Peters Jim: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peters Jim: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15565] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 What a strange confused speech that was! It ranged over arts occasionally touched on culture then went back to arts. I thought that perhaps the member had the wrong bill. She said it was a splendid bill and she said it was an important bill. I looked at my copy of Brooker’s to see whether I could find what she was talking about—whether I could find a bill that included all those other issues around the Historic Places Act of 1993. Finally I realised she was talking about the Historic Places Amendment Bill a slip of a bill with no sound reason for it. 
The only reason why New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee is that we want the opportunity for some of the issues to be well teased out by the wider public because they need to be teased out—particularly when I see that for some strange reason section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act is being inserted almost unobtrusively by clause 4 into section 20(6) of the principal Act. No clarification is given. There is nothing to say what section 6(e) means—“The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites waahi tapu and other taonga.” Wahi tapu is covered in the Historic Places Act of 1993 so why put into this bill a very important part of section 6 of the Resource Management Act—the section headed “Matters of national importance”? 
Lest members think New Zealand First is not concerned about our heritage I say we are. We are concerned about our culture and we know what the arts are about as well. We do not come to the House and make a grand speech that puts them all into one as the previous member did leaving me and other members completely confused. 
The other issue that is strange about this bill is the matter of funding which the member who has just resumed her seat spoke about. She spoke about the volumes of adequate funding going to the Historic Places Trust. The Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who introduced the bill spoke about the excellent work done by the chairperson of the board. Furthermore the previous member told us about the numbers of volunteers out there who are doing excellent work. All of that would presuppose that the Historic Places Trust Act passed by the National Party Government in 1993 which includes all these issues had no need of amendment. So why is there an amendment bill before us with a few little issues for us to look at? 
Why is the Government in this bill reducing the size of the board from 11 to nine members? Why is the Government appointing not three Crown appointees but six? Six out of the nine members on the new board will be direct placements by the Minister and the Government. Perhaps it is an early sign that the Government really feels it is on the way out and so before it goes some time next year it wants to appoint its mates to this board and thereby ensure the continuation of the present Government’s policies for the next 3 years. That may be the real intention of this bill. There are to be not just three Crown appointees but six Crown appointees—and by the way because there is a foreshore and seabed issue out there that happens to make some people quite concerned it will make three of those appointees Maori. Despite the fact that the trust is doing good work at the present time despite the fact that the Maori Heritage Council which is a subgroup of the board does excellent work the Government wants to introduce on to this trust board more Maori and more Government appointees. 
What will they do when they get there? They will have regard to clause 4 which comes from the Resource Management Act 1991. That is what they will do. They will have no definitions no legal clarifications no help in respect of what clause 4 means. I do hope that those who are listening will make submissions to help to flesh out for the select committee exactly what it could mean. New Zealand First believes that this insertion is completely out of place. It gives no definition and if there is any provision that requires very clear definition and expansion today because of what is happening out there in the field of jurisdiction and court matters it is this very one. What is meant by “ancestral lands water sites and waahi tapu”—not in the past but in 2004? For that matter what does “wahi tapu” really mean? When I look at Brooker’s I see explanations of the 1993 Act and they appear to me to be quite adequate. The National Party Government of the day obviously found them very adequate because it put them in its legislation. Why therefore is there this further intrusion of wahi tapu into this amendment bill? 
There is no more confusing issue out there than wahi tapu. It bedevils district and regional councils. I am told that just north of here the South Wairarapa District Council this year alone will spend $175000 of precious ratepayer money just to identify where wahi tapu are. That may be money well spent if there is clarity once and for all as to where they are. I suggest to the Minister that the issue of wahi tapu areas gives one as little or as much as one desires and thereby bedevils planners local authorities and most of all any would-be developer applicant or farmer. It is high time the Government looked at not extending some of these issues but at the current law and current practice and noted the need for a very clear definition of each of those terms—not in respect of the past but as they are today. I am very pleased to say that there is no mention in the bill of Maori spiritual beliefs which it was suggested be in the Resource Management Act. This party believes that spiritual beliefs are personal and play no part whatsoever in any matter such as the matters that are before us. 
Regional councils have always been notified of changes and this bill just makes that more certain. They have also always been notified of wahi tapu. So I do not see those changes as being very significant at all. 
To come to the end New Zealand First has to question why this very slight bill is here. It does not materially add anything much to the Historic Places Act; it adds no more to what the Act does at the present time with regard to the register and it adds no more to the ownership and management of heritage properties. By the way despite what the previous member said about the Government’s funding I could introduce members to people at the present time occupying heritage sites that are directly under the administration of the Minister who feel quite the contrary; they feel that there has not been sufficient funding with regard to the upkeep or present-day management of some of these heritage properties—but that is another matter for another time. 
Lastly does the bill strengthen governance? No. Does it enhance accountability to the Government? It might if the Government is able to appoint a sufficient number of its friends! Does it give any increased accountability by making the organisation a Crown entity? No. At the end of the issue registration is adequate at the present time and at a first glance I cannot see anything in the bill that makes it necessary apart from the fact that it enhances the ability of the Government to influence the Historic Places Trust for the next 3-plus years. If ever there was a sign of an outgoing Government that is it. Its mates are going to be appointed and that will somehow ensure the continuity and the influence of its policies. 
Although New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee that is simply because we want to have an expression of opinion about the matters that I have raised— principally why section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act is inserted by clause 4; it makes no sound sense. Also the issues of wahi tapu need to be explored and a clear definition provided which has not been done in the past. And to have six appointees out of nine appointed directly by the Government and under its influence is a real change that moves a long long way from the intention of the Government in 1993 to have an independent objective group that takes a new look at heritage and culture. This amendment moves away from that towards direct Government direction under the hand of the Minister. We resent that being in this bill and we will do our utmost to ensure that those who make submissions on this very small amendment bill are fully aware of the implications of it.