Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill

I move, That the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill be now read a second time. This bill repeals and replaces the Historic Places Act 1993. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered the bill and recommended that it be passed with a number of amendments, to which I will shortly refer.

One of the original drivers of this bill was a concern about the structure of the Historic Places Trust, which is a Crown entity with branch committees and elected board members. In 2009 the Ministry for Culture and Heritage undertook a review that concluded that the structure was contributing to a lack of clarity around the trust’s regulatory and advocacy roles. A main aim of the bill is structural reform of the trust to clarify this matter. The bill disestablishes the three board positions elected by the wider membership and creates two new board positions to be filled by ministerial appointment. This will mean the board will consist of eight members appointed entirely by the responsible Minister. The eight-member Māori Heritage Council is retained.

The bill also disestablishes the branch committees, and since the review I have been very pleased to see the number of independent advocacy groups that have formed, including a national umbrella Historic Places Aotearoa, to which some regional groups are now affiliated. This is advocacy coming back to its roots—citizens who care about our heritage getting together to ensure it is looked after and passed on to future generations. The new structure will enable the organisation to focus on its regulatory responsibilities, and the advocacy groups to go about their work unconstrained by the priority setting, the rules, and the conventions of a Crown entity.

The second central theme of the bill is the need to better balance competing interests in our heritage, because it is sometimes a very difficult exercise to reconcile the admittedly very valid desire to preserve our nation’s unique heritage with the need to promote new development. These differing perspectives were reflected in the submissions. Many wanted a stronger emphasis on property rights, but many others, including heritage advocacy groups and some iwi, were seeking more active protection for heritage. A recurring aim through many of the bill’s provisions is to reduce costs and difficulties for property owners while enabling the future Heritage New Zealand to fulfil its statutory functions. If passed, the bill will be a major step in achieving a more appropriate balance between heritage values and the needs and realities of private ownership.

The third very important aspect of the bill I want to refer to is its response to the Canterbury earthquakes. As well as the devastation they caused the people of Canterbury, the earthquakes were a wake-up call for all of us that our heritage is often built on geologically unstable land. The bill was already a work in progress at the time of the first earthquake, and it was clear straight away that we would need to take pause to investigate the implications for this legislation. The lessons we learnt from the earthquakes are reflected in this bill. The bill confirms that Heritage New Zealand will have a role in providing advice to emergency authorities on heritage matters in a national or local emergency. We have also added a number of provisions for heritage management in a national disaster, including an emergency archaeological authority, to ensure that the process can be as quick and responsive as possible while still respecting our heritage, so that people can go about the business of recovery without getting tangled up in red tape.

I now want to turn to the very good work of the select committee. The committee received 80 written submissions. I presented Supplementary Order Paper 135 in October last year, which resulted in a further 15 submissions, and there were 36 oral submissions. I will now outline for the House the main issues and amendments that emerged. The first one was that some submitters raised concerns about the disbanding of the branch committees and the difficulty of getting new organisations established in their place. As a result, there will be a new clause requiring Heritage New Zealand to take reasonable and practical steps to support independent heritage groups set up to replace the committees for a period of up to 12 months after the Act’s commencement.

A commonly occurring theme in the submissions was achieving better balance—in particular, the need for greater consideration of property ownership and development interests in the decision making of the organisation. The committee has proposed a number of amendments to redress the balance between these interests and the heritage values that have been a strong focus for the bill. An amendment to clauses 47 and 60 of the bill will require Heritage New Zealand, when considering an application to an archaeological authority, to take into account the same matters as the Environment Court. These include the extent to which protection of an archaeological site prevents or restricts the existing or reasonable future use of the site and the interests of any person directly affected by the organisation’s decision.

Amendments to clauses 11, 12, and 24 are recommended to require Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council, when undertaking their advocacy rules, to recognise landowners’ interests. An amendment to clause 4 also widens the range of parties Heritage New Zealand will be obliged to work with collaboratively, to include Government agencies and tangata whenua. These are very constructive changes that, in essence, require the organisation to look at both sides of the story in their advocacy and regulatory work. This will lead to more meaningful decisions that will reflect an understanding of the effects on all parties.

Submitters were also concerned that the wording of the bill in its original form required owners to apply to archaeological authorities to undertake even minor works on buildings erected before 1900. This was not the policy intention of the bill and in practice it would be ludicrous. Anyone living in a pre-1900 house, as many New Zealanders do, would have to go through an authority process just to renovate their kitchen. The committee has therefore agreed to amend clause 40 to remove the requirement to apply for an archaeological authority to modify a standing building, unless there is an intention to demolish it in its entirety.

