A definition of heritage and how it can be used without being the enemy of the living

What is the role of Heritage New Zealand?

Over the past decade, Heritage NZ has gained a reputation in Wellington as a group that would rather see a city die than consider even the smallest of alteration. When talking to friends and family there is a sense of heritage being important in spite of what Heritage NZ is doing.

What is heritage?

Plenty of dictionary definitions exist for the term heritage. Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, etc. All refer to a concept of something inherited from a predecessor, a bithright.

In digging through Heritage NZ's website I found statement after statement saying that heritage must be preserved or maintained as it is important. Yet very little could be found defining what it was. Heritage New Zealand - About Us

Sections 2 and 3 of Historic Heritage Principles and Issues give definitions so large almost anything existing could be considered heritage. "Contributes to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures." is repeated in several places without giving any guidance as to where it stops. Centennial Highway without rope barriers contributes to an understanding of New Zealand's history of road safety. Auckland Airport's open air path between terminals contributes to an understanding of New Zealand's aerial connections to the outside world. Grafton Gully in Auckland contributes to an understanding and appreciation of the lengths we will go to to build motorways through the middle of a city. And the Wellington Motorway through Tinakori contributes to an understanding and appreciation of how our predecessors would happily bulldoze through poor neighbourhoods.

All these things are heritage to someone. But you would only find a few voices that would want to keep them and almost none that would want to stop them from ever changing. However the documents put out by Heritage NZ are always talking about preserving and stopping. It seems that in the mind of Heritage NZ, heritage is the stopping of time. It is the encasing of a thing in amber and never letting it change in any form.

With this working definition of heritage where does heritage start or stop? Should we move everyone out of Wellington so it will never change? What about the place where the people moved to? That will destroy the heritage of that area. Should we level all buildings in Wellington and restore it to what it was in the 1800s? Why not earlier? Why not before any humans came to these islands.

Clearly these are silly suggestions. But nothing I could find described where this limit was for heritage. It was only ever about stopping, about preserving. For who? Why?

So, what do I think is heritage?

Given the above doesn't make much sense you might think I would propose that heritage is useless. That is far from the case. While I strongly disagree with the actions of Heritage NZ, I can list off hundreds of things I think should be retained in some form. Things that need protection from total destruction and erasure from history. Yet I also think that these things should not be frozen in time. Instead being allowed to change with guidance. But I was unable to identify a reasoning of why. Why did I think some things need protection? Why did I think that these things should be allowed to change? Why would I choose some things to protect and ignore others?

It bugged me. I should be able to describe a structure to why I thought this. So I set myself the goal of assembling my own definition of heritage. To take the dictionary definitions, the copius documents from Heritage NZ, a collection of things I think are worth protecting, and just as importantly a collection of things I think are not worth protecting.

After a while of thinking. Coming up with various definitions and guiding frameworks. And throwing out one after the other as they would include or exclude important things. I came up and refined the following.

Heritage is the use of objects, physical or ephemeral, to communicate wanted history and lessons to our successors.

So what in overly broad bollocks does that mean?

Heritage is a thing. It can be a physical thing such as a piece of paper or location. It can also be something ephemeral like a story or legend. But heritage is not just a thing. Heritage is what that thing represents, a moment in history. Heritage is a way for us to connect the now with the past. It is a totem to help establish an emotional connection to who went before.

Heritage is also more than that. Heritage evolves and changes. Buildings are changed as their surroundings are changed. Once standing proud in an area they can be shrunk by the progression of time as new things rise up over them. An object that originally represented something our predecessors were proud of can become a warning or even something to be ashamed of. As our knowledge, understanding, and ethics change. A thing that survived in spite of our predecessors belief that it had no value can become a cruicial piece of heritage to connect ourselves with the past.

Heritage is a way for us to connect with the past. It is a way for us to communicate with the future. It is a way for us to identify to our successors the things that we believe they should remember and learn from.

Heritage can be represented by more than the original protons, electrons, neutrons, and quarks that it was. It is continued through stories, legends, and the memories of those that come after.

