Historic Places Amendment Bill

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) Link to this

I move, That the Historic Places Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Since its establishment in 1954 the New Zealand Historic Places Trust has functioned under the Historic Places Act to promote the identification, protection, and preservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand. The trust has played a central role in advocating for heritage values and educating New Zealanders about avenues available for the preservation of heritage sites and buildings.

The trust’s efforts in keeping New Zealand’s heritage alive and encouraging others to do so has, I think, been widely valued and recognised. Today’s climate is one in which the importance of remembering the past is recognised both by Government and by growing numbers of New Zealanders. As people we have moved beyond the bottom-line focus of the 1990s and into an era in which we recognise that our country is not well served if heritage values are constantly overridden by the interests of commercial imperatives.

We know there is a balance to be struck between progress and conservation. We have recognised, too, that in a climate of globalisation we need, now more than ever, to assert our own New Zealand identity that both enhances our experience of living in this country and helps us present a strong and unique face to the world. New Zealand’s heritage is a foundation of that national identity, and, in recognition of the importance of our heritage, the Government has produced a comprehensive package of funding and legislative change aimed at strengthening provisions to protect our legacy from the past. This has included amendment to the Resource Management Act of 1991 to strengthen local authority responsibility for historic heritage management; the introduction of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill currently before Parliament, which addresses shortcomings in the Antiquities Act of 1975 and safeguards New Zealand and international cultural heritage objects; the establishment of the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund; and the best-practice Policy for Government Departments’ Management of Historic Heritage document.

We have continued support for regional museums through the capital construction projects fund, and we have increased operating funding for Te Papa. We have also funded the hugely significant Kerikeri heritage bypass, the road around the Stone Store and the Kemp House, and we have also funded a series of baseline increases for the Historic Places Trust over successive years to enable it to implement its statutory responsibilities. Indeed, in the last Budget the trust was given a further $12.8 million over the next 4 years. Combined with earlier increases, the trust’s annual funding from Government has risen to $10.4 million in 2006-07 from $3.7 million in 1999-2000.

The Government’s significant funding contribution to the trust is reflected in our decision to make the trust an autonomous Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act. The Crown entity structure formalises the accountability relationship between the trust and the Government. It better reflects the trust’s status as a statutory organisation with delegated regulatory powers that have an impact on private property rights.

The Historic Places Amendment Bill that we are passing today is a key component of the Government’s programme of changes in the heritage sector. Protection of our historic places requires a strong and effective agency at the national level, an agency with an overview of historic heritage management issues. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust does a most valuable job in fulfilling its responsibilities as defined by the legislation at present. In reviewing and amending the Historic Places Act, the Government looks to strengthen what is already in place and to enhance the trust’s ability to carry out its existing role and regulatory responsibilities.

In summary, the bill enhances the trust’s governance arrangements by reducing the size of the board from 11 to nine members and by increasing the number of Government appointees from three to six, while retaining the three elected members who are elected by members of the Historic Places Trust regionally around New Zealand. The legislation introduces an enhanced notification and submissions regime for affected parties and clarifies sections of the Act that are unclear or difficult to administer.

The changes to the make-up of the board will ensure balance of expertise and, along with the trust’s new Crown entity status, will strengthen its accountability to Government. This is appropriate and necessary, given the significantly increased funding from Government as a proportion of the trust’s overall budget and the important bearing the trust’s regulatory responsibilities have on private property rights. The trust’s key role in the well-being of New Zealand’s historic heritage is also recognised through this legislation. The changes do not, however, impinge in any way on the freedom of the trust to carry out its functions at arm’s length from Government.

The purpose of the other major provisions in the bill—the enhanced notifications and submissions regime—is to provide for greater transparency and accountability and for more involvement by affected parties in the process of registering historic places, wāhi tapu, historic areas, and wāhi tapu areas.

The Government has been pleased to see the positive response overall from the heritage community to the intent and the spirit of this bill. Certainly, there has been a sense that the tenor of the bill is supported by the community that recognises and respects the invaluable service that members of the trust and the trust as a whole have provided to New Zealanders during its long history. I am confident that the provisions of the bill will enhance the ability of the Historic Places Trust to perform its role as New Zealand’s key national heritage organisation.

