Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHeritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): This is a very short part. It establishes as one would expect the purposes and the principles of the Act; sets out a very carefully drafted Treaty clause which I suggest to the Committee is a much better model for Treaty clauses than some generic Treaty clause; and obviously states that the Act binds the Crown. There is also Supplementary Order Paper 444 which amends a number of definitions—for example “working day”Mondayises Waitangi Day and Anzac Day in accordance with the recent Holidays Amendment Act. The other definitions are minor and inconsequential.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and Māori Heritage CouncilHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): There are two subparts to this part. The first establishes Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as the same body corporate as the soon to be former New Zealand Historic Places Trust. It is a Crown entity and that was established some years ago. It establishes an eight-person board appointed by the Minister. Importantly there is a provision that says the Minister can have a special adviser who can advise the board on Government policy and it establishes the requirements for general policy statements and conservation plans.Subpart 2—and this is important—continues the eight-member Māori Heritage Council. Supplementary Order Paper 444 is designed to clarify one or two matters and I refer honourable members to clauses 11(2) 12(1A) and 24(2). It clarifies in each of those clauses that Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council must recognise owners’ interests—and this is the important phrase—“as far as those interests are known”. There are a couple of other changes about archaeological investigations.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. Part 2 which we are debating currently covers the critical points of the governance of the new body to be called Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. In establishing that and making that the name a very significant change is being made. It is the same body corporate as clause 9(2) says as the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and it is a Crown entity for the purposes of the Crown Entities Act. The renaming of it has more than superficial significance. It is timethat we acknowledged the need for Māori heritage to be reflected more comprehensively in entities that are Crown entities and in departments and ministries for that matter.We are here dealing with this particular Crown entity but the governing body of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga is the board which comprises eight persons appointed by the Minister one of whom is to be appointed as the chairperson of the board. Although we do have some reservations about the board structure or we did originally we do support good governance and any effort to strengthen agency governance will be supported by us. However we are not convinced that clause 10 actually does that. We through the select committee process have ensured that this bill will in fact strengthen governance and the performance and operation of the current processes and we have tried to make sure that that does not come at the expense of protection of our archaeological heritage and public participation in that process.The power of the Minister to appoint a special adviser in clause 10A is I think an improvement. It is something that this party welcomes. We would like to ensure that the governance arrangements—and even though this whole process has been somewhat controversial for those little Historic Places Trust bodies that we have known and loved for a long time around this country we trust that this particular governance structure will work in the interests of the aims of all of those former Historic Places Trust branches. That was and remains an issue of some concern to the Labour Party and although we are supporting this bill and we will in fact support the Supplementary Order Paper to which the Minister referred Supplementary Order Paper 444 we are hopeful that the amendments that have been made to clauses 10A and 10B for the purpose of this discussion right now will be in respect of the appointment of a special adviser with stipulated functions a strength and an asset to the governance of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. So at this stage in dealing with Part 2 it proceeds to cover most of the significant organisational and structural changes to the Historic Places Trust.I am pleased with the results of the select committee deliberation and that the changes we see in the bill before us in the Committee at the moment represent an improvement after the deliberation of the Local Government and Environment committee. As we go through this part which delineates the functions of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga—the powers the rights of entry on to land and the general policy for historic places and archaeological sites—I hope that those who have taken an interest in this from the beginning can have some reassurance particularly around the protection of archaeological sites and the treasures that may be contained within those archaeological sites that they are able to accessed under certain conditions and they are able to be protected.I also hope that the governance structure of this entity will ensure that the concerns that people have expressed around archaeological heritage in particular will be taken into account and it will be protected. