|
 | | |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |
From Heritage New Zealand, Winter 20051995-2004: Moving Onby Liza Rosie
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| Archaeological
excavation of Sam Chew Lain’s house at the Lawrence Chinese camp
in early 2005. Photo: NZHPT |
Despite the passing of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Historic
Places Act 1993, historic heritage remained under considerable pressure,
and in late 1994 and early
1995, individuals, iwi and community groups brought their concerns to
the attention of the Parliamentary Commission for the Environment (PCE).
Some of the matters cited included the modification of wahi tapu and archaeological
sites in Northland, Auckland, Tauranga, the Kapiti Coast and Waipa District.
Particular concern, for example, centred on the continued destruction
of the Otuataua and Matukuturua
stonefields in Manukau City. They had been recognised for their national
and international significance as the last remaining substantial examples
of the stonefield landscape of Auckland (just 200 hectares of an estimated
original 8,000
hectares remained), yet attempts by the Trust, and local and central government
to protect the stonefields had not achieved success.
Other concerns brought to the attention of the PCE were the protection
of historic places on the Otago goldfields and in Auckland. The destruction
of the chimney at the Westfield
Freezing Works in Auckland highlighted the problem of the lack of recognition
of lesser regarded heritage, such as industrial heritage.
The gathering concerns persuaded the PCE that New Zealand’s heritage
management system would benefit from review. Beginning in July 1995, and
subsequently entitled “Historic and Cultural Management in New
Zealand”, the review’s terms of reference focused on the allocation
of powers and functions to public authorities involved in historic heritage
protection and the effectiveness and suitability of procedures for the
protection of historic and cultural heritage.
The review team consulted more than 120 organisations and
individuals across the heritage sector including the Trust. The PCE reported
to Parliament in June 1996. It concluded that:
Historic and cultural heritage is an important part of New Zealand’s
environment and the identity of the national and local communities.There
is a large and growing public appreciation of this heritage and commitment
to its protection.
Some positive achievements are occurring at the local level, principally
through planning procedures under the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA).
However, the system for the management of the historic and cultural heritage
as a whole lacks integrated strategic planning, is poorly resourced and
appears to fall short of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Consequently,
permanent losses of all types of historic and cultural heritage are continuing.
In a commentary that would have later implications for the
Trust’s status, the PCE noted: The Trust is not a Crown Entity,
yet it has statutory regulatory functions.As now constituted in law and
policy, the Trust is a hybrid public
authority and non-governmental organisation and this causes confusion
as to its role and the role of its members. It is not adequately funded
or serviced by the Crown.These problems, as well as some management deficiencies,
have
prevented the Trust from fully realising the role identified by the Government
as the leading agency to promote and assist heritage protection and management.
The PCE recommended the establishment of a government
agency with specific responsibility for policy advice to government on
historic and cultural heritage including the purchase of and monitoring
of service from NZHPT. It saw a need to develop, as a matter of priority,
a detailed national strategy for historic and cultural heritage management
in New Zealand and to amend Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991
so that heritage became a matter of national importance.
 |
| Totara
Estate, birthplace of New Zealand's frozen meat industry. Photo: John Lamb |
Other recommendations concerned the development of
strategies for protecting and managing historic and cultural heritage
of significance to Maori, and a review of registration processes and an
upgrade of the Register. It called for a review of funding, the possibility
of establishing a fund for the acquisition of nationally significant historic
and cultural heritage places, as well as a national incentive fund for
the funding of various heritage protection and management measures. Finally,
there was a recommendation to investigate the possibility of the archaeological
authority provisions of the HPA being placed within the RMA.
As a result of the recommendations of the PCE, the Maori
Heritage Council convened a national hui to develop strategies for protecting
and managing historic and cultural heritage of significance to Maori.The
key resolutions from this hui were that there should be a stand-alone
Maori heritage body, and the Maori Heritage Council would work with the
government to develop a national strategy in consultation with Maori.