Heritage is not about freezing something in time. It is not about turning a city or culture into a museum that can never change. It is not some list that only ever grows and can never be changed. It is not tied into the atoms that first came together at the moment of time we decide was important.

Does Heritage NZ serve a role with this definition?

All of the above still requires the hard work and effort of a body such as Heritage NZ to oversee. It requires a group of people who can dedicate their time to communicate the core values of heritage, why it is important to remember and then communicate these stories to our successors. It requires a group of people who can spend time researching how best to retain the core of these messages for future generations.

I believe that Heritage NZ needs their aims clarified so that their role is communicated as a supporter of heritage and not an indescriminate killer of change. I want to see Heritage NZ provided with the funding to commission research and development of tools and technologies to restore and maintain the heritage we choose.

I want to see Heritage NZ have their actions refined and focused by capping the number of places that can be protected at the highest level. As part of this I also want to see that Heritage NZ get the funding needed to cover the costs of restoration and maintenance of these places. Not leaving it up to the whims and unfunded expectations of private owners. As a group we decide that these places need to be protected. We need to show this by providing the funding to do it.

I would adjust Heritage NZ's guidance to make it clear that safety and accessibility take precedence over purity. If a structure needs major changes or replacemant of large sections to make it accessible for all kiwis? Then it gets done. With efforts to make the design sympathetic to the existing heritage we want to highlight.

Are there examples elsewhere that we could adopt and evolve for our needs?

We are not the first country to go through this problem. Many places around the world can trace their heritage of a location back thousands of years or more. Have they come up with any approaches that we could look at adopting?

In 1866, English Heritage started the blue plaque scheme in London. Since then it has inspired the creation of similar schemes to cover the entire UK and similar schemes have been adopted elsewhere Blue Plaque Scheme. To summarazie, on buildings and locations that are tied to events or people that are important to the heritage of the UK, a metal plaque with blue enamel is affixed at the location. On this plaque the person and/or event is described. From the building containing the office in which Penicillian was first identified, to the pub where the Beatles had their first paid gig. These plaques can be found all over the UK, highlighting the knowledge that the community wants to pass on to their descendents.

Private companies have also done things to highlight items and events they feel is a part of their heritage. The crane manufacturer Libherr discovered that a crane of the model that set them onto the path of becoming a world leader in cranes, was still in use nearby about 40 years later. Not only was it of this model, it was the very first to be built. The company aquired the crane back from the operator. And then it went about restoring the machine into near new condition. To Heritage NZ this would be impossible as components were replaced with no real way to rollback the repairs. Yet at the end they had this object back to an almost new condition. Where it represents the history and heritage of all those that have worked to design and build these machines. It is ok to make permanent changes or replacements if it is done with consideration and the aim of maintaining the whole for the future. Liebherr Crane Restoration

Railway stations are full of examples where they have been majorly modified without losing the core identity of the location. St Pancras in London had the main platform area demolished during restoration. With shopping and international rail facilities placed in the original freight level and a new platform area being built for the Eurostar trains to Paris and Brussels. King's Cross station in London had a huge roof installed that turned an outside area into more internal space for shops and travellers. And Britomart in Auckland had floors demolished to provide access to the underground platforms. Each of these stations is know and recognized for the history and heritage that the original buildings represent. But that heritage value has not been used to stop any changes from being allowed. If anything, these huge changes have helped build even more heritage recognition into these places. As locations of history, of people, of stories and lessons learnt.

How can this be applied to Wellington in particular and Aotearoa New Zealand in general?

In Wellington this way of defining heritage would free up our ability to make our environment safer without being tied into a near impossible standard.

For Wellington Railway Station it would open up the ability to make accessibility into all areas a requirement. Replacing the steps with gradual ramps. Replacing the platform canopies with a full width and length canopy that covers all platforms.

For the Gordon Wilson Flats it would allow us to rebuild them with modern materials and engineering knowledge. Creating warm and safe living spaces that will build new heritage on top of the original. Evolving the heritage of the place.

