sites in their rohe.

The other major new initiative of this bill is, of course, the creation of a national register of historic sites. That is a new and potentially very useful tool for people to engage with our history and to understand—and visit, perhaps, if they want to—sites whose names are collected and published on that list. I think there was a great deal of concern expressed by a number of submitters about the idea of limiting the number of sites on that list to only 50. It was quite an arbitrary number and unnecessarily prescriptive when we have such a rich vein of heritage in our country. So we are pleased to see that that was abandoned, and now there will not be a limit to the number of sites that can be declared to be on the national register of historically significant sites, but each site will be considered on its merits. That was a sensible change.

In conclusion, we in the Green Party have had some concerns about the role of branch committees and local membership in heritage advocacy, about the importance of a Crown entity continuing to exercise some advocacy over heritage in the future, about alignment with the Resource Management Act—which I have not spoken a great deal about, but which will also be very important—and about the ability of mana whenua and tangata whenua to have their concerns and their sites of significance rightfully taken into account in heritage decisions. Some of those concerns remain for us. We are not 100 percent comfortable with every aspect of this bill, but we think that, by and large, the Supplementary Order Papers and the select committee’s constructive deliberations have got it right, and we are pleased to be able to support this bill.

I would like to conclude with a whakataukī, which seems appropriate. It is: Puritia ngā tāonga tuku iho a ngā tūpuna heitiki huia mā ngā uri whakatupu o Aotearoa. Translated, it means to keep the treasures handed down by the ancestors as an adornment for the descendants yet to be born in New Zealand. It seems an appropriate sentiment on which to conclude.

I acknowledge some of the disquiet that was felt about the disestablishment of branch committees. I just note that as part of the review of the Historic Places Trust, there was found to be a lack of clarity around the organisation’s statutory role and also its membership role, which led to the disestablishment of the branch committees. However, I would say that out of the ashes of the disestablishment have grown some pretty good, strong groups that have become good heritage advocates on behalf of their communities.

This is no more so than with the Ōāmaru Whitestone Civic Trust, which is based in North Otago, in Ōāmaru. The Ōāmaru Whitestone Civic Trust is the owner of a number of heritage buildings in and around Ōāmaru and North Otago. As well as being the custodian for the buildings themselves and getting involved in the upgrading and earthquake strengthening of those buildings, it has a wider role that it has assumed with the demise of the local committee. It has incorporated many of the local committee people, and is an incredibly strong, positive group that has a very strong role in the preservation of the heritage of both North Otago and the wider country.

The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill is a good bill. There were a number of provisions brought in by the changes made by the Local Government and Environment Committee, but it serves for me only to commend this bill to the House.

I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill in its third reading. New Zealand First does have some real concerns in relation to this legislation, and we will not be supporting it.

We concede that some aspects of the Historic Places Act did need updating. That Act was originally drafted in 1975 and amended in 1993. As time has marched on, what has not been regarded as historic under the Act—that is, being post-1900—is now becoming of significant heritage and historic value, as we move well into the 21st century. For instance, the World War I centennial era is now upon us, and we must be mindful of the importance of such important periods in the history of our country. Important structures to commemorate that Great War are most certainly now being regarded as having historic importance. Likewise, architecture from the 1930s, such as art deco in Napier, is now coming into that same category of unique historic significance.

However, putting those positive aspects of amendments to the Act aside, the most controversial focus of this bill—the area where New Zealand First has grave concerns—is the change of the name and complete restructuring of the Historic Places Trust. Its name in itself has historic heritage value. The Historic Places Trust has been known to us all over many, many generations. That iconic name, the Historic Places Trust, will become Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and with it the whole structure will be radically changed.

New Zealand First does not agree with the proposed changes that will see the disestablishment of the local branch committees. I think that that is one of the fundamental problems that many New Zealanders and many who submitted to the Local Government and Environment Committee have, in that this bill is taking away that whole volunteer side of the Historic Places Trust. Committees throughout New Zealand have laboured long and hard over many, many decades to ensure our heritage is preserved.

We all know of sites in our own communities where such volunteer branches have raised money, worked hard, and put in a huge amount of volunteer labour to preserve sites, buildings, or special areas of historic interest. Those people have put a great deal of their own personal time, money, and effort into that. Effectively, what we are now seeing under the bill is that volunteer system, which New Zealanders are famous for—and New Zealand has the honour of being a country that is seen as having one of the highest levels of volunteers in the developed world; we are renowned for our level of volunteering—being undermined and the effective corporatisation of our New Zealand heritage.

The bill also sees the removal of three positions of elected members of the trust board. In the past, the people who were most involved in historic places and heritage were able to elect members to represent them on the board. It is most disappointing that that will no longer be the case. Again that, in effect, is a removal of the democratic principle, and we do not support that. What it says now in the bill is that the governing body will comprise eight persons appointed by the Minister, one of whom is to be appointed as the chairperson of the board.

