Finlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2054. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill.  
It is great to stand here tonight to continue the proud National tradition of providing strong support for arts culture and heritage because National’s arts pedigree is excellent. Sid Holland’s Government formed the Historic Places Trust which is the subject of the bill we debate tonight. Keith Holyoake’s Government established the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council. Rob Muldoon appointed the first Minister for the Arts in 1975 Allan Highet regarded by many as the best Minister for the Arts in our country’s history. He established the Film Commission in 1978 and in Jim Bolger’s time Doug Graham got Te Papa built and reformed the arts council. So tonight is nothing new; it is but another chapter in National’s ongoing excellent support of culture and heritage in this country. We are not known as the “Party of Arts” for nothing.  
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has had a very distinguished track record in the protection of our historic heritage ever since it was established by the National Government in 1954. Just as National created the trust and over the years has strengthened it this bill now seeks to ready it for the 21st century. Specifically the bill enhances the effectiveness of the Historic Places Trust through structural change and greater efficiency. In so doing it will repeal and replace the Historic Places Act 1993.  
The National Party signalled a review of the Historic Places Act in our 2008 election manifesto. We recognised that it was time to take a good look at whether the existing structure was the best one to ensure a smart and effective organisation.  
The subsequent review confirmed that change was needed. A key finding was a lack of clarity around the organisation’s statutory and membership roles. This meant branch committees risked being constrained by the priority-setting the rules and the conventions of a Crown entity. It also meant elected board members were constrained in their ability to represent the interests of those who elected them. What this bill seeks to do is to separate these roles by consolidating the statutory function of the Historic Places Trust and ensuring strong and independent heritage advocacy. So the bill disestablishes the branch committees removes the three positions for elected members on the trust board and creates two new positions for members who are to be appointed by Ministers.  
Only a very small proportion of the trust’s members are actually on branch committees. Under the proposed changes former branch committee members will still be able to support the work of the trust and will continue to receive the benefits that membership offers. They will not however be involved in the Historic Places Trust’s governance or statutory work.  
Let me be very clear: nothing in this legislation undermines or lessens local heritage advocacy. Political and statutory action has long been underpinned by support from heritage advocates in the community. Groups do not need to be large or expensive to achieve significant heritage wins. What they need to be is free to speak up for their local heritage and to challenge authorities where they see fit.  
Alongside changing the structure of the trust the bill seeks to change its name. The new name proposed is Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. The key aspect of the change is the removal of the word “trust” a term that is inconsistent with the organisation’s regulatory responsibilities and its status as a Crown entity. The change will also clearly distinguish the newly named Heritage New Zealand from any independent trusts that may be formed by former branch committee members in the future.  
The most significant reforms proposed by the bill are to the protection of New Zealand’s archaeological heritage. Under the existing Act no person may destroy damage or modify an archaeological site without prior consent from the trust. Current archaeological consent processes are far too complex and are poorly aligned with the Resource Management Act. They also lack opportunities for Maori input. They require significant reworking to bring them up to date.  
The bill reforms archaeological consents ensuring they will be faster simpler and more efficient for applicants. It aligns the time frames with those in the Resource Management Act reducing maximum time frames for the future Heritage New Zealand to process applications for modification of archaeological sites. It provides a simplified application process for proposals that have only a minor effect on archaeology and it requires Heritage New Zealand to consult on and publish its policy for administering archaeological consents. Importantly these changes also recognise the significance to Maori of many archaeological sites.  
In the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes the bill also proposes a separate emergency archaeological consent system that can be invoked in the event of a natural disaster including a special emergency consent. This will give Heritage New Zealand the discretion to reduce the documentation required for applications and will shorten time frames both for decision making and for appeals. It will ensure that we can continue to record and investigate our heritage but without putting lives at risk or impeding reconstruction.  
Another aim of the bill is to reduce costs and difficulties for property owners. Under the current legislation if the trust carries out an investigation of the archaeological value of a site but there turns out not to be any value the costs of investigation are still recoverable from the owner. The bill removes the power to recover costs in such cases so that private citizens are no longer disadvantaged by this practice.  
The bill also removes ambiguity in the circumstances where the trust may have regard to Government policy. Under the current legislation the responsible Minister is prohibited from giving a direction to the trust on heritage matters. The bill clarifies this provision in an approach that is consistent with the Crown Entities Act. The bill permits the Minister to provide policy direction to which the organisation must have regard but the Minister cannot direct the organisation on heritage matters that relate to particular historic places historic areas wahi tapu or wahi tapu areas. Given the Government funding of what will be Heritage New Zealand and the regulatory powers it exercises some level of ministerial leadership is appropriate to ensure the organisation is more accountable to taxpayers in its policy direction.  
When I introduced this bill in October last year I announced a separate review of the registration provisions in Part 4 of the bill. Any changes to these provisions will need to be consistent with the legislative amendments being developed in separate reviews of earthquake-prone buildings policy and the Resource Management Act so I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper regarding the registration provisions when these other pieces of work are further advanced. I believe it would be appropriate for the select committee to seek public submissions both on the bill and on the Supplementary Order Paper at that time.  
The changes proposed by this bill will improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the protection of historic places while maintaining the strong national leadership for which the Historic Places Trust is rightly recognised. I commend this bill to the House.