I thank all of the members of the trust, particularly the board members and the members of the Māori Heritage Council, who have done so much towards developing and promoting this legislation. I look forward to seeing the trust strengthened by the significant extra funding and with the appropriate legislative framework, positioned to be able to continue to assist in the protection and management of New Zealand’s heritage into the future for the well-being of all New Zealanders. I commend the progress of this bill to the House.

TIM GROSER (National) Link to this

Given the obfuscation that has surrounded the Historic Places Amendment Bill, it might be useful for me to start with a description of what, in National’s view, this bill is not about. First of all, it is not about the principle of which of the two major parties supports arts, culture, and heritage. I fully understand the wish of the Government to try to make it into a test of that principle, but that is not, in fact, what this bill is about. Nor is it about the importance of preserving and enhancing New Zealand’s heritage, and which party is in favour of that principle.

As we just heard from the Minister supporting the Prime Minister, Judith Tizard, the Historic Places Trust was an institution established by a National Government in 1954. Further National Governments, over the ensuing period, have taken a very close interest in this issue. It is vital to our country that we have a proper structure in place to enhance and preserve New Zealand’s heritage; it is part of defining us as a people. Nor, moving down the chain of specificity, is the legislation about the desirability—in the case of Māori sacred sites, wāhi tapu—of having a structure in place to preserve and enhance those sites truly sacred to Māori people and which are a huge part of our national identity.

On these central issues, there is, in fact, a very high degree of consensus between the two major parties, and no doubt, it would be shared by some of the third parties also. That is not what National’s concerns are about. Our concerns are quite specific. First of all, we are concerned about the implementation of those principles. It is about what really constitutes good and appropriate governance for the trust. We know—not just in this context, but more generally—what constitutes the Labour Government’s default option on all governance questions. This is obvious, and I think hardly registers on the political Richter scale. But if we look across at more important issues facing this country, we can see quite clearly that the Labour Government’s default response to every governance issue is larger Government involvement equals better Government involvement. It is a mind-set that seems irrevocably part of its outlook and it inculcates its world view of practically all issues, large and small.

So when we come to see the application of this mind-set, we see once again, what it means. It means—as National members have explained previously—increasing very considerably the ratio of Government-appointed members to “volunteers”, as one may wish to call them. This will have a dramatic effect of strengthening the bureaucratic control mechanisms. It is partly what the bill is about and we think there are severe limitations to this approach.

The Historic Places Trust has operated on the basis of volunteers. It has proven its worth and there are absolutely adequate mechanisms in place for ensuring accountability of public funds. This institution has already been listed an autonomous Crown entity in the 2004 Act bearing that name. I have run an autonomous Crown entity—Asia 2000—in the past, and I know that the Crown Entities Act has all the mechanisms in place to ensure accountability. Of course we agree that when public funding is put into any institution, such as this trust, there must be adequate mechanisms in place. But the 2004 Act fully provides the Government with the administrative, governance, and management tools to achieve those objectives without translating this into a mechanism for ensuring a more bureaucratic structure of control. Obviously, this also raises the danger of cronyism.

So what will we see in the future? More and more Government place holders put into the trust, replacing the volunteers who have run this successfully over 30, 40, and 50 years. This is a concern of members on the National side of the House. With a non-problem—as it were—having been fixed, as National members have explained in the past, what the Act does not do is then address the real problem. I referred to the elephant in the room in the Committee stage of this bill.

The real problem—the fundamental problem—is the lack of clarity in the definitions in the Act on what constitutes sacred sites, wāhi tapu. We accept the principle; it is absolutely essential that the legitimate sites of great historical importance are adequately protected. But we all know that the Act as it stands—and this amendment does nothing to correct the situation—leaves people completely confused. It has confused landowners, who may be Pākehā or Māori, or landowners of any description. It has confused the councils and it has confused the planners. It has confused people who wish to develop this country. Given that this legislation was an ideal opportunity to address that deficiency, we are concerned that no attempt has been made to impart some clarity to this decision. On this side of the House, I think we know full well why. The reason this Government finds it so difficult to fix the compliance legislation in this country, whether it is here, or in the Resource Management Act, or elsewhere, is the same mentality of control.