With Wellington Central Library it would open up the option to build something new with current best practices for public spaces. While retaining the elements that are iconic to Athfield Architects.

We could use plaques around the country to identify the locations where important events occured that we want our descendents to remember. What exists near the old location of Athletic Park in Wellington to recognize the Springbok Tour protests? What of the small locations where events that progressed the freedom of queer communities? How can we find the places that sufferagetes made the core decisions that ended in the right to vote being expanded?

This way of thinking would create new ways of recognizing the heritage of areas without having to encase things in amber.

Heritage is important. It must live alongside the present and future without losing that connection to the past.

Heritage is important. It is vital. Heritage is the stories, the lessons, the emotions, that we tie to a place or object. It exists for us to connect with our ancestors, to learn from their mistakes and celebrate their successes. It exists to pass this knowledge on to our descendents. So that they learn from and of those that went before them.

We must not let this idea that heritage is an enemy of those that live now. Or we will fail to pass things on to our successors. Heritage helps us understand not just who we are, but how we got here. It must not be used to stop us from changing into something better.

Health, Voting, and Corruption.

Green Party Health Policy

One of the things that has made me wary of putting strong support for the Greens has always been their policy on science related topics. Whilst the Genetic Engineering one is well known their health policy was one full of anti vaccination and alt med. This was a direct result of the previous Green Party health spokesperson Sue Bradford. Since then Kevin Hague has overseen a change to this policy. The author of HonestUniverse recently got in contact with Kevin Hague to see just what sorts of support for alt med the Green Party has as part of their current health policy. A very interesting read it demostrates an interesting change in how the Green Party has changed.

Advance voting statistics

An interesting change in this election to previous elections has been just how hard all the parties have been pushing early voting. During the week the Electoral Commission tweeted a link to this page where they are tallying the number of votes per day but also compare it against the early voting period of the past two elections. The Electoral Commission does state they will update this everyday but as of this writing it seems to be every weekday. So far the uptake of early voting is already nearly 3 times compared to the same time last election. However I will find it interesting to see if this is people who do not usually vote or is it just people who usually vote on election day getting in early.

Judith Collins' office made haste on OIA

Even though Judith Collins jumped before she was pushed there are still details coming to light on the selected fast tracking of OIA requests. It does seem to be that the only OIA requests to be delivered in a reasonable time or even extremely fast time are those that covered topics that would embarass those she disliked such as the head of the SFO at the time. It will be interesting to see just what the results of all the investigations are after the election and to see just what happens to Judith Collins.

Some good quotes from the homosexual marraige bill third reading

Some of the speeches last night were just awesome. So I've gone and skimmed the draft transcript and selected the lines that I thought were some of the best of the entire evening.

Maurice Williamson

I have had a reverend in my local electorate call and say that the gay onslaught will start the day after this bill is passed. We are really struggling to know what the gay onslaught will look like. We do not know whether it will come down the Pakuranga Highway as a series of troops, or whether it will be a gas that flows in over the electorate and blocks us all in. I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act. I found that quite interesting coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life.

I also had a letter telling me that I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity. That was a bad mistake, because I have got a degree in physics. I used the thermodynamic laws of physics. I put in my body weight and my humidity and so on. I assumed the furnace to be at 5,000 degrees. I will last for just on 2.1 seconds. It is hardly eternity. What do you think?

Let me repeat to them now that all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing. We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign State. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector for ever. We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised, and I cannot see what is wrong with that for neither love nor money. I just cannot.

But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight guaranteed promise. The sun will still rise tomorrow. Your teenage daughter will still argue back to you as if she knows everything. Your mortgage will not grow. You will not have skin diseases or rashes, or toads in your bed. The world will just carry on. So do not make this into a big deal. This bill is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.

Jami-Lee Ross

I simply do not believe that it is right to determine an issue that affects only minorities by way of a referendum. If that was the case, I doubt New Zealand would have given women the right to vote when this country did, nor would this country have legalised abortion when it did, nor would this country have decriminalised sex between two consenting males when it did. Minority rights issues are not referendum issues.

