WHAKAARO: So, who’s looking out for our heritage?
It’s a question especially for grownups, so please keep reading. Sometimes we just have to face up to our collective obligations as a society. Well then, is New Zealand making an adequate investment in heritage?
“Head Office” (Wellington) gives a false impression of how well New Zealand’s doing, with strongly visible and accessible commitments in the Alexander Turnbull Library, Archives NZ and the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. They, together with the NZ Historic Places Trust and government departments, contribute to various policies and projects that support our collective “national identity”. Central Government does its bit for heritage.
In the provinces (still a useful term) there’s a different picture, of which Nelson provides just one example. It puzzles me why our regional museum isn’t cherished more, and why it’s not funded better. Nelson Provincial Museum is one of New Zealand’s outstanding regional museums, with really strong collections. No regional historical story can be told without using its treasures.
But lack of funding means the collections are hardly ever open, it has too few staff, and hopeless accommodation for staff and users. Why is this? Well, I think it’s partly to do with a gap in the law. One sort of heritage is specifically protected, another is not.
On one hand, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) places specific obligations on local government for natural and physical heritage, ie buildings and locations. It calls these “historic heritage”, and says they’re of national importance. Local government therefore obeys.
On the other hand, the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) makes no mention of heritage. It therefore ignores the importance of documentary and other heritage materials in museums, archives and library research collections. (I call this “heritage infrastructure”.) Access to and development of this part of our heritage is essential to understanding and writing about any aspect of our history and local/regional identity, including the natural and physical heritage so strongly protected by the RMA.
It makes no sense to treat our heritage in such different ways, and it’s a reflection of radically different styles of legislation. The RMA is detailed and prescriptive while the LGA is general and permissive. “Cultural Wellbeing” priorities in the (LGA) are left to each community to define.
But heritage is far too important to leave to fluctuating community whims and tastes. It’s unique and irreplaceable, and requires long-term investment, well beyond the vision of local government election and planning cycles. It should be one of our society’s non-negotiable responsibilities.
The current review of the LGA provides an excellent opportunity to ensure that responsibility for heritage infrastructure is identified as a core activity and specific obligation of local government. Only when that is done will we be providing adequately for our collective national heritage. After that we can consider other community “cultural wellbeing” options.
We must seize the initiative because the review omits public consultation. Send your submission to Hon Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, Parliament Buildings, Molesworth Street, Wellington 6011 (post-free) or <r.hide@ministers.govt.nz>.
Want more information? Contact me at 524 8112 or <penny.griffith@paradise.net.nz>.
Penny Griffith, Collingwood