In November 1997, less than 18 months after the PCE
reported to Parliament, the Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith, launched
a consequential policy review of New Zealand’s legislation and machinery
of government for historic heritage known as the Historic Heritage Management
Review.
The review had, as its basis, the 1996-1998 coalition agreement between the New Zealand First and National parties, which sought ways to clarify and strengthen legislation protecting heritage sites and buildings.The review recognised the problems identified in the PCE report and the need for a more effective protection of Maori heritage. It implemented the Crown’s commitment included within the Ngai Tahu Deed of Settlement “to undertake a full review of the legislation relating to the protection of land-based historic and cultural heritage, primarily the HPA and the RMA”.
Finally, it took account of the document “Strategic Results Areas
for the Public Sector”, which outlined the need to develop a new
policy framework both to improve the
protection and management of New Zealand’s historic heritage and
stimulate and affirm New Zealand’s evolving identity and cultural
heritage.The Historic Heritage Management Review was to have big implications
for the Trust.
The Board and Maori Heritage Council welcomed the review, prepared a preliminary response and then sought feedback from members and the wider community in a series of public meetings and hui. At the end of this process, the Board and the Maori Heritage Council made their own submissions.
Some of the Board’s submission, “Building on the Best”,
echoed recommendations in the PCE report, and proposed the establishment
of a new government department or Crown entity that would take over the
Trust’s statutory and regulatory processes and be responsible for
a National Register.This new organisation would include a separate division
for Maori heritage. The Trust would remain an advocacy body.
 |
| The
first stage of restoration work on the Stone Store, Kerikeri, was
completed in 1998. Photo: Rafael Ben-Ari |
The Maori Heritage Council submission,“Na Te Ao Hurihuri
ma Te Ao Marama”, also included a recommendation to establish a separate
government department with a specific unit for Maori heritage. In addition
there should be support for Maori to protect their own heritage. Other
recommendations included provision for financial support for the conservation
of marae and funding to assist private owners of historic properties.
The Ministerial Advisory Committee’s report was released in
October 1998. From the Trust’s point of view, the key conclusion
reached was that the regulatory provisions of the HPA should be removed
and that the RMA should be amended to enhance its provisions for historic
heritage. Included in this was the proposal to repeal the statutory protection
of archaeological sites under the HPA and its integration into the RMA.
Among the other key conclusions was that the Trust should
remain an independent statutory body, but as an advocacy and public membership
organisation without regulatory powers; that a distinct Maori heritage
agency be established by Government to provide for Maori heritage policy
and leadership; and that a Ministry for Culture and Heritage be established
as the primary source of policy and purchase advice to government on historic
heritage.
Some of the initiatives proposed by the Ministerial Advisory
Committee were included in an amendment of the Resource
Management Amendment Act introduced to Parliament in 1999. On 1 September
1999, the Government’s responsibility for the Historic Places Act
and the Trust shifted from the Department of Conservation to the newly
established Ministry for Culture and Heritage.This move, in line with
both reviews, signalled that the Trust’s work was perceived
by Government as contributing primarily to national identity and culture
outcomes rather than primarily to environmental outcomes. It meant that
the Trust was funded and monitored alongside arts and culture organisations.
A major review of the Trust’s organisational structure was initiated
late in 1998. The outcome was a substantial restructuring of the organisation
in 1999/2000 to establish a more capable organisation. Although the Trust
had some regional staff, the emphasis moved towards a much greater regional
presence with the creation of three teams - Northern, Central and Southern
Regions. Each was to be
headed by a regional manager, and would contain advisers in planning and
architecture as well as area co-ordinators with special responsibilities
for branch committees, local interest groups and Trust properties. Archaeologists,
and staff from the previously separate properties and heritage conservation
divisions, were also eventually merged under new regional managers.