 I want to briefly talk also about the question of children, because it is a common theme that some opponents have been raising. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that every child must have a mother and a father. I know that it is a touchy subject, but as someone who actually grew up without a mother and without a father, I think I am somewhat qualified to speak on the issue. A child does need both male and female influences in their life, but those influences do not necessarily have to come from their biological parents. What is most important is that a child is raised in a loving and caring environment. What is most important is that the people who are raising that child give them a home that is safe, warm, educating, and nurturing. If that environment just so happens to be a same-sex marriage, then that child is just as fortunate as every other loved and cared for child.

Grant Robinson

This bill is also about inclusion. Quite simply we will not succeed as a country or society if we continually find reasons to exclude people. The only place that takes us is division and hatred. Why on earth would we want to stop a couple who love each other and who want to make a commitment to one and other from doing that? Why would we want to exclude some people from a cherished social institution?

Nothing about this legislation will affect anyone else’s marriage. Husbands will still call their wives their wife and vice versa. I will let you all in on a secret, we have all been calling our partners husbands for years. Normally it is when I am being told off.

Tau Henare

I did have a speech prepared, but that speech shot it to bits. Here is the bona fides on the New Zealand First referendum of the 1990s. The National Party said no to a bill. That is why we went to a referendum, and when we went to a referendum, 82 percent of the country said: “No, Winston. We don’t believe in you any more.” That is what it said. It never went through caucus. It never went through caucus. And that speech that I heard tonight was the biggest shyster speech I have ever heard—the biggest shyster speech I have ever heard.

But I tell you what: that speech tonight is nothing more than pandering to the 10 percent on either side of this argument. It is nothing more than pandering to those racist, redneck people who just love to get on the email.

I want to say that I have been appalled with some of the behaviour of those for the bill and against the bill, because I for one do not think that those who are against the bill are homophobic just because they are voting against it. It is their right to vote against it, and I will back my colleagues who vote against it all the way. I just do not agree with them.

If it does belong to the Church, as I have been told by so many people on the email, then why do we have legislation outlining who can and who cannot? If there was no legislation, I would back the Church 100 percent. But it is not theirs. It actually belongs to the Government. It actually belongs to this Parliament. It is a creature now of Parliament. It is not a creature any more of either the Bible or the Church.

Nikki Kaye

I want to acknowledge Chris Auchinvole and Paul Hutchison. They have shown us in this debate the true power of conscience. When Paul said: “I … cannot construct a strong enough intellectual, moral, health, or … spiritual argument against it.”, he struck a chord with so many New Zealanders, because he showed us openness and he showed us compassion for people. Our Parliament can be very proud that this vote is actually less about political divides but more about religious and generational divides.

Kevin Hague

I remember travelling to Auckland’s North Shore to protest against one of our opponents, Pastor Richard Flynn, who called publicly for homosexuals like me to be put to death. Over the years I have campaigned hard for the right of our communities not to be outsiders anymore and to assume a full place in New Zealand society. With every new reform, the same group uses the same strategy, raising fears of terrible consequences that always fail to materialise. There would be few New Zealanders today who would support re-criminalising sex between men. The cost of being outsiders is enormous. The stigma associated with our “inferior” status is associated with substantially higher rates of suicide, depression, HIV risk, violence, and other risks to our health and well-being.

Their problem with this bill is that they believe that we gay and lesbian people are morally inferior. They do not want to include us as full participants in New Zealand society. They recognise correctly what full legal equality—this signal—means, and they do not like it. That is why we have seen people with placards declaring that gay people are mentally ill and less than human. That is why we have seen Family First’s campaign, firstly, of fear and misinformation and, latterly, of stand-over tactics and blackmail. That is why we have seen Catholic Action, just like Richard Flynn, writing to all MPs and telling us that homosexuals are worthy of death and then describing in great detail the eternal agony we should expect to experience in hell. They have tried to attract more people to their cause by scaring people with imaginary consequences—people will marry their pets, ministers will be thrown in prison, and people will not be able to call each other husband and wife anymore! Just like every time before, these fears will not be realised. The consequences of this bill will be that same-sex couples will marry. Transsexual people will no longer have to divorce. Prejudice and violence will be undermined.

