Kedgley Sue: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Historic Places Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2948] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support the Historic Places Amendment Bill as it did in the first reading. Generally we are supportive of the bill and its focus on improving governance tightening accountability and clarifying definitions. But we have a couple of problems with it and I foreshadow that we will be proposing a couple of amendments in the Committee of the whole House tomorrow. 
I will say just a few words about the Historic Places Trust. Basically New Zealand’s historic places are still largely unprotected. There is huge variation in the way regional and territorial authorities carry out their functions under the Resource Management Act in relation to heritage sites. Large areas of our heritage have been bowled already and only just now are we are coming to understand and appreciate our heritage. European countries and others jealously protect their heritage and historic places. In New Zealand we are very cavalier. Huge amounts of our heritage have been demolished already and our cities and the whole landscape are the poorer for it. 
Unfortunately the trust is something of a toothless dragon. It does not have the teeth or the strength to really protect our heritage. In my experience it mostly compromises and capitulates when confronted by an authority such as a local body or Transit. In fact I think Transit has an understanding with the trust that if it wants the site of a historic place to become a road the trust will not stand in its way. The most historic area of Wellington Te Aro which is a wonderful heritage area has basically been removed in order to build a motorway. Basically the trust just capitulated and allowed 46 historic homes to be knocked down or shifted. So it is unfortunate that the trust does not have more teeth and is not more of an advocate for the preservation of New Zealand’s heritage. We wish that the bill conferred more power on the trust. Regrettably it does not do so; it is focused almost entirely on changing the trust’s governance arrangements. 
One of our amendments relates to the Maori membership of the board of the trust. The bill proposes that three members of the board no longer have to be Maori; they just have to have knowledge of Maori and of tikanga Maori. The trust and the Maori Heritage Council opposed that proposal; so do the Greens for two reasons. It almost redefines the definition of Maori so that in future there will not have to be Maori members on this or that organisation; all there will have to be is someone who claims to have knowledge of Maori or of tikanga Maori. That is an unfortunate precedent which is what the trust stated in its submission on the bill. It stated that whakapapa is the foundation of Maori identity as tangata whenua and it is the essential relationship between Maori and their historical and cultural heritage. So six of the nine places on the board remain open to non-Maori. We think a Maori should be defined as someone who is Maori. Therefore we will put forward an amendment to that provision. Let us not just use the bill to redefine the entire definition of who is Maori and who is not. 
We have another amendment to the bill. Under the bill the trust Board would be given discretion about whether it would impose an interim protection when publicly notifying of a review of a change of the category—say from a category II to a category I status. Basically we are concerned that giving the board discretion could effectively amount to a loophole that could mean it would not have to impose interim protections or injunctions. So we will propose an amendment that effectively provides that the board would have to issue a protection order unless it puts up very good reasons why it would not want to do so. They are minor amendments but they are important and we hope we will get support in the Committee for them. 
It is a tragedy that so much of our heritage and so many of our historic buildings have already been demolished. I know that most Wellingtonians were horrified last year when they woke up and found that a magnificent historic building on Lambton Quay was virtually being demolished under their eyes. They were horrified that the trust had not protected that building. Why is the trust not much more of an advocate? Why is it not protecting magnificent historic places and heritage buildings? It is something that mystifies many people. They also cannot understand why there should be such variations. 
In a town like Wanganui for example the council has been fantastic in protecting Wanganui’s historic buildings. As a result one of the great features of towns like Wanganui and Timaru is that they have fantastic heritage buildings. The city councils have advocated for those buildings and protected them. Now they are treasures and they are the reason why people go to Wanganui and Timaru and indeed to places like Dunedin. But other cities like Wellington and Auckland do not— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Oamaru! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Thank you. What would Oamaru be without those magnificent heritage buildings? 
It is a shame that although there are councils that jealously protect their magnificent buildings others allow them to be bulldozed and demolished—like Wellington which has allowed the oldest most historic precinct in our city to be demolished for a motorway. The Green members think that is tragic. Nevertheless we will support the bill and its changes to governance and accountability so that the trust becomes a Crown entity. We wish that the bill gave more teeth to what is a rather toothless entity but regrettably it has a rather narrow set of amendments. However we hope we will have the support of members for the amendments we will propose in Committee tomorrow.