Also resulting from the committee’s consideration of submissions is a requirement for Heritage New Zealand to consult and develop policy in a greater number of areas. The original bill and Supplementary Order Paper 135 required Heritage New Zealand to develop and consult publicly on policy for administering the archaeological and registration provisions of the bill. Some submitters considered that requirements for policy development should be expanded to other processes, and I am pleased that the committee proposes that Heritage New Zealand also develop and consult publicly on policies for the National Historic Landmarks List and for its role in advocacy work. This will ensure the public is involved in shaping policy in these very important areas.

There is just one further amendment to the original bill that I want to mention, which is the addition of new clauses 10A and 10B to create a role for the chief executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to act as a special adviser to the board. The new role will strengthen the relationship between Heritage New Zealand and the responsible Minister and ensure that the board’s decisions are informed by an understanding of Government policy.

There are a number of matters that could be referred to in the Supplementary Order Paper. In the time available I simply want to refer to the establishment of a National Historic Landmarks List, which is proposed for New Zealand’s 50 most important historic places. This is to emphasise the importance of our historic places and to give us an agreed set of national priorities for conservation. Some people were concerned that to have a 50-place limit was unduly constraining, so the committee has agreed on an amendment to clause 81B to remove the cap. It is confident we can rely on the strict criteria for inclusion to provide a list with a natural limit.

Finally, the amendments propose the addition of a new category to the register of historic places, historic areas, wāhi tapu, and wāhi tapu areas. The new category is wāhi tūpuna, ensuring that places of significance to Māori that do not necessarily have tapu, such as certain marae buildings, will also be able to be included.

A lot of work has been done on the legislation and I am confident that the bill is going to provide a firm foundation for the future work of Heritage New Zealand, equipping it with the right structure and processes for the 21st century. I look forward to seeing the progress of the bill through the House.

It gives me great pleasure, actually, to rise to speak to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. I must say that I enjoyed its progress through the Local Government and Environment Committee very much. I learnt things that I did not know before, and I could see that this modernisation of the previous legislation, the Historic Places Act 1993, was overdue. This bill will be supported by the Labour Party, as will the amendments that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage has put forward in his original Supplementary Order Paper 135 of some time ago, and more recent amendments as well.

This bill seeks to repeal and replace the Historic Places Act of 1993: “The Historic Places Trust (Pouhere Taonga) in its current form, which was established under the Act, would continue under the name Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. The new name is intended to remove confusion as to the organisation’s legal status as a Crown entity.”

It restructures the organisation, it reforms the governance of it, it disestablishes branch committees, and it does continue the Māori Heritage Council.

I want to go immediately to that point about the disestablishment of local branches of the Historic Places Trust. I, for example, have belonged for a long time to the local branch of the Historic Places Trust and have been a regular donor to it. There has been some concern expressed, and it was expressed quite some time ago when the bill was first introduced. People felt as if they were going to lose their local opportunity to express concerns about historic taonga of great importance to them in their local region. We on this side of the House got quite a few submissions from people who were concerned about that and who said: “Well, how are we going to stay alive as a local branch of the Historic Places Trust if there is no role for us in the governance structure of the new entity?”. That was a concern that I took to heart. In Nelson there are numbers of people who are very actively involved in local societies of this kind, and it was something that I took a great deal of notice of.

So it was with some real pleasure that when we talked to officials about this at the select committee, we were told that—this was when we interrogated them about clause 101 of the bill—in fact, transitional grants were available on enactment of the legislation, and they would be based on the number of members of the previous societies that there were in that locality. In those transitional arrangements there was to be $250,000 that was to be passed across to the committees that transitioned through to the new structure. At the time that we considered this bill, there were 20 of the 24 previous local societies that had transitioned across to the new structure. There were four left. Auckland was one, and there were three others. I am hopeful that the action of Supplementary Order Paper 135 and the structure of the governance in the bill will encourage the other four to migrate across to the new structure and the new legislation and to apply for some of that $250,000, which could support them as they seek to develop their new existence under the new provisions. So I put that out there to encourage the new bodies that have been developing locally to apply for that funding once this legislation is enacted.

That was something about which I was very pleased. It made me feel a little comforted—the fact that the people who have put their hearts and souls into Historic Places Trust manifestations in local communities, and who were feeling disenfranchised by the original bill, could have access to some support that would allow them to carry on, and to carry on the good work that they do.

This is a significant bill for the national identity of Aotearoa New Zealand. The way that we in a modern society protect our heritage, protect artefacts, and protect archaeological sites is really important. We need to be modern. We need to never discard these protections as we progress through the ages. It is important that there have been some significant protections inserted into this legislation, which I think will make a difference, particularly for archaeologists, as well as for the protection of names. As the Minister referred to in his speech, the development of a historic landmarks list will also give added protection and significance to places, artefacts, buildings, and monuments that hold a special place in our history.