The persons appointed must collectively have the appropriate skills, knowledge, or cultural background to assist Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga to perform its functions. At least three persons must be appointed who, in the opinion of the Minister after consulting with the Minister of Māori Affairs, are qualified for appointment, having regard to their knowledge of Te Ao Māori, which is the Māori world view, and tikanga Māori, which is Māori protocol and culture. The appointments must be made in accordance with the Crown Entities Act 2004.

Effectively, this is the corporatisation of the Historic Places Trust, and it is taking it from all those many limbs all around New Zealand and all those many volunteer branches around New Zealand, and giving it back to the control of the bureaucrats and central government here in Wellington. That, to our mind, to New Zealand First’s mind, is not a good thing, and it undermines the very reason that so many of us cherish and give such great presence to our historic places all over this country. They are there on behalf of the people; they are not there on behalf of a bureaucracy in Wellington that is administering them.

The Historic Places Trust comprised volunteer committees and communities all over New Zealand that have provided invaluable time, energy, and local knowledge to maintaining and protecting the history and heritage of New Zealand. As dedicated guardians of much of our most precious history, they represent all that is good at grassroots level in New Zealand. These volunteers are being ungraciously moved aside in favour of a more centralised corporate model run from Wellington.

The Local Government and Environment Committee heard from many branches and individual members who felt they were being sidelined by the whole process. They felt it was detrimental to the heritage movement across the country and will result in fewer people taking the trouble to volunteer their time and money to this most worthy endeavour of protecting the history of our nation. That will be a result of this legislation. There will be a reduced level of interest. Volunteers will not continue to offer their services in the way they have in the past, simply because the rug has been pulled out from underneath them. They felt aggrieved that their annual fees will continue to be taken but with greatly reduced representation within the restructured organisation.

This is not what New Zealand is about. The history of our country is not about another piece of Government property that it can corporatise and commercialise. It is therefore with grave concern that New Zealand First opposes the intent of this bill, because it certainly does not put New Zealand heritage and dedicated volunteering New Zealanders first.

I would like to support the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill, which delivers on National’s promise to improve governance in the arts and heritage area.

I just wanted to draw attention to what is obviously a very significant place in our nation’s history and our heritage. But we do have to be careful to strike a balance between our heritage concerns and the broader social and economic objectives. This legislation, I think, is better because of the select committee process. There were a lot of submissions from a number of people. A number of people were very concerned about the costs added on to landowners as a result of this work in heritage. They wanted to make sure that we were careful in how we managed it. Clause 12(3) says: “No interest in land may be regarded as having been taken or injuriously affected and no compensation is payable by reason only of any provision of this Act.” It is quite a remarkable thing, and there is no question that there are some landowners whose property is very significantly affected in its value by things that happen in this Act.

So it was very important that we added in a new clause 12(1A), which notes: “In exercising its power under subsection (1)(a), Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga must recognise the interests of an owner, as far as those interests are known, in a particular historic place, historic area, wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, or wāhi tapu area.” I think that with that clause in there, landowners can have a greater confidence that when we are striving hard to maintain the heritage values of New Zealand, we are also aware and cognisant of the costs that we put on landowners so as to minimise those and to achieve a greater possible heritage effect as we possibly can, at a realistic cost for those people who are just wanting to renovate their house or make some improvements to their property. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I am very pleased to take a call in the third reading of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. I have followed this bill with some interest, even though I was not on the Local Government and Environment Committee. That is because I think that most Kiwis and most people who live in this land believe that heritage is about our collective cultural memory. It is important to us all, and it affects us all in different ways. It has been interesting to hear the contributions from members of the select committee. Overall, from what I can see, I think the committee did quite a good job.

I understand the concerns about the local committees being abolished. I can understand that because I have been involved with local committees that have worked very hard to try to save something they see as part of their heritage, whether it be in a small town or a suburb, and so on. I hope that this bill does not mean that we will see the end of that kind of organisation, where people gather and rally round to mark something that actually means something to them—their history, their ancestors, their whānau, and so on.

The only criticism I have with the select committee is that the bill was introduced before the 2011 election. It has taken some time. It is good to see it back in the House. Some listeners may be wondering why we are doing this 2 days before the Budget and why it is so important, so I thought I would just try to expand a little bit about what the bill does and what it actually means to the places that I know in Auckland, where I live. The purpose of the bill is “to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand.” So I went looking for what that actually means. We have all been aware of battles over buildings and seen the destruction of buildings and the sad state of affairs in Christchurch, where so many heritage buildings have been lost and where we have seen things torn down when they should not have been.