The loss of a number of experienced staff and the more regionally focused
organisation left a much leaner national office, with reduced capacity
to carry out national functions and fewer resources to meet its statutory
and regulatory functions. The greater regional focus lifted expectations
in the wider community of increased Trust involvement in
local heritage issues, but resources were still spread thinly.
The election of the Labour-led coalition of 1999-2002 brought a change
of direction. A broad package of assistance for arts, culture and heritage
was announced as part of Budget 2000. The Trust received a major one-off
boost in its funding, targeted at key areas of its work, which was to
be paid in instalments over three years. The areas to
receive funding were the maintenance of Crown-owned heritage properties
managed by the Trust, development of the Trust's capacity to deliver historic
and cultural heritage services to Maori, and upgrading the Register of
New Zealand's historic and cultural heritage.
 |
| Antrim
House, Wellington: the national headquarters of the New Zealand Historic
Places Trust Pouhere Taonga. Photo: Grant Sheehan |
The following year, Parliament’s Local Government and Environment
Select Committee – reporting on the Resource Management Amendment
Bill – backed proposals to upgrade heritage to an issue of national
importance in the Resource Management Act, thus requiring local and regional
councils to give a higher degree of recognition and protection
to heritage places in their regions. In an important corollary, it also
recommended that the Trust retain all its regulatory functions, contrary
to the Resource Management Amendment Bill introduced into Parliament two
years earlier, which had proposed removing the Trust’s regulatory
powers to protect heritage places.
Over the next two to three years the Cultural Recovery Package had a
major impact on the Trust’s work.Throughout the decade (1995-2005)conservation
work had been undertaken on a number of properties. The $1.1 million set
aside in the Cultural Recovery Package allowed urgent deferred maintenance
to be undertaken, as well as work on public safety issues, and statutory
planning obligations at
Crown-owned heritage properties. Properties to benefit included Matanaka
(north of Dunedin), Pompallier, Edmonds Ruins, Kaipara Lighthouse, Old
St Paul’s Wellington, Hayes Engineering, Rangiriri Pa and Te Wheoro’s
Redoubt.
Other properties to receive attention during this period were
those within the Kerikeri Basin, and in particular the Stone Store and
Kerikeri Mission House (Kemp House). In 1993 the Stone Store was closed
for safety reasons. With the help of a major donation from the ASB Charitable
Trust, conservation work was carried out, and in 1998 the first stage
was completed. At the Kerikeri Mission House, work included the removal
of rotting timber, and the securing of the chimneys that were in danger
of collapse.The New Zealand Lottery Grants Board assisted with this work,
and with a number of other projects at Trust properties; notably the restoration
of the Timeball Station, Lyttelton.
The conservation work on the Mission House was endangered when in May
2001 the floodwaters of Kerikeri River threatened to inundate the building.
Such floods had happened before; most notably in 1981. The flooding was
caused by the Kerikeri bridge trapping debris washed down the river in
heavy rains and collecting water behind it. Another threat to the Stone
Store was the vibrations caused by the heavy traffic crossing the bridge.
Later, in May 2003, the government set aside funding for the Kerikeri
Historic Basin project - a project jointly managed by DoC and the
Trust, to prepare a development plan for the Basin. In September 2004,
the Government agreed to fund fully the construction of the Kerikeri Bypass.
Finally, there was the work at Totara Estate, near Oamaru, the “birthplace
of New Zealand’s frozen meat industry”. In
partnership with major meat and port companies, the Trust
undertook significant redevelopment of the property. This was completed
in November 2003.
After the passing of the HPA 1993, the Maori Heritage Division was formed,
which included expertise on
conserving Maori buildings, as well as the application of the archaeological
authority process.
