Under protection

Heritage Pa¯ keha¯ buildings are better protected by rules and regulations than Ma¯ ori heritage sites, a new report by Heritage New Zealand reveals.

The Crown entity, which examines councils’ plans every three years to see how well they are performing in this area, wants destruction of Ma¯ ori heritage places to be a non-complying activity in a district plan.

That means a council can grant an application for a non-complying activity only if its adverse effects are minor, or if it is consistent with its plan’s objectives and policies.

Only 15 of 64 plans surveyed regulated the destruction of Ma¯ ori heritage as at least a noncomplying activity.

However, 46 of 64 plans regulated the demolition of historic buildings as a non-complying activity.

‘‘The 2018 assessment shows that there is an overall lower standard of regulation nationwide for Ma¯ ori heritage in comparison with scheduled historic structures,’’ Heritage NZ said in its The National Assessment RMA Policies and Plans – Heritage Provisions 2018.

‘‘New Zealand’s system of providing for Ma¯ ori heritage is still inadequate in most districts; the level of protection of Ma¯ ori heritage in district plans is clearly unacceptable,’’ the assessment said.

All district plans should schedule sites of significance to Ma¯ ori and protect them with appropriate rules, Heritage NZ said.

It was concerned that seven plans had no clear rules governing the destruction of places of significance to Ma¯ ori.

Those seven are Invercargill City, Whanganui District, Grey District, Chatham Islands, Manawatu District, Waitaki District, and Westland District.

Invercargill mayor Sir Tim Shadbolt said the Invercargill City Council recognised that there might be potential areas for improvement in its district plan.

The plan did not have a specific schedule of Ma¯ ori heritage, but the council could consider the impact on such sites when considering resource consent applications.

The district plan included specific tangata whenua issues, objectives, policies and rules. The local iwi management plan was considered in the drafting of the proposed district plan and local iwi made submissions and were involved in the drafting.

Heritage NZ also made submissions and did not appeal the heritage provisions, Sir Tim said.

Grey District mayor Tony Kokshoorn said Heritage NZ had a valid point and the Grey District should address that.

Kokshoorn said a large working group of 37 people, including local government and local Ma¯ ori representatives, were putting together an application for Provincial Growth Fund funding to help implement a strategy that would ‘‘move the West Coast How many listed and scheduled heritage properties are there in New Zealand?

The Heritage NZ list includes 5732 properties and places of cultural and historical significance.

Of those 1017 are Category 1, 4402 are Category 2, and 183 are wahi tapu (sacred places), wahi tapu areas and wahi tupuna (places of ancestral significance). District plans have 13,984 heritage items, up from 11,576 in 2015. About 88 per cent of Heritage NZ’s list is also on district plans heritage schedules.

A further 8700 archaeological sites are in Heritage NZ’s archeological schedule.

forward’’ and part of that would involve protecting and promoting Ma¯ ori heritage and culture.

The point of difference for the West Coast was its pounamu resources which were treasured by Ma¯ ori up and down New Zealand. The district had many places of significance to Ma¯ ori.

‘‘We are going to tap into that history,’’ Kokshoorn said.

‘‘Does the district council have protections in there? No, but that will be part of it.

‘‘We need to address that because this is a very important part of our heritage. Ma¯ ori were here on the West Coast in 1300. Pa¯ keha¯ never arrived here until 1864 when gold was discovered.

‘‘It’s not just the tourism potential, we want it from a cultural point of view.’’

When told there were no clear rules in Whanganui’s district plan governing the destruction of Ma¯ ori heritage, mayor Hamish McDouall said this obviously needed to be addressed.

‘‘It really surprises me. We really value our heritage in Whanganui, both Ma¯ ori and colonial.

‘‘I know we have been doing a lot of work with marae over time and put papakainga (housing development) rules into the district plan.

‘‘If the Ma¯ ori heritage aspect is missing then that’s important to address that.’’

When sensitive sites, wahi tapu, were identified they were placed on a register to protect them and that reflected how the council regarded Ma¯ ori heritage.

Dr Gerard O’Regan, research fellow at the James Henare Ma¯ ori Research Centre at the University of Auckland, and son of Ma¯ ori leader Sir Tipene O’Regan, said it was a concern that councils were not performing as well on Ma¯ ori heritage issues as they could.

‘‘One of the things I am conscious of is we actually probably need to have a bigger picture think about what we do in terms of the better recording, listing and promotion of Ma¯ ori heritage places overall,’’ said O’Regan, who has been a member of the Ma¯ ori Heritage Council for the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for several years.

The Heritage NZ assessment was a high-level review.

‘‘I think if we drill down into it we will see some councils are actually doing a lot more at the coal face than comes out in this highlevel report.

‘‘But at the same time there is a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of getting our heads around what it is we want for Ma¯ ori heritage places and how to appropriately achieve that.’’

Heritage NZ director policy Rebecca O’Brien said the issues were mainly with older plans, and many of them were coming up for review in the next 18 months.

‘‘While some local authorities are doing a good job of identifying and protecting places of significance to Ma¯ ori, many have been slow to schedule and protect these places.’’

Heritage NZ set a ‘‘very high bar’’ for councils to meet, O’Brien said. Grey District mayor Tony Kokshoorn

‘‘This is a very important part of our heritage. Ma¯ori were here on the West Coast in 1300.’’