Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill

There are two parts to Part 5. It would be important for landowners and others to have a good look at Subpart 2 because it sets out the offences and the fines, for example, for modifying or destroying property. What we have tried to do in this part is align the provisions here with the provisions under the Resource Management Act. For example, under Supplementary Order Paper 444, clause 89A clarifies that a director or a person who manages a defendant may be guilty of the same offence as the defendant. The penalties are actually quite stiff.

Subpart 2 contains what could be called, in some respects, the sad part of it because the branch committees are dissolved on the commencement of the Act. There was a lot of debate about it, as members have said in relation to other parts, recognising that there has been a debate, but the whole idea about this is that as this is so demonstrably a Crown entity now, the branches that were so important when the trust was established so many years ago in many respects are let free so that they can concentrate on advocacy, and the demonstrably regulatory side of things is dealt with by Heritage New Zealand. Yes, it is an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of branch committees over a very significant period of time, and to say that it is not the end of the branch committees but an opportunity for them, reformed, out in the community, to do that very important work of advocacy and really work with Heritage New Zealand. So the relationship will change, but I actually think it is going to be very positive indeed.

I rise to take a short call on Part 5 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill in respect of the comments that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage concluded his contribution with just now. I do not wish to traverse this unnecessarily, but yes, it did cause disruption to those Historic Places Trust branches, which saw themselves going out of existence. Of course their commitment remains. If that commitment can be similarly expressed under these new provisions, then this governance shift will have succeeded. However, it will depend on resourcing, and the people in my local area in Nelson were as concerned about this as any Historic Places Trust branch. It will come down to resourcing. Although we think the governance structures and processes in this bill are OK and we are supporting them, we would like also to have on the record a residual concern about the resourcing of the commitment that has caused the Historic Places Trust branches to exist in the first place.

What I really want to do, in talking to Part 5, is focus on the first part of Part 5 of the bill, which is around the offence provisions. These are the offences and penalties and the provisions around those offences and penalties in the bill. In trying to establish exactly what an offence was, the original draft of the legislation had an “offence of harming land subject to heritage covenant” or an “offence of harming archaeological site”. In the course of the deliberations in the Local Government and Environment Committee, that word “harming” was altered to be the words “modifying or destroying”—“modifying or destroying land subject to heritage covenant” in clause 83, or “modifying or destroying archaeological site” in the case of clause 84. This is really important.

We get to this pointy end of the offences, and I think we can all understand that feeling we have when things that are important to us are desecrated in some way. Whether it is an Anzac memorial that is graffitied or whether it is a sign that represents the memory of somebody that has been taken down or destroyed, we can sympathise across our ethnic divides with that sense of outrage and that sense of offence—deep, profound offence—when such a thing is done. This piece of legislation, which is modernising our heritage legislation, makes it very clear that every person commits an offence in respect of a historic place or historic area that is protected by a heritage covenant if the person knows that it is protected by a heritage covenant, if they breach the terms of that heritage covenant, or if they intentionally modify or destroy the place.

As punishment for that offence in the case of a natural person—that is, an individual—the fine is $150,000. In the case of a “person” other than a natural person—and to put that in English, a person in this context also means the Crown or a corporation or a body of people, whether they are a corporate or not and whether they are an incorporated society or not—they would be fined up to $300,000. These are sufficiently hefty sums for the importance of the protection of these heritage covenants, in this instance, to not be taken lightly. Similarly, there is the offence of modifying or destroying an archaeological site. Again, if somebody knows it is an archaeological site and they modify or destroy it, or cause it to be modified or destroyed, then they are up for a similar amount. In the case of destruction, it is a fine of $150,000 for an individual and $300,000 in the case of a person other than a natural person. So it may be that the felling of the tree on One Tree Hill could be considered in this regard.