John Banks

The privilege we have to be in this House is counterbalanced by the need to stand up and be counted. I am one of a handful of members who was here in the very early days of these debates. After three decades and 10 Parliaments, I have had time to reflect—to reflect on what I said and to reflect on what I did. If I knew then what I have since learnt, I would have acted differently. I see this as a debate more about human rights, predicated on the basis that we are all entitled to live our lives to the fullest extent of human happiness, while respecting the rights and beliefs of others. I believe all New Zealanders should be free to pursue their own happiness.

Te Ururoa Flavell

In 1888 the Supreme Court of New Zealand made a decision that has been described as “doubtful legally and deplorable socially”. That doubtful and deplorable decision was to reject the customary marriages that had existed mai rānō, and to assume that the marriage law of England took precedence. In fact, the colonial law from another land was considered of such importance that the children of Māori customary marriages were then described as “illegitimate”,

So when opponents of this bill criticise a change to the definition of marriage as contravening our sacred traditions, I would have to say “Whose traditions are we talking about?”

Jonathan Young

A tradition is a convention, a belief, or a behaviour that stands the test of time. A tradition is the institutional memory of a society. It is not to be cast off or cast away quickly or easily, because it is the touchstone of a value that perhaps younger minds may not fully understand, yet enter into, because it is there. Traditions are what we use to guide people, I believe, into the things of life that have been proven to work.

Kris Faafoi

I know there are strong religious veins in the Pacific community, and I respect that and the views that they have, but many young, gay Pacific Islanders have found this debate difficult. Many have grown up and maintain strong religious beliefs. They have told me one of the hardest things in the public debate has been hearing that the God that they worship seems to see them differently. My God does not. I hope that our community can embrace that there are many in our families who on a daily basis struggle to be openly who they are.

Paul Hutchinson

At one of my electorate meetings a highly intelligent, crusty, salt of the earth farmer urged me to vote against the bill, but he later joked that over the last few generations the sequence of events has gone like this: in the first instance parents such as himself used to tell their daughters not to come home with someone from a different religion, then not to come home with someone from a different race, then definitely not to come home single and pregnant, and, today, then not to come home with someone from the same sex, let alone marry them. He encapsulates the fact that society has evolved enormously within a few generations, just as marriage has been evolving as a civil and religious institution throughout human history.

As a former specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist, extremely poignant experiences for me were the rare occurrences where at the birth of a baby, when the parents instinctively asked: “Is it a boy or a girl?”, I had been literally unable to tell them. This has been because of ambiguous genitalia or a unique physical abnormality. It may take some weeks to fully assess a child, have genetic testing carried out, and assign a sex. Even that may be later changed. This illustrates the dramatic new knowledge available in the modern world to better understand the spectrum of physical, genetic, and social expression of gender and sexuality that was simply not possible in the past. I ask anyone, on either side of the debate, whether they would not hope that their newborn could be brought up in a society that is both tolerant and as caring about their child’s status and aspirations as any other child’s—a society that is inclusive, fair, and committed to respecting one another.

In the first reading of this bill I said that despite trying hard, I could not construct a strong enough intellectual, moral, health, or even spiritual reason to vote against it. I am now quite convinced that, at the end of the day, the strength of any human union is about love, tolerance, giving, forgiving, sharing, inclusiveness, commitment, and fairness irrespective of gender. These are universal qualities that have no boundaries.

Chris Auchinvole

We have faced many issues of conscience in our nation’s relatively short history, and I think we have grown stronger by facing them together, not always as adversaries but as fellow members of a small and empathetic nation that often gives fine examples to the rest of the world.

