Heritage, Identity and Our Shared Future

Hon. Judith Tizard

Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage

Heritage, Identity and
Our Shared Future

A Speech Marking the Opening of Carter Group Heritage Week 2000

Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings,
Christchurch.

Friday, 13th of October, 8.00pm.
Introduction

I would like to start by saying it is very exciting to be opening an event which celebrates the distinctive and special buildings and places of Christchurch - undoubtedly one of New Zealand's most beautiful cities.

And it is very pleasing that the Christchurch City Council - with support from the Carter Group and The Community Trust - values these splendid aspects of the city's heritage sufficiently to make this initiative possible.

Central government, similarly, values the integrity of our arts, our culture and our heritage. It too wants to see the artefacts of our past protected and preserved - artefacts that in so many cases eloquently contribute to our understanding of who we are, and contribute to the ongoing development of our culture.

This government has said - even before it was the government, in the Labour Party manifesto document Uniquely New Zealand - that it 'historical heritage is a legacy which we hold in trust for future generations'.

It believes this in the context of increased and meaningful support for our arts, cultural and heritage sector as a whole. The government makes this support available for three reasons.

Firstly, arts, culture and heritage are to be valued for their intrinsic benefits. They are not an optional extra but a necessity for a civilised society. The arts, for example, perform many functions. They may entertain, they may enlighten, they may serve as critic and conscience of society, and they may stimulate insight into our past, why we are the way we are, and what we might be.

Enabling talented people to express their creativity is an intrinsic benefit from which we, as audiences, and the individual artists and performers benefit.

Secondly, arts, culture and heritage have yet to reach their full potential to contribute to the wealth of New Zealand. They have the potential to be much greater employers of people doing the jobs they love, and to boost GDP and export earnings.

Worldwide the creative, cultural and heritage sectors are among the key growth industries for the twenty-first century. Cultural and heritage tourism are huge generators of national income elsewhere. New Zealand, with its large pool of talented people, has the potential for its creative sector to do exceptionally well and make an even larger contribution to our economy.

Thirdly, arts and culture help define New Zealand as a unique, dynamic and creative nation which stands tall in the world. This world is subject to powerful globalising forces. There are many benefits from these developments, but there are also some challenges. High on the list of those challenges is the issue of national identity. Arts, culture and heritage can contribute much to nation building.

I want particularly here to emphasise that the existence of our built, physical, material heritage enables compelling evidence of the past to be available for interpretation or review by present and future generations. The more of our heritage that is preserved, the stronger the basis for the evolution of knowledge, and the ability for society to examine itself, grow and change.

Cultural heritage contributes to social cohesion, recognising New Zealand's identities and histories. The ongoing availability of these markers of individual and communal experience allows people to reflect upon and express a sense of themselves as members of various communities within society.

The government has taken many steps to support our arts, culture and heritage. I believe that the Prime Minister taking the portfolio on was an absolutely key indicator of the status accorded the sector by the government.

In May the government announced significantly increased funding to the arts, culture and heritage sector. Organisations such as Creative New Zealand, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and the Royal New Zealand Ballet were granted support at a level more in keeping with their role and operation.

With particular respect to heritage and museological activities, the government's increased commitment has been manifested through greater funding of - for example - Te Papa, and assistance towards the Edwin Fox conservation project.

We have also given renewed support the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.

The Trust is, of course, the statutory agency created under the Historic Places Act. This Act promotes the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand.

It recognises - among other things - that historic places have lasting value in their own right and provide evidence of the origins of New Zealand's distinct society; and that in responding to these places and to their value, we should safeguard the options of present and future generations.

The government values highly the work of the Historic Places Trust. At the end of the last financial year - when the funding announcement took place - the Trust received an immediate $3 million capital contribution to go towards its Historic Places Preservation Fund and its Maori heritage development fund, and towards upgrading and enhancing the Register of New Zealand's heritage.

The Trust is also receiving ongoing additional annual operating funding - half a million dollars extra each year - to enhance its heritage protection activities nationwide.

The government's commitment to arts, culture and heritage has been signalled, too, through considerable funding being granted towards the construction of the new Christchurch Art Gallery. The government is very pleased to be able to contribute $6.474 million in capital towards the development of this Gallery, recognising the significance of the institution and its collection to our national culture.

Of course, the Robert McDougall Gallery which has housed the collection hitherto has done an outstanding job which can only be enhanced by the new facility. It will be a major cultural and economic asset for Canterbury.

The May announcement also increased the policy capacity of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage - not the headline grabbing end of the funding announcement, but a very necessary part of it. There is scope for government to do better in determining the way it involves itself with culture. We need to know that current arrangements are the best arrangements - and if they are not, put in place alternatives that will maximise the effectiveness of government's involvement.

Policy Work on Heritage Management

Over the next year I will be assisting the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage in overseeing a programme of policy development to enhance heritage management. Many have noted that the sector is not well co-ordinated. The extent to which it is government's responsibility to supply this co-ordination is subject to less broad agreement, but it is clear that government has interests in the sector, and a responsibility to ensure that its interests are as effectively managed as is possible.

The upcoming policy development will include preparing legislation to protect moveable cultural property and the review of government policy for the support of regional museums' capital development.

It will also include the provision of advice on enhanced arrangements for the protection of land-based historic heritage.

This work will be based on government's endorsement of the important role the Trust performs. The government has already overturned a proposal by the previous administration to make public funding currently allocated to the Trust contestable.

We are not supportive of any provisions in the Resource Management Amendment Bill - currently before the Local Government and Environment Select Committee - that would alter or reduce the role of the Historic Places Trust.

For example, the government wishes to see the Trust's role as a heritage protection authority under the Resource Management Act retained. The removal of the Trust's heritage protection authority status would diminish its role as the lead national agency for historic heritage and would impair its capacity to issue Heritage Orders.

New Zealanders have a common interest in the integrity of our buildings and important places, our cityscapes and our landscapes. As with movable cultural material, the issues related to our collective interest in our built environment, and our rights as individuals to a quality built environment and to a say in its protection and development, are complex ones.

The government considers that it is necessary to have a sense of national priorities in built heritage - to explicitly recognise those buildings and places that are of such significance that their value is measured in national, not regional or local terms.

The policy questions driving such considerations - in relation to both movable and immovable historic property - are important ones. What interest, for example, does central government have in collections and buildings outside the national collection or the national estate? Should, and how should, that interest be translated into support mechanisms? Who decides what is nationally significant, and what, in cultural terms, are the implications of these decisions?

Answers to all these questions do not yet exist. But in the longer term, any government committed to actively and appropriately supporting our culture will need to constantly monitor the mechanisms it uses to intervene in the sector.

The Role of Other Players

This, then, is a government committed to our culture. But no government - as alluded to a minute ago - can do it all. Support for arts and culture is best developed these days as a partnership - a strategic partnership in which the needs of all parties are acknowledged and respected. In that partnership, the state will be dominant in some areas.

In order to achieve the protection and restoration of historic heritage, the government envisages a partnership between central government, local government, iwi and private property owners.

It is essential to ensure that local authorities have the ability to provide adequate management and protection for historic heritage in accord with the values of local communities. It is anticipated that the enhancements proposed in the Resource Management Amendment Bill will contribute to improved opportunities for local communities to effectively manage the protection of their historic buildings.

It is local authorities that will continue to have the ability - and the primary obligation - to protect the built historic heritage of their areas.

Congratulations again, then, to Christchurch City Council and its associates in this project, for so effectively underlining the value of our historic heritage. I am delighted to launch the Carter Group Heritage Week 2000.