Ward Mike: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ward Mike: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15567] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will support the referral of this legislation to a select committee. We are generally supportive of the new provisions. The effectiveness of the Historic Places Trust Board has more to do with the commitment the understanding and the resourcing of that board than it has to do with the numbers. However we have some concerns about the number of Government appointments. We feel that at least half the members should be members recommended by the wider community. 
The bill obliges the board to take on members with a greater awareness of te ao Maori and tikanga Maori and we think that is vital. Much of the misunderstanding in recent years is a consequence of a lack of understanding of both those issues—that is te ao Maori and tikanga Maori. Heritage is more than just places; it is the expression of an important part of our history. I was recently looking through some fairly old papers in Nelson which mentioned the fact that in part of Nelson there are 400 acres of modified soils. That does not speak of a rather primitive culture; it speaks of a very well-developed and settled culture in an area where I might add Nelsonians do not believe we have a Maori history. In fact if a beefed-up board makes us more aware of that kind of history then it is to be commended. The issue is not just about preserving our heritage; it is also about making us aware of our heritage. 
We accept that there is a commitment by the Government to preserve heritage but this legislation will bind future Governments. Can we be sure of a similar level of commitment from future Governments and be sure that they will ensure the six Government appointees are suitably committed to the protection of heritage? We will seek to ensure that at least three of those appointees are from community nominations. We hope that under the amended legislation the board will move from simply protecting heritage and individually designated buildings and sites to encouraging the kind of culture shift that is necessary to protect to restore and to value all of our heritage. At this stage I believe that most New Zealanders do not really care very much about heritage until there is something in their backyard that they think needs protection—that is a particular building. All of us need to understand that all heritage is worthy of examination protection and understanding. That is the purpose of this legislation. The present legislation is not working well and needs to be amended. Hopefully our misgivings about this bill will be met by the hearings in the select committee. 
Historic buildings and heritage sites frequently have considerable architectural and landscape merit. To just simply put that up for examination makes for a worthwhile exercise. Perhaps more important our heritage is a reminder of a rich and an exciting past and an awareness of that past is essential for an appreciation and a pride in our identity. That is of particular importance in our understanding of wahi tapu and tikanga Maori. The issue is not that we should never alter those sites—it is not that they should not be touched and not that they should not be even obliterated on occasions—because sometimes there is very little there. But before we do so we need to make sure we know what is there get it down in writing and get it recorded so that future generations can also know what was there. 
Heritage has value not just from an aesthetic point of view; it also has economic value. And in a country that makes a very large amount of money now from tourism—I think in Rotorua tourism is vastly more worthwhile in economic terms than dairying for instance—the historic elements the heritage elements are an important part of the reason why people come to this country. Many of us undervalue our heritage. We are not aware of our heritage and we are not even aware that we have a history of any consequence. Protecting heritage is about making us aware that it is there and making sure that we do in fact respect and value it. Heritage has economic value as well in terms of buildings that are vastly more interesting than many of the buildings that we currently put up. I have watched a great deal of heritage in my city come down because Nelson is a fairly well-endowed community and we have a habit of bowling buildings and replacing them with new ones of vastly less consequence than the previous ones. So valuing heritage is also about valuing its economic value. I know there are people in Parliament who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. But in fact while the protection of heritage may come at a price the destruction of heritage also comes at a price. And in addition to the intrinsic value of heritage there are very real economic values associated with retaining heritage. 
I am thinking again of my own community in which some heritage buildings have found new and very profitable uses and in which some old buildings have high-tech uses. I am thinking of perhaps Radio Fifeshire in the old Harley homestead in Nelson which has been double glazed. That homestead has been made to work as a radio station and yet it is still an important part of a historic precinct in Nelson. That works very well and that radio station gains considerable prestige from occupying such a building. I am also thinking of the other buildings in the neighbourhood—of my own office in upper Trafalgar Street in Nelson and of the Victorian Rose Pub and Cafe. That building was earmarked for destruction by the city council which once occupied it. It has now been preserved and restored and it is an exciting building. It is one of the most profitable pubs in all of Nelson. When one goes in there one senses the European history of my city. The idea that people will put some energy into those buildings because they have economic value is evident from the Victorian Rose Pub and Cafe in my community. 
We are supporting the amendments provided for in this bill but not without reservations. We hope that those reservations can be met by the amended legislation because as I said before currently the legislation is not working adequately. We are hopeful that the new membership will be more committed than the present board and that perhaps with the additional funding that the Government has supported it will have the resources to do its job more adequately. So we are pleased to support the legislation. We hope that changes will be made and I am hopeful that the rest of the House will in fact get behind this legislation. If members have misgivings about the bill then they will have the opportunity to have those misgivings addressed during the Committee stage. We will be there with our fingers crossed and we are prepared to make the improvements that are necessary.