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Part 3 Protection of places and areas of historic and cultural valueHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): This is a very carefully reworked part of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. Subpart 1 empowers Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga to enter into heritagecovenants subject to the agreement of relevant parties and following on from what Ms Street said a few minutes ago Subpart 2 deals with the issue of the protection of archaeological sites. It is a very very important subpart. It protects these sites from being modified or destroyed without an archaeological authority. There are various exemptions to that. Importantly it establishes the way in which one goes about declaring archaeological sites associated with human activity on or after 1900. It also importantly sets out a procedure for the right of appeal to the Environment Court.Subpart 3—and this is obviously of great importance following on from the Canterbury earthquakes—sets out the process for emergency authorities in the aftermath of a national or local emergency. It will require Heritage New Zealand to determine applications for emergency archaeological authorities in 3 or 5 calendar days. Some people may ask why it is calendar days and not working days. It is not working days because of the emergency context. If I could just stop here to recognise the tremendous contribution that members of the Historic Places Trust made in the aftermath of both the September and the February earthquakes I am aware of one person whose own home was damaged but he rushed to the office because he was concerned about the need to carry out his responsibilities as an employee of the Historic Places Trust.Supplementary Order Paper 444 makes a number of clarifications to this important procedure. What we are trying to do here is recognise that there will be occasions when emergency steps need to be taken. These are as Ms Street said incredibly important issues and it is important that when one is dealing with an application for an archaeological authority or opposing or appealing it the law be as clear as it possibly can and that is the purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question now is that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Catherine Delahunty to Part 3 be agreed to. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it? The Ayes have it? It is agreed to.The question now is that CatherineDelahunty’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 373 be agreed to. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No—Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether this would help Ms Delahunty—and I do apologise to her—but we have actually incorporated these amendments into our Supplementary Order Paper because we thought that that was the tidiest thing to do.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I would also like to clarify that the Minister and I have worked on this in the past but I was not clear that they had been incorporated. I am happy to accept that. Thank you very much. I withdraw those Supplementary Order Papers.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): In that case then I just need to say to the Committee that we have actually passed—and we do not really need to because they are already in the bill. So is there any objection to the Committee—what is the wording? I will put the question again and really what should happen is that they be voted down right?Hon Christopher Finlayson: They’re in.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Because they are already in. Let me put it. All those in favour of CatherineDelahunty’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 being agreed to. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it. The question now is that CatherineDelahunty’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 373 be agreed to. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Part 4 Recognition of places of historical cultural and ancestral significanceHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I apologise to Catherine Delahunty for that confusion. We have actually done some good work together and I should have made that clearer earlier. Part 4 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill deals with the recognition of places of historic cultural and ancestral significance. There are a couple of minor changes in Subpart 1. It changes the name of the register to the New Zealand Heritage List/RārangiKōrero. Importantly it introduces the concept ofwāhitūpuna as a new type of entry. What we try to do here is introduce the concept of independent expert assessors to make recommendations both to Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council. It also provides that local authorities must have particular regard—that is the phrase—to Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council’s recommendations on historic areas andwāhi tapu areas.One does not want to be sort of over the top but I suggest that Subpart 2 is actually quite an exciting proposal. What it does is it requires the establishment of a list of national historical landmarks which will be called—surprise surprise—the National Historic Landmarks List. What we want to do there is to promote an appreciation and conservation of the places of greatest heritage value to the people of New Zealand. Initially we thought about having a finite number but what we want to do is work together with local authorities private individuals and central government to draw up a list. Let me give a most recent example from a commemoration I attended a few months ago: the Battle ofŌrākau—there is an example of something that is a very important historic landmark and yet it is a field part of a farm. What we want to do is recognise this history and we can go from there to do something about making sure people know where they are and why they are important. So it is not simply limited to buildings but it can be a place.Supplementary Order Paper 444 sets out various provisions relating to landowners’ interests. For example I refer to clause 75(4). Heritage New Zealand “must recognise the interests of an owner as far as they are known”. There are a couple of other consequential improvements—for example the Supplementary Order Paper broadens the scope to reject an application to review an entry on the landmarks list—and there are a couple of technical changes. So I really think that Subpart 2 will be of tremendous benefit to this country as we get together and through a very careful process establish these landmarks—something like the national historic landmarks in the United States. That will provide a very good foundation for example when we are looking at protecting earthquake-prone buildings or dealing with sites like the site of the Battle ofŌrākau and we will make sure that these places are treasured for the benefit of all New Zealanders.