Delahunty Catherine: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17702. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I am pleased to take a call on Part 4 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill and also to take the opportunity to apologise for the slight confusion on Part 3. Part 4 and Part 3 are linked. I do want to acknowledge the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage because we have had a very useful conversation about the importance of the way in which this bill deals with issues of significance to tangata whenua hence clause 66. That clause which relates towāhi tapuwāhitūpuna andwāhi tapu areas is linked to the negotiation that we had and therefore I should have withdrawn my Supplementary Order Papers Supplementary Order Paper 372 and Supplementary Order Paper 373. This has strengthened the abilityof Māori to have a very good relationship with archaeologists around cultural sites because of course cultural sites are not just a matter of archaeological sites. This relates to clause 66 and relates towāhitūpunawāhi tapu.It is very interesting to have conversations with archaeologists and people who are not familiar with Māori culture about the difference between an archaeological site and awāhi tapu. Archaeological sites are evidence. They are based on the physical evidence found within the land. Thewāhi tapu are based on a cultural and spiritual landscape as much as a physical one. And so our citizens particularly archaeologists who do not come from that background really need to understand what is in clause 66. That is why I am grateful to the Minister for the strengthening of clause 42 in the previous part because it has made much more explicit the cultural competencies and access to appropriate cultural relationships and support that an archaeologist needs in dealing with archaeological sites. Yes we are talking aboutwāhi tapu here but often these things are in the same zone. So I would like to commend the Minister for the work on this. I think there is a lot of good in this bill and there is a lot of detail that is actually important for a more sophisticated understanding of the differences between heritage andwāhi tapu; between archaeology andwāhi tapu.Heritage might be a broad term but beneath that we need this bill to spell out some of these things. So I just want to acknowledge the good work done to make the bill more workable and also to acknowledge the previous speaker Maryan Street for talking about the landscape in which we are all living and working and how this is an issue of importance to all New Zealanders. The critical thing about heritage is that the more we can all understand howwāhi tapu for example function in the landscape from the point of view of tangata whenua the more culturally appropriately we can deal with some of our issues. I have been involved in many situations where coastal land for example is proposed for development or sale and then the private developer is shocked to find that there is awāhi tapu or where tangata whenua have been in a weak position to advocate because it has not been clearly recorded. I think that is where the fact that any person may apply to the Māori Heritage Council to enter awāhitūpunawāhi tapu orwāhi tapu area should actually assist us to have more of a no-surprises understanding.Every part of Aotearoa is a cultural landscape and important to all cultures here but particularly to the first nation to the first people. So it is really important that the clear recording and the scope that is offered in clause 66 assists us in avoiding cultural misunderstandings avoiding conflict over people’s expectations. If people know from day one that coastal land containswāhi tapu they are not going to have unrealistic expectations of what they can do on that land. Given the fact that there is not much land left belonging to Māori where the sites are neatly positioned—they are all over the motu in all kinds of different places with all kinds of different levels of meaning and significance to different mana whenua—this bill allows them to be registered and to be clear. I am hoping that councils will demonstrate an understanding of this. For example in clause 66(3) a council may decline an application in the case of awāhi tapu if it lacks sufficient merit having regard to the criteria. I do hope that councils will robustly read those criteria and follow the meaning and the intent that is in this legislation to make sure that the judgments made are in the right place.That is why I have been a strong advocate in this bill’s debate to make sure that the voice of mana whenuahapū are heard because it is impossible for anyone else to be an expert on another person’s culture. It is simply not possible for us to be those experts so it is always about the negotiation the relationship. Having lived with an archaeologist for nearly 20 years I know that archaeologists are not experts on Māori culture. Archaeologists are not experts onwāhi tapu. They are experts on archaeology which is the physical evidence not the cultural physical and spiritual evidence or relationshipsthat are upheld. So I commend this aspect of the bill to the Committee. There is always more that I would like to do but I think we have made some good progress.