The Cultural Recovery Package allocated $1.1 million to be spent over
three years to improve the Trust’s capacity
to deliver historic and cultural heritage services to Maori. As a result
the Maori Heritage Team Tira Pouhere Taonga was
developed. This team, which included national and regional office staff,
did valuable work to improve the Trust’s
relationship with Maori communities, and ensure regional staff have the
fullest regard for Maori customary and heritage values. One of the more
important roles of the Maori Heritage Team is assisting whanau, hapu,
and iwi to manage their heritage though training, assistance with the
conservation of heritage buildings and resource management issues.
The third part of the Cultural Recovery Package was the
upgrade of the Trust’s Register.The need to upgrade the Register
had been identified as early as the PCE report in 1996, and this had been
reiterated in the Historic Heritage Review of 1998. In 2000 the Cultural
Recovery Package assigned $440,000 in funding over three years to upgrade
the Register. In 2001 three researchers, one based in each region, were
employed to update the information held on registered places as well as
making the Register more accessible to the public.The project also funded
the development of a new Register database, which could contain far more
information than previously and would ultimately enable the Register to
be available via the Trust website.
In March 2002 the Register went on-line. The launch was
celebrated across the country, from Kerikeri to Invercargill.Today all
registered places (except wahi tapu and wahi tapu areas) appear on the
Trust’s website.
Despite ongoing efforts by the Trust to counter the misconception, there remained a perception that registration had an adverse effect on private property rights. The issue was brought to a head in December 2002 when much publicity was given to the registration of a wahi tapu area in the Bay of Plenty known as Kopukairoa. In particular, owners of the affected properties were upset with the idea that the wahi tapu area would impose restrictions on their ability to utilise their property.
Following this publicity, the Prime Minster Helen Clark, in her capacity of Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, suggested to the Trust that it would be appropriate to consider commissioning an independent review of its registration policy and procedures. In response, the Trust commissioned Professor Peter Skelton of Lincoln University, previously an Environment Court judge, to undertake the review.
The report, published in 2004, found that, except
for interim registration and a review to change the category of a registered
historic place to Category I, “there were no short-term or long-term
regulatory impacts or legal obligations on property owners that arise
directly and inevitably from registration under the HPA”.The review
found the Trust’s registration processes were generally sound and
the work on the upgrade was impressive.
In the course of his report,Professor Skelton noted that the Trust’s
resources were undoubtedly less than adequate to do the vast task set
for it and the Maori Heritage Council as a whole and the Register in particular,
noting that with
“recent changes to the RMA to recognise historic heritage as a matter
of national importance in terms of that Act, the Trust’s registration
role under the HPA assumes increased importance”. The report also
recommended a number of changes to the registration provisions of the
HPA, particularly that notification and submission procedures carried
out by the Trust as a matter of policy should be provided for in the Historic
Places Act – subsequently these were included in the Historic Places
Trust Amendment Bill.
Other work in registration was the pilot project undertaken by the Central
Region in the districts of Rangitikei and Ruapehu. The purpose of the
pilot project was to develop strategies and tools for identifying places
that have heritage value for communities as well as New Zealand as a whole.
Commenced in July 2003, the project was spread over two years, and involved
community groups,whanau, hapu, iwi,
local councils and the Department of Conservation. It resulted in a number
of places being identified and subsequently registered.
The Trust’s archaeological authority process came under
considerable scrutiny as a result of a case brought before the Environment
Court in 2004 contesting the Trust’s granting of authorities for
the controversial Wellington Inner-City Bypass.The court upheld the Trust’s
decision, but it was appealed to the High Court and subject to a judicial
review. In all cases the outcome upheld the Trust internal process, but
highlighted the pressure on staff dealing with the many hundreds of authority
applications each year.
There were other important developments that had an impact on the Trust
in the later years of the past decade. One of the most important changes
came in 2003 with the upgrading of historic heritage to a matter of national
importance under the RMA. Although it had no direct affect on the Trust
functions, and its full effects are yet to be seen, it was a big fillip
to heritage protection in general and is expected to
assist the Trust’s statutory advocacy for heritage protection.