The Government does not seem to mind the huge time delays involved in this—the fact that developers are held back. There are legitimate reasons why these issues should go through a Government process. Once again, it is not the principle; it is the way in which it is administered that imparts a degree of confusion. It is a very real issue for landowners in this country. We have a concept that is completely nebulous. It must be addressed in due course. This bill does not fix it and I think it is time that somebody stood up and did the business that would remedy it. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

I will take a short call to support the third reading of the Historic Places Amendment Bill. This Government has taken its obligations to the cultural and heritage sectors very seriously, and it has backed up this commitment with a significant programme of funding and legislation. This bill is part of that programme, and its purpose is to amend and strengthen the governing arrangements of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, to enhance the trust’s accountability to the Government, and to clarify and adjust some of the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993.

I note, of course, that National is voting against the bill, which is a very disturbing trend. If members on the opposite side of the House ever had the opportunity to be in Government, I think the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra would be worried, and many of our flagship cultural institutions would be very worried. It would be bad news for the development of New Zealand’s arts and cultural sector. I am pleased to be part of a party that supports those very important institutions, and I take pride in supporting this bill.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

In answer to what the honourable member Darien Fenton said in her Labour research unit speech, this is not a general debate about the value of cultural and arts institutions. National does not do anything other than strongly support the place of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. If the member knew her legislative history, she would know full well that it was the National Government in 1954 that formed the Historic Places Trust, and it was the National Government in 1980 and 1993 that instigated general reviews of the legislation. So my suggestion to that honourable member is that she should get off her flea-bitten old nag and look at the facts instead of engaging in her tired and tiresome rhetoric.

But at least there was a contribution from that honourable member. The Committee stage of the debate was, I regret to say, a complete waste of time. No rigorous analysis was undertaken of the clauses of the bill. National, the Māori Party, and the Green MPs raised legitimate issues, but I regret to say that the Labour MPs sat like comatose zombies and made no effort to engage in the debate. Unfortunately, debating the issues—as evidenced by the previous speaker, who debated irrelevancies—is not their strong suit. Why anyone would want to enter Parliament to become a Labour MP, then to putrefy on the Labour benches and make no contribution to debates, absolutely escapes me.

National opposes the third reading of this bill, and there are two key reasons for that. First, the governance provisions proposed by clause 19 will destroy the character of the trust. In the Committee stage, on two occasions, I traced the legislative history of the Historic Places Trust since its establishment in 1954. I took honourable members in the Committee stage through each of the changes that had been made to the legislation, and emphasised that although there had sometimes been major changes to the legislation since 1954, what had not changed was the basic underlying philosophy of the membership of the board, which emphasised community involvement in heritage issues, the principle of volunteerism, and the need to have the trust’s board reflect those principles in its membership. Now, as my colleague and friend Mr Groser has said, membership of the board will be dominated by ministerial appointments. If one looks at clause 19, which substitutes a new section 42, one can see that only three of the nine persons on the board will be elected by members of the trust in accordance with certain regulations, and six will be appointed by the Minister.

The reasons given for this change to ministerial control of this great organisation are as follows. First, ostensibly, it is to improve governance. But we were never told why. We were also told it would improve accountability, which is absolute rubbish, because the trust is already an autonomous Crown entity. I refer members to section 7 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 and to the first schedule of that Act, where the trust is named. Those important issues were never addressed. We were never told anything about governance; we were never told anything about accountability.

The second key reason why we oppose the bill is that the proposed registration procedures lack rigour. I refer members to clause 9 of the bill, which amends section 28, and to similar provisions in section 32A, inserted by clause 13. If one looks at the various persons who can apply to register a historic place, one can see that five types of organisations or persons can make applications, including, for example, as stated in section 28(1)(d), inserted by clause 9: “any incorporated society or body corporate engaged in or having as one of its objects the protection of historical and cultural heritage:”. Frankly, that could include a group of extremists who decide to form an incorporated society and say they support the protection of cultural heritage, and who then have some kind of standing to make submissions on whether registrations should proceed. There is no rigour to the process to ensure the integrity of such a claim, and it is important to note there is no provision in the bill for the appointment of independent experts to verify claims.