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): Part 4 is of considerable interest because it has been completely amended. Every clause every line of it in the version of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill that I have in front of me is a revised tracked version. It is important to pause for a moment I think. I am working with both the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage’s Supplementary Order Paper 135—the bits ofthat Supplementary Order Paper that relate to Part 4—plus the bill in its revised tracked version.Because this has been a long time between games I will say—and it has been a long time in the process of working its way through this House—that it might be worth reminding members present just what the New Zealand Heritage List/RārangiKōrero does and what its essential purposes are. The amended version of this in the bill is not contradicted by anything in the Supplementary Order Papers as far as I can tell. The essential purposes of the New Zealand Heritage List/RārangiKōrero are to inform members of the public about historic places and about historic areaswāhitūpunawāhi tapu andwāhi tapu areas—in other words those areas that are sacred have some historic significance have some ancestral connection or are sacred because they may be burial places or of similar spiritual and significant importance to Māori and to those who live near them. Its purpose is also to notify the owners of historic places historic areas and all of those others I have just mentioned as needed for the purposes of this Act and to be a source of information about these places. The New Zealand Heritage List becomes a register of those places that are of critical historical and national significance.I do not think it is overstating the issue to say that these are important to New Zealand’s identity in the same way that tikanga Māori and taha Māori are important to my identity as a New Zealander. Even though I may bePākehā my relationship with Māori defines me as a New Zealander because I am nowhere else in the world so uniquely located as here with Māori people in this country. Although my heritage may be different from that of Māori my current identity which includes my heritage is formed by the place where I live and my interaction with the other Treaty partner tangata whenua.Wāhi tapu and the New Zealand Heritage list which contains the recognised areas of significance are fundamentally important to the way we move on this land and the way we see ourselves in relation to it. The protection and the recognition of that list are critically important to our national identity. It is not possible to overstate this. Although I may be labouring the point somewhat it is not possible to overstate this.The Minister will know that from his assiduous work on Treaty negotiations and the hui that he has attended up and down the country the celebrations the commemorations and the functions of one kind or another that he has had the privilege of attending on many many marae around the country. He will understand the emotional and spiritual significance for Māori of the places of historical cultural and ancestral significance.So in Part 4 which ranges from clauses 63 to 81 I think what we are trying to achieve in this Committee is the greatest legislative accolade I suppose; the greatest legislative acknowledgment of the importance of these places to the identity of Aotearoa New Zealand. They become important not just because they are important to Māori but because we move across the land together. That is part of our national identity. I commend this part in particular to the Committee.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I am pleased to take a call on Part 4 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill and also to take the opportunity to apologise for the slight confusion on Part 3. Part 4 and Part 3 are linked. I do want to acknowledge the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage because we have had a very useful conversation about the importance of the way in which this bill deals with issues of significance to tangata whenua hence clause 66. That clause which relates towāhi tapuwāhitūpuna andwāhi tapu areas is linked to the negotiation that we had and therefore I should have withdrawn my Supplementary Order Papers Supplementary Order Paper 372 and Supplementary Order Paper 373. This has strengthened the abilityof Māori to have a very good relationship with archaeologists around cultural sites because of course cultural sites are not just a matter of archaeological sites. This relates to clause 66 and relates towāhitūpunawāhi tapu.It is very interesting to have conversations with archaeologists and people who are not familiar with Māori culture about the difference between an archaeological site and awāhi tapu. Archaeological sites are evidence. They are based on the physical evidence found within the land. Thewāhi tapu are based on a cultural and spiritual landscape as much as a physical one. And so our citizens particularly archaeologists who do not come from that background really need to understand what is in clause 66. That is why I am grateful to the Minister for the strengthening of clause 42 in the previous part because it has made much more explicit the cultural competencies and access to appropriate cultural relationships