Heritage New Zealand lacks resources to protect Maori heritage, academic claims

Monday, 27 March 2017

A pou whenua marking a Maori heritage site in Seventeen Valley, Marlborough, which wine company Grove Mill signed over to iwi Rangitane o Wairau to ensure its preservation.

Maori heritage sites are being damaged nearly every day in New Zealand because the authority charged with protecting them is hamstrung by a lack of funding, an academic claims.

Victoria University associate professor Peter Adds said a lack of sufficient resources meant Heritage New Zealand had to carefully pick and choose which landowners it took to court.

The hinterland of the Wairau Bar, one of the most significant archaeological sites in New Zealand.

However, Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister Maggie Barry said she was satisfied HNZ was meeting its obligations, and the Government carefully considered all funding.

HNZ documents showed the organisation received about $13 million a year from Government, a figure Adds said was not enough considering it had to protect heritage sites around the country.

* Heritage New Zealand charges dropped against Marlborough landowners Haysley and Phillip MacDonald

* Heritage New Zealand status bestowed on Ngai Tahu rock art site

* Marlborough iwi Rangitane O Wairau 'outraged' by settlement with Heritage New Zealand**

'The organisation wants to do its best to protect heritage, but it's really hamstrung. The unfortunate reality is we're losing sites of Maori heritage on just about a daily basis,' Adds said.

'They don't want to fail [in court], because that would set a precedent to landowners around the country who'll see that and think, 'they don't have much teeth, so we can get away with modifying this site',' he said.

Figures released under the Official Information Act showed HNZ had brought 15 prosecutions since March 2007, two of which were withdrawn. Of the remaining 13, all but one prosecution resulted in a conviction.

One of the withdrawn cases, dropped last month, against Marlborough landowners Haysley and Philip MacDonald, cost HNZ about $32,000 in legal bills. They refused to answer an OIA question about why it was dropped.

'These cases tend to be relatively high profile, so any failure would be seen as an issue for them,' Adds said.

This claim was backed up by correspondence released under the OIA where a senior archaeologist explained why prosecutions might not be taken.

In 2010, Dr Rick McGovern-Wilson said the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, which became Heritage New Zealand in 2014, had investigated more than 300 possible offences in the nine years prior to 2010, only 17 of which went to court.

'An unsuccessful prosecution would put back [the trust's] efforts to protect and preserve our archaeological and cultural heritage immeasurably,' McGovern-Wilson wrote.

He also claimed the public did not understand heritage charges, which in 2010 would have been brought under the precursor to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act, the Historic Places Act.

'The burden of proof under the act is quite high as it is a criminal offence. Also it would be true to say that at present the legal culture in New Zealand does not understand this type of action,' McGovern-Wilson said.

'The public understand and expect prosecutions for traffic offences (speeding and drinking) but cannot understand why landowners, seemingly going about their private business, can be breaking the law.'

An HNZ spokesman said the evidence, cost and the likelihood of success were all taken into consideration when the organisation was considering legal action.

'Because we are Government-funded we are mindful of how best to utilise taxpayer money,' he said.

'Heritage New Zealand works within the funding made available by the Government to achieve the best results it can for heritage.'

Positive outcomes were those achieved without going to court, which had several benefits including cost as well as helping foster closer ongoing relationships with landowners, the spokesman said.

Adds, professor at the School of Maori Studies, claimed a lack of resources meant HNZ was also more likely to approve archaeological authorities, permits which allowed landowners to modify archaeological sites, as it could not afford to adequately fight appeals in court.

'Every day virtually [HNZ] gets applications from people that want to destroy or modify sites, mostly from people like developers or farmers,' he said.

'For the most part the organisation is in the position of having to approve these applications, because they don't have the money to say no as people can appeal the decision and they'll end up in court.'

He said Maori had been concerned about the lack of protection for years, alleging there was a double-standard at play where Maori heritage sites were not afforded the same protections as Pakeha sites.

'There's lots of protection for heritage buildings, but when it comes to land-based Maori heritage sites in this country, a different set of standards seems to apply,' Adds said.

He pointed to the process of registering waahi tapu and waahi tupuna sites with HNZ for inclusion on The New Zealand Heritage List, or rarangi korero, as an example.

Unlike archaeological sites, which were defined as pre-1900, Adds said there was no provision in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act to penalise landowners that disturbed waahi tapu sites.

Registering sites meant territorial authorities, landowners and iwi were notified. Any application to modify them resulted in all the parties being notified, and it going through the resource consent process.

However, Adds said this was an inconsistent approach that did not offer proper protection, as different councils had different views about the value of Maori heritage and waahi tapu sites.

Neither Barry, or her Labour counterpart Jacinda Ardern, who was spokesperson for Arts, Culture and Heritage, answered questions about whether they would seek to increase funding for HNZ.

In response to a question about the apparently low number of prosecutions, Barry said operational decisions were made by HNZ at arms length from Government.

She said she was confident the organisation was fulfilling its role under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act, noting HNZ took an educational approach to inform people about safeguarding heritage.

Ardern said there was no question HNZ was operating under tight budgetary constraints, combined with high demand on their resources. She said it would be better if there was no cause for prosecutions in the first place.

'HNZ wouldn't have to spend its funding on expensive court cases and we wouldn't have examples of heritage sites being damaged or, in some cases, lost,' she said.