In contrast, I refer members to a bill that will be coming to the House in the next few days, which is the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. Provision is made in that bill for the appointment in certain circumstances of expert examiners to determine whether permission should be granted for certain goods to be exported from New Zealand. The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage must be satisfied that the expert examiners with whom he or she consults are experts in the field relevant to the particular application for permission. We really need provisions of that kind in the clauses of this bill so that there can be the requisite rigour, and so that when a decision is made by the trust to register—to quote the proposed amendment to section 31 set out in clause 11 of the bill—it can truly be “satisfied that the proposal is supported by sufficient evidence,”. That is a very important phrase, but no guidance is given as to what analysis is to be undertaken so that the trust can be satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence.

Having come to this legislation and looked at it very closely in the course of the second reading and the Committee stage, I am of the view that the Historic Places Act needs a thorough review. In that I endorse what my friend Mrs Kedgley said, because I think she is right—it needs a good review. I say to members that only a National Government can and will do that. I remind honourable members once again that National established the trust in 1954 and updated the legislation in 1980 and 1993. All this Labour Government can do is to fiddle with various provisions and destroy the governance regime of the trust.

Even then, the legislative history of this bill is nothing short of appalling. I refer members to page 16 of the bill. This amendment bill was introduced on 5 August 2004, referred to the Government Administration Committee on 9 September 2004, came out of the select committee on 21 February 2005, and did not receive a second reading until 10 May 2006. Quite simply, that is a disgrace. Thereafter, things positively motored, because we had the second reading on 10 May and the Committee stage later in May and again in June.

But that is an example of how this House is not operating properly. The legislative history of this bill is crummy. This legislation is crummy, and it really needs a thorough review. National opposes this bill and exhorts other parties in the House to do the same.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

The Green Party strongly supports the retention of New Zealand’s heritage buildings and Māori sacred sites, or wāhi tapu. We are deeply, deeply concerned about the continuing destruction of much of our heritage and about the fact that, basically, historic places and buildings in New Zealand are still largely unprotected in our law. We are also very concerned about the fact that 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, and about the fact that, all over New Zealand, heritage sites and buildings are still being bulldozed, and have been bulldozed over the past century. New Zealand is so much the poorer for it.

There is an understanding between Transit and the Historic Places Trust that if Transit wants the site of an historic place for a road, the trust will not stand in its way. So in Wellington, as one example, our most historic area, Te Aro, which is a wonderful heritage area, has basically been removed to build a motorway. The Historic Places Trust basically just capitulated to a request from Transit and allowed 46 historic homes to be knocked down or shifted. So we agree with the previous speaker that what we really need at this time, and what this bill really should be about, is a fundamental review of the Historic Places Trust and of how we can give it more teeth so that New Zealand’s remaining historic heritage does not continue to be bulldozed.

The parts of New Zealand that have retained their heritage—for example, Timaru, Ōāmaru, and Wanganui—have benefited hugely from that. They have become tourist sites. There is a huge attraction to those areas just because they stand out from other parts of New Zealand because they have actually retained their heritage. But so many other parts have lost much of their heritage and, as I said, we are all the poorer for it.

In relation to the question about why the Historic Places Trust has virtually no teeth, I have here a report from February this year. A historic Pētone building is about to be bulldozed and replaced with a new apartment complex after a developer received the green light from the Hutt City Council. The article goes on to point out that the Historic Places Trust strongly opposed the demolition, that the trust heritage adviser said that buildings contributing to Pētone’s historic character should be protected, and that the decision was disappointing. So in the end the Historic Places Trust was left wringing its hands and allowing yet another precious historic building in New Zealand to be demolished. We think that is what the bill should have been about—giving teeth to the Historic Places Trust to protect our remaining heritage. We strongly support any moves by this Government or any subsequent Government to review the Historic Places Trust.

We support the bill but we do have some very serious reservations, in particular about new section 42 in clause 19, which states that to represent Māori on the Historic Places Trust one no longer has to be Māori. This provision was opposed by the Māori Heritage Council, by the Historic Places Trust, and by many of the submitters, but the Government Administration Committee simply ignored their submissions and it never gave any justification as to why we now have a new definition in law that could set a new precedent across all law in New Zealand that one no longer needs to be Māori in order to represent and advocate for Māori. How ridiculous is that? Why was no justification for it given in this bill?