There is quite a long list of New Zealand Historic Places Trust category I listings in the Auckland region. Other people, I am sure, can follow and look around and see what there is in their region. I have to say that there is a large number of churches. I suppose that that is to do with our colonial history, when Pākehā people came to New Zealand and decided that they had to have churches everywhere and try to convert the natives. Some of those churches are, indeed, very, very beautiful.

We in Auckland are all familiar with the Auckland Civic Theatre, for example. That is a magnificent piece of artwork. I always get a thrill going into that theatre. I remember as a child going in and seeing the Wurlitzer organ that it used to have in there, which would come up before the movie started. The theatre has a great history in our city not only of movies but also as a place where people could go to dance and go to balls. Another one that I picked out is a place called Kinder House, which is in Parnell. Kinder House was built by one of the early settlers. It is a stone building and it is quite beautiful. It is in Parnell. Why it is important to me is that it has a lot of artworks and books in it from the period of the time. Kinder House is also important to me because I have a partner who is an antiquarian book collector.

💬 Clare Curran: As well.

As well. He is also a jazz collector. He is an antiquarian book collector and he was part of a group called Slightly Foxed (But Otherwise Fine), after the famous Ronald Searle book Slightly Foxed But Still Desirable. This group collected antiquarian books and it used to meet at Kinder House. It still does, I think, but my partner has gone on to other things like jazz and music. It was a wonderful experience, particularly for my young son, to be in a historic building, surrounded by art and books and people who valued books and who put them within the context of heritage in many ways. So Kinder House is special to me.

I also want to mention Alberton, which is also a special place for all of us. It is a beautiful old building in Auckland and is famous for being the home of suffragettes, so it is very special.

💬 Carol Beaumont: That is right—a very strong women’s history.

It has a strong women’s history, and certainly women I know in the Labour Party often recollect that history and meet there to celebrate it, particularly around Women’s Suffrage Day.

But there are also some interesting places. Our heritage is not just about beautiful buildings. When you cross the harbour bridge you see this big, old, orange building. That is the Chelsea sugar refinery. That has been there for quite a long time and has a wonderful history, actually, of people who performed the work and who should be celebrated for the work they do—and those who still actually work there. There is a wonderful poem from James K Baxter that came out of that place. The story is that James K Baxter went to work at the Chelsea sugar refinery and got the sack after not being there for very long. He wrote a rather unrefined poem to express his disgruntlement, which, if you bear with me, I shall read:

I had the job of hosing down

The hoick and sludge and grit

For the sweet grains of sugar dust

That had been lost in it …

For all the sugar in the land

Goes through that dismal dump

And all the drains run through the works

Into a filthy sump …

Is that not quite wonderful? That is called the “Ballad of the Stonegut Sugar Works”. A copy of that is actually in the Chelsea sugar refinery library and the Birkenhead Library on the North Shore, where I worked.

There are some wonderful parts of our history in places where we like to visit and play. I am thinking here of North Head. If you have never been to North Head in Auckland, I recommend that you do, because it is a collection of artefacts from our war history. I think that is very, very appropriate in this centenary year. It goes right back, indeed, to the 1800s, when we thought there was going to be a Russian invasion, so there were tunnels built. Remember the story about a plane being underneath North Head—a plane that was built by one of the very, very early aviators—and it was hidden in one of the tunnels under North Head? People looked for it and put little things down to see whether they could see into it. But what it is now is a place of memories. It is a place that reminds us that we have been engaged in many wars in this country. We have been under threat in the past—in the First World War and the Second World War. It is a wonderful place to visit. It is a little old volcano on the tip of Devonport. It is a wonderful place to walk and play, and I have spent many a wonderful time with my children and my family at North Head.

I was also interested to see that the Northern Club is a historic place in Auckland. Why does the Northern Club ring a bell? Why does that ring a bell? OK, we had something happen in the Northern Club quite recently, as I recall. I am not going to lower the tone of this debate by referring to it, but I found it very interesting that the Northern Club is there as well.

There are many other places I could name, but I know I am running out of time. What I want to say is what I said at the beginning. It is not just about buildings that are beautiful and old, it is also about our collective cultural history. And that can be an industrial site. It can be a place where people worked. It can be the Auckland waterfront, which has managed to continue to keep the remnants of the work—the fishing boats and the rust and the red of the buildings—in a beautiful way. It can obviously be a beautiful piece of land that means something to us. It can be wāhi tapu. It can be a battle site from the many, many wars that we saw in the early part of our history.

I am really pleased to support this bill. I think it is an important bill, albeit 2 days before the Budget. I am pleased that we are actually getting it through. I take on board the concerns that people have expressed about some of the changes, but I do not believe for a minute that New Zealanders will stop fighting for our history and stop wanting to remember it and wanting to fight at a local level and a national level. So I am really pleased to have had the chance to speak on this bill.

