Ardern Jacinda: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17767. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is not often unfortunately that we are able to debate issues around arts culture and heritage in this House so I really relish this opportunity. I am sure you will forgive my indulgence if I traverse very briefly some of the wider issues that sit within this incredibly important portfolio. For Labour it always has been an incredibly important portfolio. That was probably recognised the most when Helen Clark decided to take on that portfolio as Prime Minister of New Zealand because she recognised that the arts and in particular heritage were part of our national identity. It helped us create a sense of who we are and heritage is intrinsic in that. In particular Helen Clark’s passion for the history around our Anzacs behind our participation in World War I and in World War II drove a lot of the projects she championed and she remains a great advocate in that regard.I think it is really important to recognise that the arts culture and heritage portfolio does not sit as a passive portfolio that just needs to tick along in the status quo. There are so many things that we can be doing to support grow and ensure that that sector is flourishing. Actually in recent times unfortunately the sector in many ways has been somewhat diminished by choices the Government has made. We need only to look at what has happened in public broadcasting. We have lost the charter. We have lostTVNZ 7. Yes ensuring that we have an appreciation of our heritage is encapsulated by buildings is important but it is also encapsulated by our stories and our storytelling.Beyond that there are things like for instance appreciation of music in New Zealand. It is New Zealand Music Month. It is very important to acknowledge that. It was started in 2000. Those are ways we can celebrate New Zealand music not only domestically but internationally. Yet at the same time we seem to have ignored that we have a quota in New Zealand for New Zealand music. If we ignore what is a voluntary quota we run the risk of again seeing a lack of commitment to ensuring that we are supporting our local artists first domestically so that we can ensure they succeed internationally.There are also things like the Large Budget Screen Production Grant Scheme introduced by New Zealand to support the film community in New Zealand. It was just left after Labour introduced it by this Government and not looked at closely enough in terms of bolstering that fund until it was almost too late. This is not a portfolio that can just be left as the status quo with fingers crossed that everything will be OK and yet that has happened far too much I fear within the arts culture and heritage portfolio.A perfect example as well I think where not enough attention has been paid is heritage issues in particular. We absolutely accept that in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake when the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act was introduced there was a great need for safety reasons to ensure that assessments were placed on buildings with an eye to ensuring that the city and its inhabitants were safe. Section 38 meant that we saw some vigorous demolition but the time has come for that provision to be removed. We have already seen 50 percent of central Christchurch heritage buildings gone—144 heritage buildings in the central business district alone. We are not arguing that there will not be cause for some of those buildings to come down in the future but surely we can now rely on the robust process around the Resource Management Act to determine that rather than fast-tracking those demolitions through the arbitrary process engaged in by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority for these buildings—Maggie Barry: What’s this got to do with the bill?JACINDA ARDERN: —and that is what we are calling for. It has got plenty to do with heritage. We are debating heritage and I think the survival of heritage buildings in Christchurch has got everything to do with the bill we are discussing now the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill.When we look at what has been proposed by the Government around the Historic Places Act I do not think we can underestimate what a fundamental shift this is for the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. I concur with and would like to reiterate the vote of thanks the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage made to the many many serving board members and volunteers who over the years have contributed to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Labour joins in thanking all of them for their service in the past and their ongoing service to heritage in New Zealand.This bill has tackled a few issues around things like archaeological consenting processes. It has ensured that there is not duplication when it comes to the Resource Management Act. It has put the new organisation of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga on a statutory footing forms a new governance structure around that body and establishes transition provisions between the bill disestablishing branch committees removing three positions for elected board members and instead creating two new positions for board members appointed by the Minister. All of that is articulated by this bill.We did express some concerns during this process around ensuring a proper transition from the Historic Places Trust to these new arrangements. We were concerned that the transitional arrangement proposed in one of the clauses could be stronger. It wasa clause added by the select committee. We thought it could be made stronger by including support for the society’s incorporation of a branch and by providing standard or template rules to assist branches. I think we did that with a mind to the fact that volunteers have been involved in these organisations for so long that surely lending a hand in that regard could only have been helpful.Ultimately though it has been our view that there were grounds for these changes. We did support them but we also want to make sure that we put on record the ongoing issues around heritage protection in New Zealand that are significant fraught and not easily resolved but unfortunately go un-debated in this place and have gone un-debated for far too long. I want to traverse a couple of those now. Obviously the issue post the Christchurch earthquake has been increasing insurance premiums around heritage buildings. That is an issue on one level obviously when they are Crown-owned buildings for the Crown to cope with. But often of course we are seeing heritage buildings that are in private ownership where owners no longer see the fiscal gain in their owning a building that perhaps they might lease but now has a significant insurance cost attached to it.If you were to take this example for instance and apply it to a small town like Te Aroha—[Interruption] I am not sure how many buildings they have that might be listed but in Te Aroha there are a number of beautiful historic buildings in that place. Many of them will be in private ownership and with insurance premiums being what they are their ability to bring in rent to cover that is significantly diminished. So what are we likely to see in those cases? Well—not necessarily through any desire by a building owner—we will see I am sad to say demolition by neglect. What provisions are there to try to prevent that from happening in some of our towns and indeed our cities? Another challenge we consistently see is planning laws not meeting the public’s expectation around heritage protection. There have been countless examples in Auckland where we have heard the mantra again from heritage groups “This must never happen again.” and yet it does time and time again. The process of proper listing of heritage buildings comes up every time there is a review of a unitary plan in our city in particular as well.All of this must surely lead to the conclusion that it is time for a national statement on heritage issues. That would be the way that we could set out the parameters the guidelines and the public expectations around heritage in New Zealand. Labour has called in the past for a select committee to review this issue and all of the tangled web of heritage issues that at a local level we continually come up against. Unfortunately that was voted down by this Government. But I say again: yes we support this bill but we support a wider review of the considerable heritage issues we continue to face which are particularly stark at present and that will be only to the benefit of New Zealand’s future heritage and preservation of heritage.