We might as well say that we no longer need women in various positions on various boards, we can just have men as long as they have a little bit of an understanding of women’s issues. We could start appointing men all over New Zealand, saying that they are advocates for women. That would be ridiculous, and so, too, it is ridiculous that this legislation states that one no longer has to be Māori to advocate for Māori.

The Māori Heritage Council pointed out that whakapapa is the foundation of Māori identity as tangata whenua and it is crucial that the relationship between Māori and their historic and cultural heritage is retained. The council basically said that people need to have whakapapa to be able to advocate for Māori, and in particular for the preservation of Māori’s historic and cultural heritage. We think this provision sets a new, bizarre, and dangerous precedent that we are completely opposed to. It seems to be incredibly patronising and condescending, and it has no justification. No reason was given whatsoever.

So we do have that very serious reservation about the bill, but we rather grudgingly support it, despite the fact that the Government opposed our amendment to change clause 19 and remove that anomaly. We support the bill only because we are committed to supporting the Historic Places Trust, even though we regret the fact that it is so lacking in teeth and lacking in power that over the past decades it has stood by and watched historic building after historic building, and historic Māori site after historic Māori site, be bulldozed and demolished because it does not have sufficient strength to stop it.

We believe there needs to be review of that, and also of the way in which regional and territorial authorities carry out their functions. We believe there needs to be much more funding and much more priority given to retaining what is left of our heritage in New Zealand.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this

The Historic Places Amendment Bill seems on the surface to be bread and butter legislation that mainly reorganises the structure of the Historic Places Trust. In fact, its provisions are set upon three important principles, and I would like to go through them one by one. The first principle is: who pays the piper calls the tune. There can be no doubt that funding for the Historic Places Trust has increased dramatically over the past few years from $4.5 million in 2002-03 to $7.5 million in the last financial year. Moreover, the Government has initiated the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund to be administered by the trust to encourage the preservation of privately owned and nationally significant heritage properties, and, once again, a significant amount of money is to be distributed through that process.

Increasingly it is the Government, as the representative of taxpayers, that is paying the piper. Therefore, it makes sense and it is totally justified to tip the proportion of membership of the trust to Government appointees.

The second principle is that no Government should allow greater membership of a statutory body than is essential for the task to be carried out. There are ongoing costs to the taxpayer resulting from the number of members of statutory bodies such as this. I would have thought the Opposition would agree with that principle, yet quite incomprehensibly it has argued against the reduction of this body from 11 to nine members.

The third principle relates to what the member was talking about just before, and that is the amendments to the qualifications and attributes required for the three Māori appointees included in the six Government appointees. I want to read these out, as outlined in new section 42(3) in clause 19: “At least 3 of the persons appointed under subsection (1)(b) must, in the opinion of the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs, be qualified for appointment, having regard to their knowledge of te ao Maori (Maori worldview) and tikanga Maori (Maori protocol and culture).”

One would not have to be a genius to work out that 99.99 percent of those appointees will be Māori by ethnicity, but New Zealand First has always argued that such positions should be filled by the people who have the requisite knowledge and understanding, etc., rather than the DNA in their blood.

A couple of weekends ago I attended the opening of a museum exhibition called Ko Tawa. The exhibition was opened by the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage on a very wet and cold morning in Whangarei, and I must admit that other than Dave Hereora, I was the only MP to turn up. Ko Tawa is an exhibition of selected pieces from the works collected by Major Gilbert Mair. It was quite a stunning and outstanding collection of over 200 pieces, but the most important pieces were selected for exhibition. I must admit that Paul Tapsell and his team from the Auckland Museum have done just an absolutely marvellous job of curating that exhibition. Gilbert Mair was in fact born in Whangarei, up in the Ngunguru area. Included in the collection, for example, is the kōauau reputedly used by Tūtanekai, for example. There is a rain cape there that Te Kooti gave Mair in honour of his friendship. He said that it would not keep the rain off him, but that it demonstrated his love for him. Yet Gilbert Mair had led the forces that had attempted to capture Te Kooti on the East Coast over many years. It is a remarkable piece.

