Finlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17765. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I moveThat the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill be now read a third time. This bill repeals and replaces the Historic Places Act 1993 and seeks a better balance among the different interests in New Zealand’s heritage. It is a bill that retains and indeed renews the spirit of heritage advocacy and it makes bureaucratic requirements less cumbersome for New Zealanders wanting to get on and do something with their houses and land. It recognises the Historic Places Trust’s longstanding role in ensuring the protection of New Zealand’s heritage but it also looks forward ensuring that the organisation has the appropriate structure and processes to meet the needs of heritage advocacy and property ownership in the future.I was very pleased with the wide support the bill received both at the second reading and in the Committee stage and I think that reflects the positive and workable nature of what we are trying to achieve here. Shortly I will say something about Supplementary Order Paper 444 which was developed after the second reading but first a quick run-through of the main aspects of the bill. The initial driver for legislative change was the need for structural reform of the trust. The bill replaces the three elected board positions with two positions filled by ministerial appointment and disestablishes the branch committees. These changes will remove any confusion between the trust’s statutory and advocacy responsibilities and it will allow advocacy groups to campaign freely without the constraints of being part of a Crown entity. In reflection of its changed status the trust is also renamed Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. Indeed it has recently begun trading under this name as a first step in establishing its new identity.The 2005 amendments making the trust a Crown entity were frankly sloppy and piecemeal—changing its legal status yet leaving vestigial remnants of a voluntary organisation fettering local heritage advocates and confusing the trust’s purpose. But I would like to think that this bill has tidied all that up and importantly I can assure those concerned with preservation of New Zealand’s historic heritage that the bill will retain existing protections. However as the consultation phase of the bill demonstrated heritage preservation is an area in which sometimes people disagree so it is important that the organisation and all its processes are as fair and transparent as possible and that decisions are made taking the full story into account—in particular the effects a decision may have on property owners. The bill therefore requires Heritage New Zealand when considering an archaeological authority application to modify or destroy a site to take into account the same matters as the Environment Court does. These include the interests of any person directly affected by the decision and any ways in which protection of the site may prevent or restrict the reasonable use of that site. When undertaking their advocacy roles both Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council will need to recognise landowners’ interests.The bill also introduces a speedier archaeological authority process for applicants. This importantly aligns it with the Resource Management Act reducing the frustrations and hold-ups that people are experiencing when they want to develop their property. A lot of work has gone into that and also into emergency authorities because those dreadful earthquakes in Canterbury actually occurred when the bill was in the early stages of development. It was immediately clear that the bill would need to respond to the potential for future disaster so the bill recognises the need to be prepared for disaster and all its repercussions. It introduces a number of measures such as an emergency archaeological authority and it seeks to strike a sensible balance that minimises hold-ups while still protecting that vulnerable heritage.Through this bill there is a National Historic Landmarks List established which is a first. It is a definitive list of New Zealand’s most important historic places. It is a very positive step for heritage protection nationwide. It will have an agreed set of national priorities and it will be a strong statement about the value the Government and New Zealanders place on heritage.Now I turn very briefly to Supplementary Order Paper 444 which is mainly about tightening up language in order to make the bill a clearer document. I acknowledge the good work of the officials in achieving this aim. I quickly want to summarise just some of the changes. I acknowledge Catherine Delahunty for her help in what is a very important one. When Heritage New Zealand appoints an archaeologist to work on a site of interest to Māori it must be satisfied that the archaeologist has the requisite competencies for recognising and respecting Māori values and has access to appropriate support—a constructive amendment that will ensure that this work is undertaken with sensitivity and appropriate focus. A key policy intent of the bill is to achieve better consistency with provisions in parallel legislation particularly the Resource Management Act. This Supplementary Order Paper has achieved this consistency. So for example the bill amends the time period for which an archaeological authority iscurrent aligning it with the Resource Management Act so Heritage New Zealand can give people the time they need to undertake large-scale projects. The provisions regarding liability for offences are also further aligned with the Resource Management Act.The changes I have outlined will contribute I believe to a strong and a well-targeted bill that will serve the interests of all New Zealanders. We are already seeing some of the provisions of the bill beginning to be played out and I am very pleased that so many new advocacy groups have formed and are working constructively with Heritage New Zealand. I have also been very encouraged by the level of engagement during the development of the bill and the broad support it has received. I want to place on record the tremendous effort by the officials. I particularly refer to Peter Richardson and also to a Wellington lawyer David Cochrane who did a huge amount of work on the bill to polish it and make it fit for purpose.It is interesting to note some of the great New Zealanders who have served on the Historic Places Trust over the years: the most recent chairs Judge Shonagh Kenderdine and before her John Acland; and current members including those who have sat on the Māori Heritage Council Naida Glavish Ian Athfield—a noted New Zealand architect—Dr Apirana Mahuika and Sir Tumu te Heuheu. In earlier years trust members have included Judith Binney Merata Kawharu Dame Cath Tizard Professor David Hamer Alan Talbot Keith Sorrenson Māui Pōmare Ken Gorbey Sir Alister McIntosh and “Duff” Daysh. This has been an organisation that has had some wonderful people working with it over the years and I am sure that will continue in the future.Can I conclude by thanking Heritage New Zealand and the new groups for their commitment to making the bill as effective as possible. I certainly want to acknowledge the current director Bruce Chapman. I also want to mention John Daniels who was the trust’s director for many years and since his retirement has retained a great interest in heritage matters. I want to acknowledge all those who have been members of branch committees. Their hard work and strong advocacy have made a very important contribution to New Zealand. For 60 years the trust has played a vital role in the protection of New Zealand’s heritage. I am delighted to give it a new name and statute and a new lease of life. I look forward to a new era for Heritage New Zealand positioned through this legislation to meet the needs of heritage and the people of New Zealand for many years to come. I commend the bill to the House.