In May 2003 the Government announced a new Trust-administered fund for
owners of special or outstanding historic places and wahi tapu or wahi
tapu areas in private ownership.Known as the National Heritage Preservation
Incentive Fund, it administered a sum of $500,000 to be allocated each
year.
The Trust’s statutory advocacy also received a boost when the Ministry
for the Environment allocated funding to the Trust for the preparation
of a guide to effective protection of heritage under the RMA. Heritage
Management Guidelines for Resource Management Practitioners was published
by the Trust in 2004.The Trust also co-operated with the
Fire Service in a joint campaign to prevent further loss of New Zealand’s
heritage places by fire.
At the close of the Trust’s fifth decade, the Crown Entities Act
2004 came into force, on 25 January 2005.This changed the status of the
Trust from a statutory non-Crown entity to an autonomous Crown entity.This
meant it became part of the wider state sector and will be required to
meet the accountability requirements of the new Crown entities regime.
In making this change, specific provision was made that:“The Trust
will retain its statutory independence for
heritage decision-making through the provision that the Minister may not
direct the Trust in relation to heritage matters.”
The Trust’s change of status is in line with a proposed amendment to the Historic Places Act intended to strengthen the Trust’s governance consistent with current best practice in the wider state sector.
During the decade the Trust had two notable academics and one former Governor-General at the helm of the Board. Professor Tim Beaglehole was chairperson until 1997, when Dame CatherineTizard was appointed. Distinguished Professor Dame Anne Salmond was appointed in 2002. She remains the Trust Board chair.These three are outstanding New Zealanders in their fields, and all exerted influential leadership during turbulent years for the Trust.
The Trust’s chief executive officers in the same period had
unenviable roles to play in guiding the organisation through complex and
challenging periods.Geoffrey Whitehead left in February 1997, and was
replaced by Peter Atkinson, whose tenure was initially a temporary appointment.
He was replaced in 1999 by Elizabeth Kerr, who left the Trust in 2000,
and was replaced by Dr Bill Tramposch in early 2001, who remains the director
in 2005.
In 1955, one full-time and one part-time person administered the National Historic Places Trust, and its Board helped establish Regional Committees from a small office in Thorndon with a grant of £8,200 ($16,400).Today the Trust is led by a Board and Maori Heritage Council. It operates from seven offices (one national and six regional/area offices). It employs 75 full-time equivalent staff, has 23 branch committees, and had an annual operating expenditure in the 2003/2004 year of $7,550,000.
The Trust still relies on the huge contribution of branch
committees and other volunteers to assist it at its offices and
properties, and in the promotion and protection of New Zealand’s
significant and valued heritage places.
In the financial year ending June 2004, Trust staff assessed
and made submissions on annual and strategic plans involving
76 councils. It processed more than 1,232 resource consent
applications under the RMA. In addition, 282 archaeological
authorities were processed and it has responsibilities for 60 properties.These
include 15 staffed properties which, in the year ending June 2004, received
more than 155,500 visitors. Each year four magazines are published and
mailed to over 25,000 members.
Over the 50 years of the Trust’s life there has been a huge
increase in the awareness of the value of historic and cultural heritage
in New Zealand. The importance of heritage to the economy, and to the
well-being of the community, is increasingly understood. Allied to this
is a growing awareness of the need to protect and conserve places of cultural
heritage importance to Maori, both to fulfil the obligations of the Treaty
of Waitangi and to help promote the unique contribution of Maori heritage
to national and cultural identity.
The scale and logistics of the Trust’s operations may have
mushroomed over the years but some things have never changed. The Trust
is the figurehead and national body of an expanding movement that involves
many other agencies and community groups.The Trust has adapted and grown
as heritage has become a much greater part of New Zealand life. The Trust’s
challenge for the next 50 years is to learn from the successes and trials
of its own history, and to entrench the conservation and protection of
heritage as an everyday necessity in New Zealand’s economic, social
and cultural life.
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