Gilbert Mair, however, was totally Pākehā. He was baptised by Māori, he spoke the Māori language, and he had a great understanding of Māori culture but, if the Greens had their way, he would not be able to be appointed to the proposed board.

The other little irony that occurred there was that during the pōwhiri, which I must admit was somewhat unusual, the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Mahara Okeroa, spoke, and then had to turn to find somebody to do his waiata for him. Dave Hereora was there, but the person who had to step up to the plate, in the absence of anybody else to do that, was yours truly. In other words, maybe I could be appointed to that board.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker; it is nice to see you this evening. I spoke earlier today about the loss to the nation of two treasured kōeke. Last night, we of Te Arawa mourned the loss of another of our greatly treasured kuia, and indeed the loss of a legacy, in the passing of the kuia Guide Bubbles Mihinui. We spoke of her passing earlier today in the House. Moe mai e kui i roto i ngā ringaringa o te wāhi ngaro.

[Slumber there in the hands of the world of the dead.]

Guide Bubbles learnt her craft as a protégé of Guide Rangi, Rangitiaria Dennan, and Guide Bella, Bella Papakura. In the mid-1930s her grandfather, Waretini, said that Bubbles had had enough of Pākehā schooling, and it was time for her to learn the family traditions, and learn about tourism and the oral history of the old people.

Guide Bubbles became an apprentice guide in 1936, and in 1938 was appointed as a guide for the then Government Tourist Bureau. Following the death of Guide Rangi, she became senior guide at Whakarewarewa in 1970. In all, she spent some 70 years in the service of the community, guiding people from all over the world around the geothermal areas of Whakarewarewa. Her legacy is of critical importance to this nation, and her experience is part of the rich history of this land, which must not be lost to future generations. Te Arawa has lost a cultural icon—one of the treasured line of guides who have placed Whakarewarewa on the map.

It is fitting, then, that today we come to the Historic Places Amendment Bill and appreciate the significance of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in giving emphasis to the historic places of our heritage. Our sites of significance, our places of cultural heritage, are hugely important to tangata whenua. Our cultural history is enshrined in those places; they demonstrate and describe the stories that present a picture of the foundation of this nation. In valuing those historic places, we can all play a part in preserving the vitality of Aotearoa for years to come.

It was therefore with great disappointment that we came to this bill, realising that in essence it would do very little to strengthen the protective powers of the Historic Places Trust or, indeed, of the Māori Heritage Council. One of the major concerns with regard to this bill is the representation of Māori. At the second reading, Māori Party members raised concerns around the newly redefined requirements for the Māori board members who have served on the Historic Places Trust. Our particular concern was the removal of ethnicity—the deletion of being Māori as one of the key factors in board membership. The bill serves to reduce and dilute the strength of Māori representation, by providing that those members just have knowledge about Māori rather than be Māori. The Historic Places Trust, the Māori Heritage Council, and other submitters opposed that, but the select committee chose to ignore their submissions and instead to continue the practice of targeting Māori. Post Ōrewa and post Budget, the message we are getting very clearly is not to mention the word Māori, not to ask for any Budget money for Māori, and not to be Māori.

The Māori Party is therefore very happy to support Supplementary Order Paper 33 put forward by Sue Kedgley to amend clause 19, which respects the importance of whakapapa as the foundation of Māori identity. In a literal translation of that concept, “papa” is anything broad or flat, such as a flat rock, a slab, or a board. “Whakapapa”, then, means to place in layers, or to lay one upon another. Hence the term whakapapa describes the recitation in proper order of genealogies and also names those genealogies. The picture we get from the term whakapapa is of building layer by layer upon the past towards the present, and on into the future. Whakapapa may include not just the genealogies but also the many spiritual, mythological, and human stories that give strength to the genealogical backbone of a people.

One would think the concept of whakapapa should be absolutely tied to the core work programme and philosophy of the Historic Places Trust. Indeed, it is a concept that the Attorney-General sought specific legal advice on in 2004, in asking whether the Historic Places Amendment Bill was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The advice received by the Attorney-General noted that the specific responsibilities of the council in relation to Māori culture and heritage would be enhanced by the involvement of Māori, because only persons of Māori ethnicity possess the attributes of, firstly, whakapapa and whakawhanaungatanga connections based on descent and ancestry and, secondly, kaitiakitanga, or guardianship status, of Māori heritage.

