Chauvel Charles: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2056. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Government held a review of archaeological consenting processes within the Historic Places Act in response to some anecdotal evidence that those processes might not have been as streamlined as they could. The focus of the review was solely on ensuring that statutory processes were efficient and streamlined and in particular to reduce any potential for duplication with processes under the Resource Management Act. It is instructive to compare the results of that review with the regulatory impact statement on this bill. The statement notes there were three different types of relevant provisions under the current legislation: there was not really an alignment of processing times between archaeological authorities in resource consent; there was excessive processing time in some cases up to 6 months; and the Maori Heritage Council of the trust did not have input into all applications for archaeological authorities affecting sites of interest to Maori. Although it is interesting to note that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in the regulatory impact statement notes that that overall problem is likely to be small with only 350 applications a year so the rationale for the review was based not on direct evidence of a problem but on perceptions of a problem.  
To the extent that the review was one of the prompters for a redraft of the Act it is helpful I think to look at the provisions of the bill and to consider the main changes it would make. We have heard a summary of some of them from the Minister. Obviously there is going to be a change of the name of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga—Heritage New Zealand—and a reform of the organisation’s governance and structure. Currently the trust has a board it has the Maori Heritage Council and it has branch committees which comprise fee-paying members. As the Minister observed the bill will disestablish the branch committees it will remove the three positions for elected board members that currently exist on the board and it will create two new positions for the board members which will be appointed by the Minister himself. 
 On processes the bill proposes to reduce the maximum time frames for Heritage New Zealand to process applications and will align those time frames with the now well-known procedures that exist under the Resource Management Act. It introduces a simplified application process for proposals that have only a minor effect on archaeology.  
As far as emergency authorities are concerned Heritage New Zealand will have the ability to process archaeological authorities’ applications more speedily following a state of emergency basically by shortening time frames and including weekends and public holidays in the calculation of time frames.  
Labour supports the sending of the bill to a select committee—the Local Government and Environment Committee I believe was the committee the Minister nominated—and it is appropriate that the bill should receive scrutiny at that committee. One of the issues the Opposition will want careful scrutiny paid to is the dispensing with branch committees. We are concerned whenever public input into an entity is diminished and it does seem to us that getting rid of the branch committees does need some thought—does need some examination—at the select committee. The Minister I am sure would not want to see public input and input from members jeopardised. We need to see I think clear evidence that that is not going to occur as a result of removing branch committees from the structure.  
Likewise the risk with the removal of the three members of the existing board who represent the branch committees is obviously again a diminution of public input into the affairs of what is now known as the Historic Places Trust. We would want to see and hear assurances from advisers and others at the committee and to test the evidence on that point that that is not going to lead to the current membership of the trust feeling that they are disempowered and that their opportunities for input into the organisation which at the moment are an important aspect of the affairs of the trust are not diminished or discouraged.  
It will I think be important in the select committee process to exercise vigilance to ensure that the bill in fact strengthens governance and input opportunities and does not come at the expense of archaeological heritage and public participation in safeguarding that heritage. That is I think the prime concern that the Opposition would express at the way in which the bill is drafted and is probably the primary issue that we will want to test at the select committee.  
I think it is also appropriate to make the point that although Labour supports measures to reduce unnecessary costs and delays as I said earlier in respect of the regulatory impact statement on the bill the ministry has noted that one of the major overall problems that the bill would seek to address is small and likely to remain so. The evidence is that there were I think only 350 applications a year that would be affected by one of the major reforms in the bill. So there is a legitimate question in the face of stagnant economic growth record migration to Australia persistently high unemployment and increasing numbers of children suffering from poverty-related illnesses as to whether this is really a priority issue for the Government at this time but if it is then the question has to be asked why it has taken the Minister 2 years after Cabinet asked him to report on the consent process to actually bring changes to Parliament. 
 We will be keen as I say at the select committee to test whether or not this is in fact a measure that will lead to better processes better governance and better public input for the entity that will be known as Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. Despite the reservations that I have mentioned and the nasty little partisan speech that we heard before on the introduction of the bill Labour will support this legislation going to the select committee.