When we had our sesquicentennial, I think it is called, when the Treaty of Waitangi reached 150 years of age, I was saying that this was a wonderful thing—150 years of the Treaty of Waitangi. A friend of mine who lives in London said “My kitchen is older than that.” Yes, that is true. Māori have been here since the 13th century and Pākehā settlers have been here for much less time, but we still need to ensure that this House takes our heritage and the responsibility for protecting our heritage seriously, even though in other people’s terms we are, in fact, a very young country—a very young settled country.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Is that “settled”?

A settled country—settle down, Mr Henare. Oh, he is married now. He has settled down. So I commend this bill to the House. One of the things that I think is good in it, as well, is that there has been a definition of protection that occurs and can be applied immediately in the event of a natural disaster, an emergency. There is a particular clause applying to emergency situations, and that refers to natural emergencies. So in the event of earthquakes and other things with which we are now all too familiar, there is still provision in this legislation to protect the things that are dear to us in terms of historic presence and identification of us as uniquely Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you.

This Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill replaces the old Historic Places Act of 1993. It updates and better equips the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Together with Supplementary Order Paper 135, it responds to the challenges for heritage management highlighted by the Canterbury earthquakes—and I was pleased to hear the Hon Maryan Street talking about the need for this kind of legislation with these earthquakes that we are having at the moment.

I want to touch quickly on the main provisions. First of all, it reforms the New Zealand Historic Places Trust’s governance structure—and I want to make a few comments on that later. It modernises the archaeological authority consents processes and aligns them with the Resource Management Act. I would like to thank the groups that came and gave us really detailed submissions on this archaeological area and also on how the Resource Management Act consents fitted in, because it is complicated and we wanted to know that it worked on the ground.

It also clarifies the purposes and changes the name of the register of historical and cultural heritage and introduces statutory recognition for wāhi tūpuna. It also establishes the National Historic Landmarks List. This list is designed to set national priorities for historic conservation, and that includes details about managing the risk of natural disasters.

Finally, it establishes a separate emergency authority process in the event of natural disasters. There are quite a lot of other minor changes there to improve the proposed Act’s workability, in line with modern legislative drafting processes.

Most of the changes were non-controversial and aimed at improving the processes of the trust. The most debated issue was the change in the structure and the new roles for members. In the past there was a combination of statutory responsibilities with active branch committees and elected board members. That meant that there were times when there was actually a conflict of interests within the organisation, and those tensions compromised the New Zealand Historic Places Trust’s ability to perform its statutory functions. So to resolve these tensions, the bill disestablishes the branch committees, it removes the three positions for elected board members, and it creates new positions for board members appointed by the responsible Minister. It does still contain the Māori Heritage Council.

There are members who want to actively advocate for heritage issues, and they have been encouraged to join Historic Places Aotearoa. That is a very active group that is already set up, and some funding has been provided to help with that process. As a Crown entity, Heritage New Zealand can continue to offer membership if it wishes, although those members will play no part in the governance of the organisation, and that is the real difference.

Just having a look at heritage buildings, from my experience of what has happened in Christchurch after the earthquakes, I am particularly interested in the National Historic Landmarks List. It is really important that we have a robust debate in our communities and right across the country to make sure that the country really knows which buildings we value, because, after all, there are over a thousand category I historic places. We need to know which ones we value, which ones we are prepared to heavily protect, and which ones we can deal with if there is a disaster. We also need to have plans for when or if there is a disaster.

Originally, that list was to have only 50 places, although those places did include clusters, such as, perhaps, Parliament Buildings or the Auckland volcanic cones. So it was a larger mandate; it was not just 50 individual items. But after listening to the submitters, the Local Government and Environment Committee removed the absolute number. We decided that it was hard to know which was in and which was out. What we decided was that it was far better for Heritage New Zealand to consult with the public as it develops its policy on the administration of the landmarks list. During that consultation it will provide further guidance on the eligibility for inclusion. So there will be about 50 places, including clusters, but it is a little bit more flexible.

I am really pleased to see this bill come to the House. It is timely and it will help us protect our heritage for the future, so I commend this bill to the House.

If I can, I will start my speech by paying my condolences to big Denis Hansen. For the last 30 years or so of my life out in west Auckland, he was a father figure to most male Māoris my age out in the west. E te rangatira, takoto mai rā, takoto mai rā. Haere ki te okioki, haere, haere, haere.

[Lie there, the elder, lie there indeed. Go forth to rest, depart, journey on, farewell.]

I suppose that when we are talking about heritage, Denis Hansen is part of the heritage of west Auckland, and part of the heritage of Auckland itself in so many ways. I think we have to protect the memories and we have to protect what our heritage is in this country, and that comes in all shapes and sizes. I do commend the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill to the House. I think it is important that we make legislation that works, and works very easily and well for the country, rather than long-winded and drawn-out legislation that does not serve any purpose.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.