The advice received by the Attorney-General clearly noted that whakapapa and whakawhanaungatanga are the fundamental relationships between Māori and cultural heritage, and are the basis upon which Māori can claim standing on marae and communicate effectively with tangata whenua at a local level. It went further, to explain that for Māori, the kaitiaki relationship with heritage is reserved for appropriate persons of Māori ethnicity and tribal affiliation, and involves the safeguarding of the knowledge of the existence and significance of sites. If that were not proof enough, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage also advised that appointments made to the council solely on the basis of a person’s qualifications and experience, without reference to Māori ethnicity, would affect the credibility and mana of the trust in relation to its statutory responsibility to protect Māori culture and heritage.

Given that background, I thought it was extremely disappointing that the amendment to clause 19 was not supported by the Committee. I want to refer to the comments that the Minister, the Hon Judith Tizard, made at the Committee stage, where she stated: “… I do not agree that anyone required, as in this legislation, to have knowledge of Māori heritage and Māori spiritual values should necessarily be Māori.” The advice presented to the Attorney-General just 2 brief years ago noted: “In our view, the provisions of the Bill that require the Council to include four Māori members are rationally and proportionately connected to the aim of enhancing the ability of the Trust to fulfil its functions under the Historic Places Act. Accordingly, we consider that the limitation is justified in terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act.” What has happened in 2 short years, to have such a turnround?

Tangata whenua consider sites of historical and cultural significance to be central to sustaining a living Māori culture, which is the basic premise of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi principle of active protection. The significance of whakapapa in the concept of Māori representation is thus such that it is essential to ensure the trust has the ability to provide protection of taonga consistent with its functions and powers. What we see now with this weakened legislation is that anyone can be “Māori”. The Māori Party believes that if the Government was truly genuine in its intentions towards tangata whenua representation, the board would call for nominations mandated by hapū and iwi, and not open the floodgates to everyone.

The other concerns that we raised throughout this debate were about the need for the Historic Places Trust to have increased powers in order to provide protection of wāhi tapu, and about the importance of local hapū/iwi knowledge to inform the decision making of the trust. We do not believe that this bill addresses the need for entities such as the Historic Places Trust to have some type of formal relationship with whānau, hapū, and iwi or, indeed, with other entities such as those involved in ecosystem protection and restoration.

Finally, I return to Whakarewarewa for a model of the importance of strengthening the cultural and historic heritage provisions for Māori. Seven years ago, in June 1999, the Te Arawa standing committee of Rotorua District Council was presented with a survey of 100 Te Arawa leaders, which expressed particular disquiet, in relation to tourism, that nothing was being put back into the culture, even though tourism was based on the promotion of things Māori. The leaders suggested that Māori could benefit by having the meeting houses and villages at Ōhinemutu and Whakarewarewa maintained. The report further recommended that the council should work with the tourism industry to identify its costs and benefits to Te Arawa. That report promoted the example of local government, central government, and iwi working together to maintain the precious cultural and historic heritage of our significant ancestral sites. Our historic places—our wāhi tapu; our heritage sites—tell us the story of the nation, just as Guide Bubbles protected and preserved the treasured cultural landscape of Te Arawa.

That is what this bill should have done. We are saddened that the heritage of a nation—the significance of the tangata whenua contribution to the shaping of Aotearoa—will not be enhanced by the legislation coming before this House today, and for that reason we will not be supporting this bill. Kia ora tātou.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this

Can I start by saying that there is not a member, I do not think, in this House who does not support and agree with the principles of the Historic Places Trust. To that end, I think, overwhelmingly, there is support for the protection of our historic places. Where the National Party has a difference of opinion over the Government on this issue is that of governance—well, this is one of the differences of opinion that we have. Let me just refer members to the commentary on the bill, where it states: “This bill proposes to strengthen the Trust’s governance arrangements by reducing the size of the Trust Board from 11 to 9 members and increasing the number of Crown appointments from 3 to 6,”.

