Walker Holly: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walker Holly: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2070. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. As we have heard from my colleague Catherine Delahunty the Green Party will be supporting this bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee but we do retain some concerns about certain provisions within it that we would like to see addressed at the select committee stage. We agree that the Historic Places Act is in need of updating. That Act was originally drafted in 1975 and amended in 1993. As an example of why it does need updating under the existing Act the technical date by which a place is considered to be historic is whether it is a place that pre-dates 1900. At present there is a lengthy and difficult process to get a site of historical value post-1900 listed as a historic place. Clearly this needs updating so that places like World War I training camps and Napier with its art deco heritage can be more readily considered and recognised as historic places. So there is a very clear need to consolidate update and streamline some of the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993.  
Arguably the most high-profile change in this bill is to change the name and reform the structure of the Historic Places Trust (Pouhere Taonga). The trust will become Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and its structure will be reformed. As we have heard from previous speakers the trust currently has a board the Maori Heritage Council and branch committees consisting of fee-paying local members.  
The Green Party acknowledges the tensions referred to in the bill’s explanatory note created by the combination of statutory responsibilities on the one hand with active branch committees and elected board members on the other and we can see how this structure could make it challenging for the trust to efficiently carry out its statutory responsibilities. However we do see a risk with the proposed changes—particularly disestablishing the local branch committee structure and removing elected board members—that some of the energy commitment and local expertise of those local branch committees will be lost. It would be a great shame if that were to take place. Local Historic Places Trust branch members have invaluable local knowledge and give freely of their volunteer hours for the cause of furthering our national heritage and in many ways these changes could be seen as disenfranchising or disempowering those local volunteers.  
I am keen to hear more at the select committee about how branches feel about this change. I am also keen to hear more from the Government about how the hard work and dedication of local branch members will be appreciated and retained under the new regime especially if the fees of branch members will still continue to be collected and retained by the organisation without the consequent representation that the current structure provides. We have a number of concerns about that. 
 In the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes heritage is an issue of particular concern at the front of their minds for many New Zealanders and many people with an interest in Christchurch’s heritage will be watching this bill closely. We are therefore pleased to see that the bill establishes a separate emergency authority process in the event of natural disasters to give Heritage New Zealand the ability to process archaeological authorities more speedily following a state of emergency. It will be important however for Heritage New Zealand in the aftermath of a future disaster to follow a comprehensive process that takes heritage protection into account even though it will be in a shortened time frame. We think it is important that that is preserved.  
Regarding the bill’s changes to the granting of archaeological authorities which has dominated much of the debate on the bill in this first reading the House has already heard from my colleague Catherine Delahunty about our concerns about clause 42(1)(b) of the bill allowing applications for activities that may harm an archaeological site if the effects of that activity are “no more than minor”. As we have heard there is no definition of what a minor effect is in the bill and we think this is particularly problematic when clause 43 exempts developers from consulting with Maori if the effects are thought to be no more than minor. Without a robust and appropriate definition of what “no more than minor” means in the context of this bill we are concerned that this could lead to the inappropriate destruction of significant sites without reference to or consultation with mana whenua. So I am pleased to hear from the previous speaker some enthusiasm to address that at the select committee.  
That is just one of the concerns we have raised. We will be supporting this bill going to the select committee. We do look forward to teasing out these issues in more detail there. Kia ora koutou.