and support that an archaeologist needs in dealing with archaeological sites. Yes we are talking aboutwāhi tapu here but often these things are in the same zone. So I would like to commend the Minister for the work on this. I think there is a lot of good in this bill and there is a lot of detail that is actually important for a more sophisticated understanding of the differences between heritage andwāhi tapu; between archaeology andwāhi tapu.Heritage might be a broad term but beneath that we need this bill to spell out some of these things. So I just want to acknowledge the good work done to make the bill more workable and also to acknowledge the previous speaker Maryan Street for talking about the landscape in which we are all living and working and how this is an issue of importance to all New Zealanders. The critical thing about heritage is that the more we can all understand howwāhi tapu for example function in the landscape from the point of view of tangata whenua the more culturally appropriately we can deal with some of our issues. I have been involved in many situations where coastal land for example is proposed for development or sale and then the private developer is shocked to find that there is awāhi tapu or where tangata whenua have been in a weak position to advocate because it has not been clearly recorded. I think that is where the fact that any person may apply to the Māori Heritage Council to enter awāhitūpunawāhi tapu orwāhi tapu area should actually assist us to have more of a no-surprises understanding.Every part of Aotearoa is a cultural landscape and important to all cultures here but particularly to the first nation to the first people. So it is really important that the clear recording and the scope that is offered in clause 66 assists us in avoiding cultural misunderstandings avoiding conflict over people’s expectations. If people know from day one that coastal land containswāhi tapu they are not going to have unrealistic expectations of what they can do on that land. Given the fact that there is not much land left belonging to Māori where the sites are neatly positioned—they are all over the motu in all kinds of different places with all kinds of different levels of meaning and significance to different mana whenua—this bill allows them to be registered and to be clear. I am hoping that councils will demonstrate an understanding of this. For example in clause 66(3) a council may decline an application in the case of awāhi tapu if it lacks sufficient merit having regard to the criteria. I do hope that councils will robustly read those criteria and follow the meaning and the intent that is in this legislation to make sure that the judgments made are in the right place.That is why I have been a strong advocate in this bill’s debate to make sure that the voice of mana whenuahapū are heard because it is impossible for anyone else to be an expert on another person’s culture. It is simply not possible for us to be those experts so it is always about the negotiation the relationship. Having lived with an archaeologist for nearly 20 years I know that archaeologists are not experts on Māori culture. Archaeologists are not experts onwāhi tapu. They are experts on archaeology which is the physical evidence not the cultural physical and spiritual evidence or relationshipsthat are upheld. So I commend this aspect of the bill to the Committee. There is always more that I would like to do but I think we have made some good progress.Su’aWILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I take a call on this bill the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill and I just want to firstly acknowledge the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who is advancing this bill and other colleagues who have been driving this from the beginning. I also want to acknowledge the fact that there seems to be a general acceptance around this Chamber supporting this bill which I think is a really really good thing. I think that for most of us usually the only time we start considering some of our historic areas in this country and in our history is when we are going overseas. When people ask you where you are from and you say you are from New Zealand then the questions begin to flow about what we know about New Zealand and its history.Only yesterday afternoon we had a celebration of the Top Scholar Awards next door to this Chamber. Before that was done thekaumātua of Parliament was there and he began by welcoming the 35 or so recipients of the Top Scholar Awards from throughout New Zealand. In Te Reo he chanted and that gave the recipients something that moved all those who were present by my estimation and observation. I do not understand Te Reo Māori. I do some but I do not understand the depth of Te Reo Māori. But yesterday during that chanting and the blessing that was given by ourkaumātua to those recipients there was a common feeling of oneness in that particular room even though many who were present would probably not understand the detail or the depth of meaning that was conveyed by ourkaumātua.That brings me to Part 4 of the bill. In this particular bill we are recognising historic places probably not only in a more formal or legal manner but I think in a more in-depth manner. Firstly for our historic places our historic areas the use of the words “wāhi tupuna” “wāhi tapu” and “wāhi tapu areas” is significant.In the electorate ofMāngere—which I represent and affectionately call the gateway to the nation the land of the young beautiful and gifted—we have such places that the localkaumātua and the iwi recognise. In fact not too long ago I was privileged to welcome some people intoMāngere at theMāngere mountain that historic place there. I am not a historian nor am I an archaeologist but I learnt quite a bit by being present and from observing and listening to the people who were presenting at that particular forum. I say to you that the majority of people who were present