te Heuheu Georgina: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Historic Places Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15562] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 In rising to speak to the Historic Places Amendment Bill I want to confirm that the National Party likewise takes very seriously the protection of our historic heritage. In that regard National would have been pleased to support this amendment bill but we find that the amendments proposed by the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage do not go anywhere near fulfilling the responsibilities she has outlined and National will oppose the bill. 
As the Minister has already said the bill amends the Historic Places Act of 1993 to adjust both the governance and the accountability of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Among other matters it also amends the provisions in relation to the registration of historic places including wahi tapu. The 1993 Act gives the trust a range of functions and powers including protecting archaeological sites maintaining a register of places of historic and cultural heritage and owning and managing heritage properties. All New Zealanders depend upon this Parliament to make sure that we as a people as a country—a nation—take all steps reasonable to maintain our historic heritage. So of course as I said earlier National is very supportive of the underlying principles that surround the preservation of our historic heritage. But as I said also we have serious reservations about the amendments being proposed in the bill and I will come to that presently. 
Although the trust exercises regulatory responsibilities and receives funding by way of parliamentary appropriations it is not currently regarded as a Crown entity as the Minister said. Regarding such accountability arrangements it is proposed that the trust become a Crown entity with the same accountability requirements as other Crown entities such as Te Papa and Creative New Zealand. Provisions for this change are included in a Supplementary Order Paper currently before the House that amends the public finance legislation advancing the reform of Crown entities. National is currently looking at those amendments. We have not quite come to a judgment whether those in themselves are appropriate or acceptable. So there is doubt I think as to whether the provision to make the Historic Places Trust a Crown entity is warranted or appropriate. 
Regarding governance the size of the trust board is reduced from 11 to nine members and the number of Crown appointments is increased from three out of 11 to become six out of nine. I heard the Minister commending Dame Ann Salmond and the members of the trust for the fine work they have been doing. I have to wonder why then the Government sees fit to reduce the number of members of a board that has clearly been doing a good job—and within constraints at particular times. It now also sees fit to increase the number of members on that trust board to be appointed by the Government. As I said the total number goes from 11 to nine and three of those appointments under the current legislation are Crown appointments; under the provisions advanced here the Crown presence on the board will go to six out of nine members. From National’s point of view it looks to us as if the Government wants to exercise even greater ministerial control over the trust. I cannot see how that fits with the praise that the Minister was giving the trust a minute ago for the way that it has been discharging its responsibilities. It looks to us like more “Helengrad” State control. One has to wonder whether in the context of preserving our historic heritage that is appropriate; we do not think it is. That is one of the reasons why we are opposing this bill today. 
The other area is the very high profile area of wahi tapu. With regard to the trust’s heritage responsibilities which is the way that the new provisions have been characterised the bill repeals and supposedly clarifies certain sections of the Act that deal with the registration of historic places and wahi tapu ostensibly to enhance the trust’s ability to fulfil its heritage responsibilities. But I have to say speaking on behalf of National that we believe that whatever the Minister’s intentions were in dealing with this area the bill fails to provide a satisfactory solution to the issue of wahi tapu. We know how vexed an issue it is and we know how much of a high profile matter it can become. National believes that the amendments proposed here today are minor particularly given the background against which this matter has been debated over the last 3 or 4 years. Of course we had substantial debates on it when we were doing the local government reform not so long ago and it also arises in the context of the Resource Management Act. It is an issue up and down the country for both landowners and I guess Maori who particularly look for appropriate protection of wahi tapu areas. 
We have no confidence that the changes proposed in this amendment bill will actually address some of the issues that arise and have arisen over the last few years. As I say we believe the amendments are minor and that far more substantive reform is required both to protect the legitimate rights of landowners but also to bring some clarity and certainty to Maori who assert rights over wahi tapu from one end of the country to the other. It is an issue that has to be dealt with certainly in the regions and at local government level. We think it deserves changes that are fair to all sides of the equation and actually remove a lot of the angst and the sadness—quite frankly sometimes these things have arisen in such a way as to make one cringe—that often occur when issues like wahi tapu are discussed and are blown up to become quite controversial. 
National opposes this bill. We think it just increases the opportunity for ministerial control. We do not see that as being appropriate. We also think that the contentious issues surrounding wahi tapu—an important concept—are not being dealt with in a substantive way and that the bill will bring neither clarity nor certainty to either landowners or those Maori tribal groups who seek both clarity and certainty. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 This is an important bill and I am very proud that this Government has taken its obligations to the culture and heritage sectors very very seriously. We have put our money where our mouth is so to speak. We have backed our commitment with a significant programme of funding and legislation. I was interested to hear the previous speaker concentrate on the reduction in board membership but she failed to mention anything about dollars. Well this Government has put up the dollars and I know that that has been greatly appreciated by the sector. It is all very well to talk but we have walked the walk; we have backed up the talk. 
Mind you I am not surprised at the comments that have been made by Opposition members in regard to this matter because it is tough winning money for the cultural and arts sectors. It is not always hugely popular. One does have to spend a lot of time talking and listening carefully to the community. It is not like putting money into sport or other areas that everybody is almost afraid to say no to. Have members ever heard anybody say we should not put money into sport? Of course not. We do have to fight lobby and negotiate carefully to win money for the arts and I am very proud of what our Government has done in the area of arts culture and heritage. 
One of the rich ironies of that attitude in respect of the National Party in the past is that I remember sitting in the House during the Rt Hon Jim Bolger’s valedictory speech and one of my abiding memories was his stating he wished he had done more for the arts—it was a bit like Bob Hawke saying he wished he had done more for the Aboriginal people of Australia. Nevertheless Mr Bolger had had plenty of time to do something about it. It was a bit of a shame that he left it to his valedictory speech to mention anything about it. 
I strongly believe that if we do not protect our past we undermine our future. I pay particular acknowledgment reference and appreciation to the many volunteers out there in the New Zealand community who help to protect arts culture and heritage in New Zealand—those thousands of regional organisations large and small that keep fostering arts culture and heritage in our small and larger communities. I refer to the building owners who at their own personal expense ensure that their buildings are kept at a safe standard maintained and decorated in a style that befits the architecture of them. Also there are the thousands of enthusiasts throughout New Zealand who help to give us all strength by what they do in a voluntary capacity. 
One of the other indicative attitudinal responses from the National Party was the comment from Wayne Mapp—he is not misquoted because it is from his own newsletter the  
Mapp Report 
—that in a National alternative budget in 2001 he wanted to cancel wasteful programmes and reduce spending on arts and culture by 30 percent. What a short-sighted approach! It is typical. Sadly it appeals to the uninformed and perhaps less forward-looking members of the community and National kowtows to them with that short-sighted approach. It was a foolhardy statement. Of course National has consistently voted against protecting very very important New Zealand cultural institutions as it did with the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. It is just incredible in its short-sightedness. 
This is a splendid bill and I sincerely hope that many members around the House will support it. We do need to look after our past and by doing so we are looking after our future.