Could Ōamaru become a national historic landmark?
Photo:
David Douglas
A proposal for Ōamaru's historic town centre and port to be designated as a national historic landmark has been approved by the Waitaki District Council.
Under the Heritage New Zealand plan, Ōamaru would have the same landmark status as the Waitangi Treaty Grounds in Northland, because of its well-preserved Victorian architecture and vibrant history.
The agency was also proposing recognising the National War Memorial in Wellington as a historic landmark.
The Ōamaru landmark would cover land, buildings and structures across Thames, Itchen, Harbour, Tyne and Wansbeck Streets, as well as the harbour area.
The proposed extent of the Oamaru Historic Town Centre and Port National Historic Landmark.
Photo:
Supplied / Waitaki District Council
At a council meeting on Tuesday, heritage advisor Mark Smith recommended granting consent for Heritage New Zealand to include council-owned property and other owned assets as part of the proposal.
"Council can secure significant benefits and recognition for Waitaki by supporting this proposal," his report said.
"The Ōamaru historic town centre and port sites would go from being listed among the thousands of items on HNZ's list to one of a handful of places of exceptional national significance."
The report noted the proposal was supported by Oamaru Whitestone Civic Trust and Tourism Waitaki.
Waitaki mayor Gary Kircher told councillors there would be a certain synergy to the site being acknowledged alongside Waitangi, because Waitaki was the southern Māori dialect of Waitangi.
"Waitangi is nationally known, nationally recognised, very important to the country and the opportunity to put Ōamaru's heritage buildings on the par with that is pretty special," he said.
"I'm very happy to support this and look forward to this becoming a reality."
Councillor John McCone also voiced his support, but was concerned national historical landmark status would result in extra costs for building owners.
"I will support it on the basis its promotional and doesn't become a cost to the owner," he said.
Smith told the meeting the process would not create any new legislative burdens for property owners, based on discussions with Heritage New Zealand.
"Nothing new is being added by being part of this historic landmark system," he said.
When the proposal was
first mooted in November
, Heritage New Zealand's Otago/Southland area manager Sarah Gallagher said she was excited about Ōamaru getting the recognition it deserved.
"Landmark recognition will honour the town's rich history, architectural heritage and unique spirit, and the efforts of those who have worked hard to preserve and restore the buildings and streetscapes.
"This recognition will connect visitors and locals alike to the stories of the town's past."
After receiving council consent, Heritage New Zealand would collect the signatures of building owners by mid-May and submit a report to its board in August to seek permission for nationwide public consultation in September.
If submitters supported the proposal, a recommendation would go to Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Paul Goldsmith.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Sir Ian Taylor: Do we really need this passport debate?
OPINION: Sir Ian Taylor has penned a letter to Foreign Minister Winston Peters. Kia ora Winston , I know we still haven't managed to have that long-promised lunch to unpack the true meaning of the term woke which, given your political instincts, I suspect you secretly enjoy throwing around just to keep everyone on their toes. But before we sit down over a steaming plate of puha to have that kōrero, (see what I did there) I was wondering if I could add another topic to the agenda: the use of Māori on the New Zealand passport. It seems, somehow, that the order of two words on a travel document now ranks among the great political battlegrounds of our time. Forget the cost-of-living crisis. Forget child poverty. Forget the price of butter which, somehow, has become a handy distraction from the real costs hitting household budgets. Rent, insurance, petrol, electricity, rates. You know, those things we don't have any option about paying. And that's what's confusing me. I find it difficult to believe that in times like those we are currently facing, what matters most to you, and Brooke van Velden, is whether our passports say New Zealand Aotearoa or Aotearoa New Zealand . I know Brooke won't be coming to share kai with us (sorry did it again) but there is a bit to discuss here don't you think? You and I both travel. I've got the older passport that leads with New Zealand . My son has the updated version that begins with Aotearoa . And miraculously, we both manage to get through international border controls all over the world. In the last month that included, Dubai, Paris, Lisbon, Seville, Belfast and Dublin. No panic. No confusion. Just a couple of kiwi travellers doing what travellers do. Handing over our passports to show where we come from. So, if no one at the border seems to care which name comes first, is this really the debate we need to be having here in Aotearoa New Zealand? Maybe when we do sit down for that lunch, we could have a better one: where did the name New Zealand come from in the first place? Our national identity is quite literally borrowed from a country on the other side of the world that has no historical, cultural, or geographical connection to us, at all. When Abel Tasman who, it's worth pointing out never even set foot on these shores, spotted the coastline in 1642 he didn't ask the local inhabitants what they called the land. Those inhabitants just happened to be yours and my Polynesian ancestors who landed here hundreds of years before Tasman made it to this, the land of the long white cloud. No, instead Dutch cartographers back in Europe dubbed it Nova Zeelandia , after their own province of Zeeland. A flat, soggy region famous for its' windmills, dykes, cheese, tulips and canals. Not a single Pohutukawa tree in sight. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure windmills and cheese wheels quite capture the essence of who we are. And yet somehow, this adopted name, bestowed by men who didn't even disembark, has become sacrosanct to some, while Aotearoa , a name used to describe this land for centuries before Tasman turned up, is treated by some as irrelevant, with little or no place in our history. But I do think you and I will be able to find a few things in common when we get to this part of our korero. I actually don't know why the order on the passport was changed in the first place. I quite like the old cover on my passport, where Aotearoa sits below New Zealand. In fact, one could argue that having Aotearoa beneath New Zealand is symbolic. That it reflects the foundation, the whenua, on which this nation was built. Recognising that Aotearoa was here first and we built a new nation, together, on top of that foundation. I hope you don't think that is too woke of me. This isn't just about your argument to change it back. The same argument could have, and perhaps should have, been made when someone decided to make the first change. But now it's become an ideological battle, not a discussion. It's less about identity and more about headlines. But surely this is not a debate that belongs on the front pages, and certainly not in Parliament's time. It looks like a turf war between two minority parties fighting over the same narrow band of voters. Voters you both need to stay above that 5% barrier that, in the current MMP environment, gives minority parties, on both sides, far more power than was ever intended. A power that has led to a growing division between us that will ultimately weaken us as a nation the world looks up to. If you're looking for what a modern, unified New Zealand looks like, I suggest you go back and watch Michaela Sokolich-Beatson's post-match speech after the Northern Mystics v Tactix netball final last weekend. Michaela spoke beautifully, switching naturally between English and te reo Māori. It was moving, eloquent and powerful. It showed that both languages, both cultures, are now a part of who she is. And then her team delivered a haka. When Michaela Sokolich-Beatson and her team stood after their loss and delivered that haka, it wasn't a challenge. In Māori culture it's a gesture of honour and pride. A way to acknowledge their opponents, their teammates, and the community they represent. It was powerful because it wasn't about the scoreboard, it was about identity, unity, and respect. That haka didn't just mark the end of a match. It marked who we are now. So, Winston, about that lunch. Let's talk woke . Let's talk passports. But more importantly, let's talk about how we shift the focus back to the real work that needs doing, on both sides of the House.