at the forum were not necessarily Māori not necessarily experts in this particular field but we all learnt of the depth of history that is in that place of the meaning ofMāngere. In fact it was the elders who then later on said that the true name forMāngere is notMāngere but Te Hau aMāngere which refers—from my understanding as it was explained to me—to the winds and how that mountain blocks off a significant part of the winds that cover that region.From my perspective as a Pacific person who is a New Zealander with a proud heritage in Samoan culture I think this bill is great news in terms of this Parliament uniting around the fact that we do need to recognise some of these historical and cultural heritages which are of significant value not only to Māori people themselves but I think to the rest of New Zealand. There is only one New Zealand. There is only one place where Māori reside and that is Aotearoa the land of the long white cloud.The second part I am going to refer to—and I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to respond to it either now or at a later stage—is that the bill makes reference to the role of local government. It refers to the fact that the local authorities must have particular regard to the recommendations made by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. I was not part of the Local Government and Environment Committee that deliberated on this particular bill but from a recent scanning of it I do not see anyreference at all to whether there is an avenue for the local council to be able to seek assistance from central government in terms of how it would protect and promote areas if Heritage New Zealand recommends that an area—for example in Manukau—is deemed to be recognised as category I or II and therefore imposes on the council a role to protect that area to build some advocacy and support for it and even to build it as an iconic tourism product.As I said for me from my scanning of the bill it is unclear as to whether that could be made a little bit more clearer. I know that the regular complaint to central government from many of the councils has been that central government has a tendency to impose legislation on local government or implement legislation without necessarily giving local government the support that it ought to receive. Without that support local government therefore tends to complain that it must then go back to its ratepayers and of course deal with that in one way or another whether it be through debt or whether it be through the increasing of rates.Other than that in terms of Part 4 of this bill I think it is absolutely delightful that we in this Committee seem united around the recognition that there are such things as taonga using the Māori word. The English word that I think is comparable to that is “treasures”. In fact in the Samoan world it would be “measina”—things that are unique things that are sacred things that have a value beyond what is seen by the eyes. Thank you.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): Like Su’a William Sio I did not get the opportunity to serve on the Local Government and Environment Committee which was reviewing the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill so this is the first time I have come into contact with it but I too am happy to have a say in this debate and share the very positive views that have been expressed by members so far in supporting a move to modernise to streamline and to strengthen the governance of the protection of historical places and our heritage in this country.It seems very appropriate that in doing this the bill should fully recognise the interests of tangata whenua in protecting and celebrating our heritage. That seems entirely appropriate.With particular attention to Subpart 2 of Part 4 “National Historic Landmarks/NgāManawhenua o Aotearoa meōnaKōreroTūturu” in terms of the establishment of a kind of a premier category of landmark sites this seems to be a really good development. When I think about what kinds of sites might qualify for that special status and think about what kinds of places around the country they would be the ones that spring to mind most immediately are sites that are—this is obviously my own personal perspective here but I would imagine that things like as the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage suggested the site of the Battle ofŌrākau would be a prime candidate.Again I would have thought Parihaka would be the sort of place that is immensely significant not only for Māori but for this country’s modern history in the last couple of hundred years. For a whole range of reasons it is enormously significant. Waitangi of course would be an obvious candidate and I would have thought the primary site of the massacre on the Chatham Islands orRēkohu. The name of that site escapes me at the moment but it is a specific place on the Chathams where probably the worst most concentrated violence took place during the genocide onRēkohu. Those sorts of places are enormously significant in the telling of the stories of this country. I am sure everybody will have their own ideas about what should qualify but it seems to me that the innovation that Subpart 2—the list of national historic landmarks—brings to the heritage system I think is very very welcome.Just more broadly in Part 4 in terms of establishing a system for historic sites again you start to think about what kinds of places might be worth recognising and protecting in this way. I thought about Port Craig which is a really interesting settlement down on the Southland coast where in the early years of the 20th century there was a thriving settlement establishing a timber mill in the most hostile of conditions. You can actually visit the historic settlement today. Hundreds of people tried to scratch out a living at Port Craig and there are still some buildings and some historical artefacts that are there today and it is a pretty extraordinary part of our