But, similarly, I am making the point that it is not just matters of interest to Māori but it is all historic places and areas. Also we have gone to great lengths in clause 89 to consider other offences—whether it is taking an animal or a vehicle on to land that is under the control of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; whether somebody lights a fire on it; or whether somebody unlawfully alters, obliterates, defaces, pulls up, removes, or destroys any boundary mark, plaque, or sign. We have gone to some lengths to describe those offences that would be susceptible to punishment under these provisions. They are right and proper, and we have no hesitation in supporting Part 5. Thank you.

Just a brief contribution because, as the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage and Maryan Street have both noted, this part does do something quite significant in terms of disestablishing formally the branch committees of the Historic Places Trust. I think it is worth placing on the record of the House the appreciation, certainly from the Labour Party, of the hard work of many, many people over many, many years to support the heritage of their own community.

Although I actually agree with what the Minister has said about the changing nature of Heritage New Zealand—it is a Crown entity and the branch structure is actually no longer really appropriate for that—I do not think we should let the moment pass without acknowledging that around New Zealand there are monuments, buildings, and places that are protected today only because of the work of individual people who were part of those committees. I know that in 2010, when this proposal had been put up, as I went around the country talking to groups, there was a lot of variety of opinion. There were those who felt that the committees had had their day and really were not achieving much at all. Numbers had dwindled in a number of places. So they really were not achieving much at all and they were not too concerned.

Then there were others, and I am thinking here particularly of Dunedin, where it was a very strong group that had had systematically gone around the city of Dunedin protecting the buildings. For any members of the House who visit Dunedin, it is one of the things you notice instantly as you move around the city—the way in which the city has protected its heritage. Lois Galer and people like that were part of making sure that Dunedin retained what it was as a city. I know that in Dunedin and in other places—and Taranaki is an example—new bodies have been formed that are taking on these roles. And Mr Henare is himself heritage and so he understands.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Soon will be.

That is why he is nodding so enthusiastically, because he understands the importance of preserving our heritage.

💬 Phil Twyford: It’s a good thing you didn’t say his history.

No. And so it is important that we acknowledge the contribution of those around the country who have done that and those who want to continue, and I think that that is the second message I would give briefly here on this point. There is still a place for people in local communities to play their part in protecting their heritage. It is no longer a committee of the Historic Places Trust, but in different parts of the country organisations have been formed, as the Minister said, to be advocates. They are not resourced any more—let us just make that absolutely clear—but they are there in place and still able to do that, and I would urge people who believe in the importance of preserving and protecting our heritage to get involved in those organisations.

I just wanted to take an opportunity, on behalf of the Labour Party, to formally record our thanks to the generations of people who have been part of the local committees of the Historic Places Trust. What those people have done has meant that heritage has been protected, and we should all be very, very grateful for that.

I would just like to echo the words of my colleague Grant Robertson in relation to local efforts. I guess, living in Tai Rāwhiti—the Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa area—we had the first contact site between Captain Cook and the local people there. It was represented by a statue at the port, which was eventually surrounded by logs. The local community and the local heritage community did a lot of work to try to persuade the port about this thing called a cone of vision. I ended up as the mediator between the port and the local committee trying to protect this. It was a fascinating experience, because this is the place where Captain Cook first met the tangata whenua, and the circumstances are historically painful in terms of the death of a number of people from Ngāti Oneone, but it was important to everybody—tangata whenua, the local heritage committee, and the museum—that it was not just a statue surrounded by logs, with no sight of the sea. So we went though a negotiation process on that, and it made me aware of the work that local committees have put in.

I think we need to modernise, and I appreciate that we need to recognise that, particularly because some of the committees around the country have done tremendous work but are very much siloed away. They have been Pākehā committees that have been siloed away from hapū. But I think that has changed, and, what is more, I think this bill will help to effect more change because it does so strongly acknowledge the importance of that relationship under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

So I just want to acknowledge all the work of those people in the past in terms of the cone of vision. We all need a broad vision in order to protect our sites, starting from where we first met, which is why I wanted to stand up and acknowledge the work done in Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa on that issue and to acknowledge the importance of both that contribution and also a true Treaty-based relationship for the future management of our heritage. Kia ora tatou.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to the schedule be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.