Walker Holly: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWalker Holly: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17773. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]HOLLY WALKER (Green): The Green Party is pleased to add its voice in support of the others who have expressed cross-party support for this legislation the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill in the House this afternoon. It is good to see a piece of very significant legislation like this proceeding with such a high degree of support across the House.It is very timely because this bill is passing through Parliament at a time when heritage issues have probably never been higher in the public consciousness particularly of course following the devastating Christchurch earthquakes which as the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage pointed out had not yet taken place when the bill was first contemplated but have certainly provided a backdrop for much of the discussion particularly about built heritage that has taken place with this bill. Also of course legislation that straddles the very fine line between heritage protection and the need for earthquake strengthening is also currently before the House. So these issues are very current and of great concern in the public consciousness.In New Zealand we have a unique heritage. Our built heritage and indeed many of our other historic sites are a very vital and important part of our national identity. Sadly we often perceive just how important they are only when they have been lost to us as we have seen in the case of so many buildings in Christchurch. What makes us who we are and what identifies us as New Zealanders as Cantabrians or as people belonging to a particular place or site is often inextricably tied up with buildings with heritage sites and with archaeological sites and their preservation is very important.Heritage issues obviously stir the passions of many New Zealanders because they are controversial issues—witness the strength of debate in Christchurch about the future of the Christchurch Cathedral for example—so it is important that we get the legislative framework right for having these debates and I think we are pretty close with this bill.Just as our built heritage is an important part of our national identity so of course has been the iconic Historic Places Trust which has been a very important membership-based advocacy organisation for many many years and I think that every member of this House and many members of the public will have positive associations with their local Historic Places Trust organisation. Largely thanks to the dedicated efforts of passionate volunteers at the branch level many many buildings have been preserved many sites have been saved and many iconic sites have been brought to public attention and promoted to be enjoyed by members of the public as a result of the work of the branch committees of the Historic Places Trust. So it is with somesadness—and it was with some degree of misgiving when this bill first came into the House—that we witness with the passage of this bill the disestablishment of branch committees of the Historic Places Trust.We understand of course that this change has not been uncontroversial particularly amongst local members of branch committees around the country and the Local Government and Environment Committee heard from a number of these people who were concerned that their hard work in the past might not be sufficiently recognised under the new model or that their voices and advocacy might go unheard in future. That is a real concern. However we do acknowledge that under the current soon-to-be-past model there was a mismatch between having the Historic Places Trust as a Crown entity and having a branch membership structure at the local level. So there is some logic in the changes that this bill makes. But I think it is going to be very very important to keep a close eye and to ensure that local membership of heritage advocacy committees under the new model will continue and that these groups will be able to focus very strongly on their advocacy role. The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage has indicated that he hopes that will happen as well. Of course for them to be able to do that they do need to have the right level of support and we are pleased to see that some transitional financial support has been made available to local organisations. The Green Party along with our colleagues in I think the Labour Party argued at the select committee that we would have liked that support to be greater and we do think it is a shame that it is not. But we will watch this area closely.I would like to echo the comments of my colleague Grant Robertson who has just spoken about the importance of advocacy. Although the Minister has indicated that he thinks that the new heritage advocacy committees at the local level will be able to focus their efforts on advocacy and rightly so there is still an important heritage advocacy role that the new Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga organisation can and should fill. We have seen of course a parallel with the Department of Conservation which also has an advocacy role as a Government department that in the past has exercised that advocacy role completely independently and free of any political interference. We in the Green Party are concerned and I know that many others are concerned that that independent advocacy role of the Department of Conservation has been recently eroded somewhat and the Ruataniwha Dam is a good example. So we think it is going to be very important that although we still have heritage advocacy committees at the branch level to do advocacy it should not be siloed to just those groups. If there is a significant heritage issue that Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga should be advocating on then it will and should do that in the future and the Green Party will certainly be watching very closely to ensure that that happens.Similarly we think it is very important that although the interests of landowners obviously need to be considered very carefully in any heritage decisions they also need to be considered alongside the interests of others and alongside the interests of heritage so that greater weight is not given to landowners’ interests over the interests of other stakeholders.One of the other things that makes our heritage in New Zealand so unique of course is our tangata whenua and it was always going to be vital to ensure that tangata whenua and mana whenua are adequately involved in heritage decisions on land in their rohe and indeed over historic sites that relate to Māori history. So we were pleased to see the select committee recommendation to widen the range of parties that Heritage New Zealand must work with to include tangata whenua as well as Government agencies.One of the major areas of change in the bill of course is around new archaeological authorities for the exploration of a potential new heritage site. I would like to join others in acknowledging the work of my colleague Catherine Delahunty for her constructivework with the Minister to ensure that when a new architect is appointed to work on a site of significance to Māori mana whenua have a say in that appointment. That is a very important and significant change which was made in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 444 during the Committee stage of this bill. We are very pleased to see that change was made and very pleased that the Minister was able to work constructively with our colleague Catherine Delahunty to make that change. It will make a big difference for many mana whenua who are dealing with archaeological sites in their rohe.The other major new initiative of this bill is of course the creation of a national register of historic sites. That is a new and potentially very useful tool for people to engage with our history and to understand—and visit perhaps if they want to—sites whose names are collected and published on that list. I think there was a great deal of concern expressed by a number of submitters about the idea of limiting the number of sites on that list to only 50. It was quite an arbitrary number and unnecessarily prescriptive when we have such a rich vein of heritage in our country. So we are pleased to see that that was abandoned and now there will not be a limit to the number of sites that can be declared to be on the national register of historically significant sites but each site will be considered on its merits. That was a sensible change.In conclusion we in the Green Party have had some concerns about the role of branch committees and local membership in heritage advocacy about the importance of a Crown entity continuing to exercise some advocacy over heritage in the future about alignment with the Resource Management Act—which I have not spoken a great deal about but which will also be very important—and about the ability of mana whenua and tangata whenua to have their concerns and their sites of significance rightfully taken into account in heritage decisions. Some of those concerns remain for us. We are not 100 percent comfortable with every aspect of this bill but we think that by and large the Supplementary Order Papers and the select committee’s constructive deliberations have got it right and we are pleased to be able to support this bill.I would like to conclude with a whakataukī which seems appropriate. It is: Puritia ngā tāonga tuku iho a ngā tūpuna heitiki huia mā ngā uri whakatupu o Aotearoa. Translated it means to keep the treasures handed down by the ancestors as an adornment for the descendants yet to be born in New Zealand. It seems an appropriate sentiment on which to conclude.