Now I put it to the House tonight that that is an oxymoron. How can one strengthen the governance of something by reducing the number of board members—those board members who are elected with expertise and chosen from within their various fields of expertise—and increasing the number of Government lackeys that are appointed? How is that a strengthening of the board or of the trust? That is the first question. I would like a Labour member, or the Minister, to take a call and explain that to us. That is the long arm of the State saying: “We know best. You poor, common, unwashed citizens out there have no knowledge of these issues, and we, the all-powerful State, will know how to manage this better.”

Well, history will show any member who cares to spend more than 30 seconds studying it, that that is exactly the opposite to what happens. When one gets the State involved in things that the State has no business in, then the State, generally speaking, makes a worse job of it than those who have the expertise—[Interruption] I ask that member over there from New Zealand First—a very good member of this Parliament—to please take a call. His colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly tried to sustain an argument and defend the indefensible, but that member should take a call and tell us why he thinks the State is a better custodian of historic places than those who have a personal interest in these kinds of affairs. He, I know, would have difficulty with that because he comes from a quite principled position on most issues. So he should take a call and explain to us why that is the case.

I also draw the House’s attention to the second issue that the National Party opposes in this bill, and that is the definition of “wāhi tapu”. Can I relay to the House tonight an issue—

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) Link to this

I am pleased to stand up and support the Historic Places Amendment Bill for the third reading. As Minister of Conservation in this Government, I too have a responsibility for preserving the unique heritage of New Zealand—its natural heritage, of course; the landscape and species that define us and our identity as New Zealand - Aotearoa—but I share that responsibility of preserving the unique heritage of New Zealand with the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, which is headed by none other than our Prime Minister. The Prime Minister when she became Prime Minister of this country in 1999 was the first Prime Minister to ever take the portfolio of culture and heritage, because she, like this Government, believes that it is culture and heritage that help to define us as New Zealanders; to shape our unique identity in the world. This legislation goes some way towards making that task easier.

It has been interesting being in the Chamber and listening to the contributions made by some National Party members in the last few minutes. I was astonished to hear the previous speaker, Mr Ardern, the member for the Taranaki region, somehow tying this bill to “the lights going off”. I was amused to hear that, because, of course, as a member of the House I would remember well the weeks of darkness we had in Auckland during the time of the previous National Government when it certainly was not able to deal with not only the vagaries of weather but also the under-investment in energy infrastructure.

Indeed, I also heard some nonsense a few minutes ago about our not having a farmer who was a Minister of Agriculture. Well, I think that under the previous Government we had a Minister of Health who was not a doctor and a Minister of Education who was not a teacher, and we currently have a National Party spokesperson on Māori affairs who is not Māori, even though there are three Māori members of National’s caucus. I would imagine those three National members who are Māori, and are proud of their Māori heritage, must find it particularly humiliating and infuriating that none of them has been chosen to be spokesperson for Māori issues in this Parliament. However, that is an issue for the National Party, not for me to pass judgment on; but I just reflect on the irony of it.

What I would like to reflect on, though, is the purpose of this bill. It goes some way towards strengthening the Historic Places Trust, which is playing such a useful role in that important task of preserving our heritage. I think of the excellent work, for example, that is taking place in the Kerikeri basin—a place of unique settlement history in our country, where not only were some of the earliest of Māori settlements in this nation, some 800 or 900 years ago, but there was also the beginning of European settlement, such as the stone store and other historic places there that the Historic Places Trust governs.

The governance of the trust itself is strengthened and enhanced by this legislation. We have had comments about the number of trust board members that we reduce from 11 to nine under the bill. We also have an increase in the Government appointees to the board from three to six members. All Governments appreciate the opportunity of appointing experts to those positions. I am sure that in the natural electoral cycle—long may it be away—and when the present Opposition gets its chance to be in Government, which I guess will come one day, it too will take the opportunity to put experts, I hope, rather than lackeys, in those positions. Good governance is something that all Governments care about. The tasks of the Historic Places Trust are really important. It is an important role.

As my colleague Judith Tizard, the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, said in her introductory speech, this legislation will assist in that critical task of heritage preservation. It will make the management and functions of the trust easier, and more effective and efficient. I am certainly very supportive of that role and of the responsibilities I have as conservation Minister.

I am really pleased to be on my feet defending this legislation, and I am looking forward to its passage through the House.