As an older person I would ask that the younger generation—epitomised, of course, in my colleague Nikki Kaye—show some patience and consideration for those of my generation who will need time to adjust to a change that will be very, very new to us. By the same token we cannot move forward as a nation if we older ones ignore or reject the heartfelt pleas for respect by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community and the younger brigade. We need their acceptance as they are entitled to our acceptance.

Ruth Dyson

The Marriage Act has since 1955 said that celebrants can do that, presumably to protect celebrants from being forced to marry heterosexual couples of different religions or—heaven forbid—marry somebody who was divorced.

Moana Mackey

And although I respect the beliefs of those who oppose the bill on religious grounds, I strongly believe that although it is the role of the State to protect freedom of religious expression—and this bill reaffirms that—it is not the role of the State to uphold one group’s religious beliefs over another’s.

This debate is not about special rights for some; it is, in fact, the very opposite. It is about acknowledging that something that used to be seen as so scary, immoral, and different that my mother felt compelled to be an active member of a group called HUG—Heterosexuals Unafraid of Gays—is, in fact, completely normal.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people will not be any better or worse at marriage than us straights. They will face the same challenges, the highs and lows, the successes, and the failures.

My late grandmother always had a wonderfully uncomplicated approach to life. At one point she became quite taken with Brendan, the partner of one of my best friends from high school, Peter. She told me that she would not be at all disappointed if Brendan were to become her grandson-in-law. I said to her “But, Grandma, he’s gay.”, to which she responded “Well, your grandfather wasn’t the easiest person to live with, but you make marriage work.”

​The full video of the speeches can be found on the ParliamentTV YouTube channel.

And the full transcript of the reading​.

How not to draw too much from the Hutt Aquifer

Before the recently ended water restrictions it was my belief the Waiwhetu (Hutt) quifer was only used when the Hutt river was unable to provide enough. As it turned out the aquifer is used everyday.

This raised a question in my mind. Water enters aquifers at a specific rate that can be a lot lower than the rate we are able to remove it at.​ The current iconic example of this is one of the big aquifers under the north central US where we are draining it faster than it is replenished. So how does the Wellington Regional Council stop this from happening?

​To try and get an answer I shot off a quick email to the Wellington Regional Council and got a response the next day.

...

We have a resource consent to take up to 115 MLD provided we do not lower the pressure in the aquifer beyond 2.3 metres, as measured at the Petone foreshore.  There is also a practical limit to how much water we can draw from the aquifer due to pumping and system capacity constraints. This is around 100 MLD.

The aquifer pressure is monitored continuously and our supervisory, control and data acquisition (SCADA) system will alert operations staff if the pressure approaches the lower limit.

...​

A quick and useful answer and no one even had to protest. ;) It's as though they're human. :p

​Anyways, I was pleased to see that there are rules in place that make sense for the Waiwhetu aquifer. A minimum pressure requirement definitely stops us from removing at a faster rate than replenishment and is much more responsive to changes in the recharge rate. More importantly it also stops aquifer from being infiltrated by salt water from the harbor; that would be very bad.

Earthquakes

Well that was cool. I'm sitting at my computer looking at some stuff and feel this tiny ground tremor. I thought it was a small earthquake until three secs later when we got a good jolt. Always fun, earthquakes. Especially the thought of "THE GROUND SHOULD NOT DO THAT!" turns out it was a 4.8 only about 20km NW of us.

 

http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/3165869g-shaking.html

MP's Spouses to Stop Getting Free Flights?

Nice loaded title ain't it. Well I've just come across a story on Stuff.co.nz where John Key has told his ministers that if they want to take their spouses or partners overseas with them on business that they will have to use their own money to do it. Now to me this is common sense. While politics seems to be largely a thankless task travel for work is travel for work, not a taxpayer funded holiday with the Mr. or Mrs. So it's nice to see one of the political leaders making a statement about it even though its up to the ministers and parlimentary services to make sure it's listened to. Here's hoping that the politicians will understand things like this will go a long way in the public's perception about their willingness to lead by example in the economic downturn and in life in general.