early settler history.For me personally there would be things like the Blackball miners’ strike in 1908. That was a seminal point in the early 20th century development of labour relations in this country and led to not only of course the formation of the New Zealand Labour Party but much of the legislation on welfare and labour issues in the 20th century. The first State house in Fife Lane in Miramar may well be worthy of recognition as a historic site.As an Aucklander when I think about the volcanoes that are all over the Auckland isthmus—the volcanoes that were quite intensively cultivated and inhabited in the hundreds of years prior to colonisation and now are right in the middle of our country’s biggest city—they are worthy as many people have proposed not only of historic and heritage protection but as sublime natural features in our landscape. They would be worth protecting as well.I just want to say that I think that this is really a bill that will do a lot of good in modernising and reforming this area. If the effect is to strengthen the protection of our heritage and to make it more effective and more efficient then that will be a success but I think also there is every indication that the reforms will also make it easier for the public to understand and engage with our heritage. That also would be of tremendous benefit.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I just want to make a brief contribution on Part 4 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. Obviously from the Labour Party’s point of view we do support this legislation. It does represent a modernisation around heritage in New Zealand. It is a bill with a fair bit of history and time that has gone into it.At an earlier point in time when I had some portfolio responsibilities in this area I spoke to a large number of local heritage and historic places committees around the country. They had mixed views it would be fair to say on their imminent going out of existence but there was a lot of enthusiasm even among those who were concerned about where the local branches might end up about it being time for us to get our heritage and historic places governance and management into a form appropriate for the 21st century. So I welcome the bill at that level. It is on that question of local involvement that I want to make a couple of comments and if the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage chose to he could answer them. It is a question that is around clause 75 of the bill around local authorities having to have particular regard to the recommendations around entries on the New Zealand Heritage List. As Mr Twyford just said this is a great opportunity actually for New Zealand to recognise in a contemporary way the most important landmarks and the most important occasions in our history.Inevitably with historic places as we see now and with the heritage list in the future the relationship between central government and local government is critical to helping protect and when the occasion occurs perhaps change a designation of something. It is actually very complicated. Right here now in Wellington we have a number of issues developing around heritage-listed buildings and what we can do with them at a local level in relation to things like earthquake strengthening and so on. That is causing sometension between national-level desires and local-level practicalities—if I can put it that way.When I look at clause 75 I see that we are asking local authorities to bear in mind this list. I guess the question I would have for the Minister is the extent to which the local authorities are now being obligated to have particular regard to the recommendations that come through. What response do we have to local authorities that often say—and I am sure many other members of the Committee will have heard this—“Central government is constantly putting upon us more and more things that we have to do more and more costs that we have to bear.”? What are we doing as a Government to say: “We believe in this heritage list but hello local authorities you are the ones that are actually going to be bearing the cost of dealing with this.”? Clearly it is a partnership and clearly we have to find a way of working together. But as I read clause 75 I just think that if I were in a local government situation I would be wondering about the extent to which local government will be supported and enabled to do this and how that will develop over time.I think that whenever in legislation we as a Parliament impose certain obligations upon somebody else outside central government we need to consider what we are doing to support those obligations being fulfilled. I just believe particularly when I look at clause 75 that it asks me what that support is. I would hate to think that this very useful and important idea of creating a heritage list would be undermined in some way by a lack of a relationship with local authorities to enable it to be implemented.The other comment that I want to make in relation to this is more by way of reflection on how far we have come. Some time ago when we were altering legislation in this area under the previous Government there was a huge conflict around the concept ofwāhi tapu. As a person in a ministerial office here I spent a little bit of time defending the Government’s ability to recognisewāhi tapu against the onslaught of the then National Opposition which thought that this was all PC madness that this was something out of witchcraft or something like that and that we as a Government that wanted to get out and protect ourwāhi tapu were not able to do so because this was outside what normal people would do.Phil Twyford: Mr Finlayson?GRANT ROBERTSON: Well no. Mr Finlayson was perhaps—[Bell rung] Since I have come to talking about Mr Finlayson I am sure he will not mind if I carry on with my call. Mr Finlayson was not so vocal about those issues and I suspect in fact much as it pains me to do this that some