Finlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFinlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13358. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): I moveThat the Heritage New ZealandPouhere Taonga Bill be now read a second time. This bill repeals and replaces the Historic Places Act 1993. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered the bill and recommended that it be passed with a number of amendments to which I will shortly refer.One of the original drivers of this bill was a concern about the structure of the Historic Places Trust which is a Crown entity with branch committees and elected board members. In 2009 the Ministry for Culture and Heritage undertook a review that concluded that the structure was contributing to a lack of clarity around the trust’s regulatory and advocacy roles. A main aim of the bill is structural reform of the trust toclarify this matter. The bill disestablishes the three board positions elected by the wider membership and creates two new board positions to be filled by ministerial appointment. This will mean the board will consist of eight members appointed entirely by the responsible Minister. The eight-memberMāori Heritage Council is retained.The bill also disestablishes the branch committees and since the review I have been very pleased to see the number of independent advocacy groups that have formed including a national umbrella Historic Places Aotearoa to which some regional groups are now affiliated. This is advocacy coming back to its roots—citizens who care about our heritage getting together to ensure it is looked after and passed on to future generations. The new structure will enable the organisation to focus on its regulatory responsibilities and the advocacy groups to go about their work unconstrained by the priority setting the rules and the conventions of a Crown entity.The second central theme of the bill is the need to better balance competing interests in our heritage because it is sometimes a very difficult exercise to reconcile the admittedly very valid desire to preserve our nation’s unique heritage with the need to promote new development. These differing perspectives were reflected in the submissions. Many wanted a stronger emphasis on property rights but many others including heritage advocacy groups and some iwi were seeking more active protection for heritage. A recurring aim through many of the bill’s provisions is to reduce costs and difficulties for property owners while enabling the future Heritage New Zealand to fulfil its statutory functions. If passed the bill will be a major step in achieving a more appropriate balance between heritage values and the needs and realities of private ownership.The third very important aspect of the bill I want to refer to is its response to the Canterbury earthquakes. As well as the devastation they caused the people of Canterbury the earthquakes were a wake-up call for all of us that our heritage is often built on geologically unstable land. The bill was already a work in progress at the time of the first earthquake and it was clear straight away that we would need to take pause to investigate the implications for this legislation. The lessons we learnt from the earthquakes are reflected in this bill. The bill confirms that Heritage New Zealand will have a role in providing advice to emergency authorities on heritage matters in a national or local emergency. We have also added a number of provisions for heritage management in a national disaster including an emergency archaeological authority to ensure that the process can be as quick and responsive as possible while still respecting our heritage so that people can go about the business of recovery without getting tangled up in red tape.I now want to turn to the very good work of the select committee. The committee received 80 written submissions. I presented Supplementary Order Paper 135 in October last year which resulted in a further 15 submissions and there were 36 oral submissions. I will now outline for the House the main issues and amendments that emerged. The first one was that some submitters raised concerns about the disbanding of the branch committees and the difficulty of getting new organisations established in their place. As a result there will be a new clause requiring Heritage New Zealand to take reasonable and practical steps to support independent heritage groups set up to replace the committees for a period of up to 12 months after the Act’s commencement.A commonly occurring theme in the submissions was achieving better balance—in particular the need for greater consideration of property ownership and development interests in the decision making of the organisation. The committee has proposed a number of amendments to redress the balance between these interests and the heritage values that have been a strong focus for the bill. An amendment to clauses 47 and 60 of the bill will require Heritage New Zealand when considering an application to anarchaeological authority to take into account the same matters as the Environment Court. These include the extent to which protection of an archaeological site prevents or restricts the existing or reasonable future use of the site and the interests of any person directly affected by the organisation’s decision.Amendments to clauses 11 12 and 24 are recommended to require Heritage New Zealand and theMāori Heritage Council when undertaking their advocacy rules to recognise landowners’ interests. An amendment to clause 4 also widens the range of parties Heritage New Zealand will be obliged to work with collaboratively to include Government agencies and tangata whenua. These are very constructive changes that in essence require the organisation to look at both sides of the story in their advocacy and regulatory work. This will lead to more meaningful decisions that will reflect an understanding of the effects on all parties.Submitters were also concerned that the wording of the bill in its original form required owners to apply to archaeological authorities to undertake even minor works on buildings erected before 1900. This was not the policy intention of the bill and in practice it would be ludicrous. Anyone living in a pre-1900 house as many New Zealanders do would have to go through an authority process just to renovate their kitchen. The committee has therefore agreed to amend clause 40 to remove the requirement to apply for an archaeological authority to modify a standing building unless there is an intention to demolish it in its entirety.Also resulting from the committee’s consideration of submissions is a requirement for Heritage New Zealand to consult and develop policy in a greater number of areas. The original bill and Supplementary Order Paper 135 required Heritage New Zealand to develop and consult publicly on policy for administering the archaeological and registration provisions of the bill. Some submitters considered that requirements for policy development should be expanded to other processes and I am pleased that the committee proposes that Heritage New Zealand also develop and consult publicly on policies for the National Historic Landmarks List and for its role in advocacy work. This will ensure the public is involved in shaping policy in these very important areas.There is just one further amendment to the original bill that I want to mention which is the addition of new clauses 10A and 10B to create a role for the chief executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to act as a special adviser to the board. The new role will strengthen the relationship between Heritage New Zealand and the responsible Minister and ensure that the board’s decisions are informed by an understanding of Government policy.There are a number of matters that could be referred to in the Supplementary Order Paper. In the time available I simply want to refer to the establishment of a National Historic Landmarks List which is proposed for New Zealand’s 50 most important historic places. This is to emphasise the importance of our historic places and to give us an agreed set of national priorities for conservation. Some people were concerned that to have a 50-place limit was unduly constraining so the committee has agreed on an amendment to clause 81B to remove the cap. It is confident we can rely on the strict criteria for inclusion to provide a list with a natural limit.Finally the amendments propose the addition of a new category to the register of historic places historic areaswāhi tapu andwāhi tapu areas. The new category iswāhitūpuna ensuring that places of significance toMāori that do not necessarily have tapu such as certain marae buildings will also be able to be included.A lot of work has been done on the legislation and I am confident that the bill is going to provide a firm foundation for the future work of Heritage New Zealand equipping it with the right structure and processes for the 21st century. I look forward to seeing the progress of the bill through the House.