Flavell Te Ururoa: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3927] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker; it is nice to see you this evening. I spoke earlier today about the loss to the nation of two treasured koeke. Last night we of Te Arawa mourned the loss of another of our greatly treasured kuia and indeed the loss of a legacy in the passing of the kuia Guide Bubbles Mihinui. We spoke of her passing earlier today in the House. Moe mai e kui i roto i nga ringaringa o te wahi ngaro. 
[ 
Slumber there in the hands of the world of the dead. 
] 
Guide Bubbles learnt her craft as a protégé of Guide Rangi Rangitiaria Dennan and Guide Bella Bella Papakura. In the mid-1930s her grandfather Waretini said that Bubbles had had enough of Pakeha schooling and it was time for her to learn the family traditions and learn about tourism and the oral history of the old people. 
Guide Bubbles became an apprentice guide in 1936 and in 1938 was appointed as a guide for the then Government Tourist Bureau. Following the death of Guide Rangi she became senior guide at Whakarewarewa in 1970. In all she spent some 70 years in the service of the community guiding people from all over the world around the geothermal areas of Whakarewarewa. Her legacy is of critical importance to this nation and her experience is part of the rich history of this land which must not be lost to future generations. Te Arawa has lost a cultural icon—one of the treasured line of guides who have placed Whakarewarewa on the map. 
It is fitting then that today we come to the Historic Places Amendment Bill and appreciate the significance of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in giving emphasis to the historic places of our heritage. Our sites of significance our places of cultural heritage are hugely important to tangata whenua. Our cultural history is enshrined in those places; they demonstrate and describe the stories that present a picture of the foundation of this nation. In valuing those historic places we can all play a part in preserving the vitality of Aotearoa for years to come. 
It was therefore with great disappointment that we came to this bill realising that in essence it would do very little to strengthen the protective powers of the Historic Places Trust or indeed of the Maori Heritage Council. One of the major concerns with regard to this bill is the representation of Maori. At the second reading Maori Party members raised concerns around the newly redefined requirements for the Maori board members who have served on the Historic Places Trust. Our particular concern was the removal of ethnicity—the deletion of being Maori as one of the key factors in board membership. The bill serves to reduce and dilute the strength of Maori representation by providing that those members just have knowledge about Maori rather than be Maori. The Historic Places Trust the Maori Heritage Council and other submitters opposed that but the select committee chose to ignore their submissions and instead to continue the practice of targeting Maori. Post Orewa and post Budget the message we are getting very clearly is not to mention the word Maori not to ask for any Budget money for Maori and not to be Maori. 
The Maori Party is therefore very happy to support Supplementary Order Paper 33 put forward by Sue Kedgley to amend clause 19 which respects the importance of whakapapa as the foundation of Maori identity. In a literal translation of that concept “papa” is anything broad or flat such as a flat rock a slab or a board. “Whakapapa” then means to place in layers or to lay one upon another. Hence the term whakapapa describes the recitation in proper order of genealogies and also names those genealogies. The picture we get from the term whakapapa is of building layer by layer upon the past towards the present and on into the future. Whakapapa may include not just the genealogies but also the many spiritual mythological and human stories that give strength to the genealogical backbone of a people. 
One would think the concept of whakapapa should be absolutely tied to the core work programme and philosophy of the Historic Places Trust. Indeed it is a concept that the Attorney-General sought specific legal advice on in 2004 in asking whether the Historic Places Amendment Bill was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The advice received by the Attorney-General noted that the specific responsibilities of the council in relation to Maori culture and heritage would be enhanced by the involvement of Maori because only persons of Maori ethnicity possess the attributes of firstly whakapapa and whakawhanaungatanga connections based on descent and ancestry and secondly kaitiakitanga or guardianship status of Maori heritage. 
The advice received by the Attorney-General clearly noted that whakapapa and whakawhanaungatanga are the fundamental relationships between Maori and cultural heritage and are the basis upon which Maori can claim standing on marae and communicate effectively with tangata whenua at a local level. It went further to explain that for Maori the kaitiaki relationship with heritage is reserved for appropriate persons of Maori ethnicity and tribal affiliation and involves the safeguarding of the knowledge of the existence and significance of sites. If that were not proof enough the Ministry for Culture and Heritage also advised that appointments made to the council solely on the basis of a person’s qualifications and experience without reference to Maori ethnicity would affect the credibility and mana of the trust in relation to its statutory responsibility to protect Maori culture and heritage. 
Given that background I thought it was extremely disappointing that the amendment to clause 19 was not supported by the Committee. I want to refer to the comments that the Minister the Hon Judith Tizard made at the Committee stage where she stated: “… I do not agree that anyone required as in this legislation to have knowledge of Maori heritage and Maori spiritual values should necessarily be Maori.” The advice presented to the Attorney-General just 2 brief years ago noted: “In our view the provisions of the Bill that require the Council to include four Maori members are rationally and proportionately connected to the aim of enhancing the ability of the Trust to fulfil its functions under the Historic Places Act. Accordingly we consider that the limitation is justified in terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act.” What has happened in 2 short years to have such a turnround? 
Tangata whenua consider sites of historical and cultural significance to be central to sustaining a living Maori culture which is the basic premise of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi principle of active protection. The significance of whakapapa in the concept of Maori representation is thus such that it is essential to ensure the trust has the ability to provide protection of taonga consistent with its functions and powers. What we see now with this weakened legislation is that anyone can be “Maori”. The Maori Party believes that if the Government was truly genuine in its intentions towards tangata whenua representation the board would call for nominations mandated by hapu and iwi and not open the floodgates to everyone. 
The other concerns that we raised throughout this debate were about the need for the Historic Places Trust to have increased powers in order to provide protection of wahi tapu and about the importance of local hapu/iwi knowledge to inform the decision making of the trust. We do not believe that this bill addresses the need for entities such as the Historic Places Trust to have some type of formal relationship with whanau hapu and iwi or indeed with other entities such as those involved in ecosystem protection and restoration. 
Finally I return to Whakarewarewa for a model of the importance of strengthening the cultural and historic heritage provisions for Maori. Seven years ago in June 1999 the Te Arawa standing committee of Rotorua District Council was presented with a survey of 100 Te Arawa leaders which expressed particular disquiet in relation to tourism that nothing was being put back into the culture even though tourism was based on the promotion of things Maori. The leaders suggested that Maori could benefit by having the meeting houses and villages at Ohinemutu and Whakarewarewa maintained. The report further recommended that the council should work with the tourism industry to identify its costs and benefits to Te Arawa. That report promoted the example of local government central government and iwi working together to maintain the precious cultural and historic heritage of our significant ancestral sites. Our historic places—our wahi tapu; our heritage sites—tell us the story of the nation just as Guide Bubbles protected and preserved the treasured cultural landscape of Te Arawa. 
That is what this bill should have done. We are saddened that the heritage of a nation—the significance of the tangata whenua contribution to the shaping of Aotearoa—will not be enhanced by the legislation coming before this House today and for that reason we will not be supporting this bill. Kia ora tatou.