credit might need to go to Mr Finlayson for the fact that—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Say it again.GRANT ROBERTSON: —no no I am saying it only once; trust me—I believe there has been an evolution here in Parliament in terms of our acceptance of the broad nature of our heritage. It is the fact that our heritage is yes buildings that have been built in the era since we have been constructing buildings that have survived long enough to be here today but it is more than that. It is actually about the places that New Zealanders feel have significance and in the case of Māoriwāhi tapu are clearly those places. They are places that evoke ancestors and are part of who Māori are today.There is recognition ofwāhi tapu within this bill. There is a specific subclause (2) in clause 75 providing that local councils have to make sure that they have taken appropriate measures to assist in the conservation and protection of thosewāhi tapu. Notwithstanding the comment I made earlier about how the local authorities would do that the fact that we have as a Parliament moved ourselves to a point where across the Parliament we are agreeing that this is something that is a core part of our heritage and is recognised as part of something that should be in legislation I think is actually a verygood development. It is an evolution from the Don Brash - led National Party. There are still some things—Phil Twyford: They haven’t moved on everything.GRANT ROBERTSON: I was going to say there are still a number of things left over from that era that National could also move on from perhaps taking this as an example but Mr Finlayson’s influence in the National Party extends only so far beyond the sphere of the arts and culture sector which is the sector he is involved in. They were the two points that I wanted to make around Part 4.I believe that this rewritten Part 4 covers what we believe it should cover in terms of the heritage list. There will be competition for the 50 places on the heritage list I am very sure and that will be something that will be difficult to manage. It will be interesting to see whether we are back in Parliament at some time in the future relooking at that number but at this stage I am certainly happy to support Part 4 of the bill.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): There are just a couple of points. I very quickly want to say to Mr Robertson that clause 75 has gone.Grant Robertson: My apologies.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I accept your apology and indeed I formally record that he apologised. Can I also say that I thought MrTwyford’s contribution was excellent. In fact I do not think there was one site that he mentioned that I took issue with and I imagine all of those are going to be on the historic landmarks list. I will say in relation to the volcanic cones in Auckland that as part of theTāmaki Collective settlement they were handed over to the local iwi to be administered jointly with the Auckland Council. The proposal is also—and I have talked toUnesco about it and there is a process under way; MrMajurey for the collective has been working on it—that hopefully they will getUnesco historic status as well.The other point that was made and is a very important one—both the member fromMāngere and Mr Robertson raised it—was about how local authorities have all these burdens put on them and to ask what the Government is doing to help. In actual fact there is quite considerable central government assistance at the present time with the regional museums and art galleries fund. The Lotteries Commission provides the Lottery Significant Projects Fund. I would have thought that if a building for example was put on this list then that would really be an incentive and if it came to looking for help for earthquake-strengthening and the like that there are funds available that could be utilised.The other point I would make for example in relation to a site likeŌrākau not far from Te Awamutu—I was there a couple of months ago—was that if that site was put on the landmarks list then we could get together with local authorities and with local iwi to see whether there was a way that the site could be recognised more appropriately than it is at the present time. But I am very conscious of local authorities the need to support them and the need for them to be involved in this both in relation to buildings and to sites.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 444 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Part 5 Offences and penalties transitional provisions and miscellaneous mattersHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): 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.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): 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 heritagecovenant 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 $150000. 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 $300000. 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 $150000 for an individual and $300000 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.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): 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. LoisGaler 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.GRANT ROBERTSON: 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.GRANT ROBERTSON: 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.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I would just like to echo the words of my colleague Grant Robertson in relation to local efforts. I guess living in TaiRāwhiti—theTūranga-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 fromNgātiOneone 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 beenPākehā committees that have been siloed away fromhapū. 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 inTūranga-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 2Clause 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.