Ka whakatūria Te Pouhere Taonga hei tiaki i ngā wāhi nui, tae atu ki atu ki ngā whare tawhito.

[Te Pouhere Taonga was established to protect significant places, including ancient buildings of significance.]

This Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill is not just about bricks and mortar; it is also about earth and sea, where these totally suppressed or invisible taonga, these stories, can now come to light—the protection and registration of wāhi tapu by putting a historic context to these sites as a result of the strengthening role of the Māori Heritage Council. It assists the development of bicultural governance—identifying gaps in information at manaaki whānau, where they have been impacted—and advocacy, which gives effect to our words and our world. Ka tautoko ahau i tēnei pire ki te Whare nei.

[I endorse this bill to this House.]

Kia ora.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on this, the final reading of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill, which creates the new Heritage New Zealand body. I guess it is the progression of the Historic Places Trust into this new body. I remember speaking on this bill at its first reading and it was so long ago I think we were all just beginning MPs and trying to find our way through. But it is nice to be slotting in here at the end, at its third reading. I want to make just a few remarks. I would hope that we do support the intent of this bill, which is to improve the governance of the Heritage New Zealand body, and to strengthen the partnership, which we do commend, around the Māori Heritage Council and its alignment with the governing body. We also support moving it into an autonomous Crown entity, but, notwithstanding that, it is good to see the local branches around the country that will no longer be members of the Historic Places Trust still continuing on their important local community advocacy work.

We also do commend the fact that there is still the advocacy role contained within Heritage New Zealand. Let us hope that, come Thursday, Mr English has a few more dollars to spare for Mr Finlayson on heritage protection. We will wait and see, but it would be nice to launch this new body with the resources so it can do its important mahi. It is important that we do recognise and protect historic places, our buildings, and the wāhi tapu of our country because they make up the identity of us as Kiwis, as New Zealanders.

Just reflecting on heritage, and I recognise the contribution from Miss Hauiti, I say that it is not just about buildings but about places, and especially for us, as tangata whenua, fresh in our minds are the recently commemorated sesquicentennial battles of Ōrākau, Rangiriri, and Pukehinahina. Shortly there will be one in Tauranga. The coverage of these commemorations, which has been received on Māori and mainstream media, has been encouraging. I do not recall ever seeing the marking of those milestones ever across our mainstream media. There is so much more to our rich history and we definitely do want New Zealanders to know all about that, because everyday Kiwis pass by within metres of historical sites and they never realise it. In towns, cities, and rural and coastal areas, history is all around and it is ready to reveal its secrets, and all it takes is recognition and an information board of some description.

But I am also aware of the difficulty some hapū and iwi face when dealing with wāhi tapu, especially on private land. Sadly, as more and more Māori became alienated from their land, many of the sacred sites of our people became locked up in private ownership, so it will not come as a surprise to this House that not all private landowners care as much for wāhi tapu. But indeed wāhi tapu are very important to the tangata whenua and it is encouraging that in this legislation there is a strengthened role for the Māori Heritage Council to be working alongside, and I recognise the contributions from, I believe, Miss Delahunty in terms of the amendment that was made to beef up the expertise for tikanga and Māori matters through the archaeological sites. All of those elements to this bill are encouraging to see and it is going to be good to see the new organisation carry on its new task under this piece of legislation. But it is not only about the wāhi tapu and about Māori winning battles, even though we were outnumbered seven to one; there are also significant buildings that have historic significance that require the statutory umbrella of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.

One case in point, which has been in the news recently, is the Harcourts building just several blocks from here. From memory, the landlord wants to pull down that building because it is deemed an earthquake risk, he cannot afford to have it strengthened to the required standard, and it is easier for him to build a new building that will be fully tenanted. So there are those catch-22 situations that arise and, hopefully, there can be some wise judgments given to those sorts of cases through the work of Heritage New Zealand.

Lastly, I am aware of the impact of the Christchurch earthquakes. They have had a big impact on the mahi of the Historic Places Trust. We know that its resources have been stretched in all areas and those people at the trust have been charged with saving much of our historic heritage in that fine city but they also face some serious dilemmas over building integrity versus the safety of the public. So let us hope that by strengthening the statutory powers, through the creation and the governance of this new body, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and also, hopefully, by strengthening its budget, the good work of this small—now a Crown—organisation will be able to continue in our communities across the country. Kia ora.

Just before I move to the next item of business, can I just remind members that if they want a party vote, they must challenge the Speaker at the time when the vote is given. I just remind members that they must challenge me and ask for a party vote. A party vote does not just follow automatically because a party votes no to the question.