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Te Pāti Māori announces Ikaroa-Rāwhiti candidate Hayley Maxwell
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Haley Maxwell co-ordinated the Toitu Te Tiriti hīkoi in Gisborne. By Russell Palmer of RNZ Te Pāti Māori has announced Haley Maxwell will stand for next year's general election - for the one Māori seat currently held by Labour. Maxwell helped organise the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti in the region last year. 'Haley Maxwell spearheaded the historic Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti from Te Tairāwhiti right through to Kahungunu. Haley embodies the fierce compassion and courage that Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is famous for,' Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said in a written statement. 'She has stood on the marae, in the courts and on the streets for our people. Parliament will be a stronger house with her voice echoing the roar of Te Tairāwhiti.'
Newsroom
a day ago
- Newsroom
Attorney-General rules her own Govt's voting crackdown breaches human rights
Electoral law restrictions announced last week are in breach of the Bill of Rights Act, Attorney-General Judith Collins KC says in a report belatedly disclosed to Parliament. She indicates more than 100,000 people may be directly or indirectly disenfranchised by rules banning enrolment in the final 13 days before an elections. Young people, and areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, are likely to be worst affected. Denying voters the political franchise is a heavy price to pay, she says, when there are alternative, less restrictive measures that could have addressed the same problem of speeding up the vote count. But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has hit back. 'Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system,' he tells Newsroom. 'I don't accept that we are disenfranchising people by requiring that they are first enrolled. Many countries do this, such as Australia.' Professor Andrew Geddis, at the University of Otago, says the Bill of Rights notice ought to have been attached to the bill when it was presented, according to the wording of section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act. This would have allowed ministers to be asked about it, when the proposal first came out. 'However, it doesn't seem to have been,' he says. 'Instead, it quietly went up on the Ministry of Justice website just in time for the weekend.' 'Heavy price' for administrative convenience In its Regulatory Impact Statement, the Ministry of Justice did not recommend the option of closing enrolment earlier. 'Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant,' officials said. The Attorney-General's Bill of Rights inconsistency notice goes further, concluding the proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on section 12 of the Bill of Rights Act, which says every New Zealand citizen aged 18-plus has the right to vote in Parliamentary elections. 'The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy,' she says. 'A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' Citing Electoral Commission and Ministry of Justice data, she says about 3400 people would have their eligibility to vote directly affected by the law change. These include people returning from overseas after being away for an extended time, and people who become New Zealand residents or are released from prison during the registration period. But many more will have their right to vote indirectly affected, by being in effect excluded from the franchise by the practicalities of the operation of a 13-day pre-election registration deadline. There has been an expectation, since 1993, that electors can register as late as the day before polling day, or more recently, on polling day. Indeed, the trend (with accompanying publicity campaigns) has been towards greater flexibility as to when people may register to vote. In the 2023 general election, the special votes included more than 97,000 people who registered for the first time during the voting period, and nearly 134,000 people who changed electoral districts during the voting period. 'This gives some indication of the number of people who may be affected, and the farther out the registration deadline from polling day, the greater the disenfranchising impact is likely to be.' There were other options the Government could have embraced, Collins says, that would impose 'less onerous limits on the right to vote'. For instance, it could have reverted to a deadline of the day before election day (which was the rule from 1993 to 2020) or a deadline of three, five or seven days before polling day. The notice to Parliament also finds the announced law changes breach the rights of sentenced prisoners, by reinstating a ban on them voting. For most of New Zealand's history, sentenced prisoners have been denied the right to vote. In 1975, the Rowling Labour government gave them the vote but that enfranchisement was brief – the National government repealed it two years later. The Electoral Act 1993 allowed for a limited prisoner franchise, though those serving a a sentence of three or more years were excluded. That was repealed in 2010. Then in 2020, the Ardern Labour Government restored prisoners' ability to vote, after jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor took a successful case to the Supreme Court. Like the Attorney-General, the court said the ban was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Goldsmith has now announced it will (again) be repealed. And he isn't wavering, in the face of the Attorney-General's notice. 'Citizenship brings rights and responsibilities,' he says. He rejects the inclusion of prisoners' rights in the Bill of Rights Act. 'People who breach those responsibilities to the extent that they are sentenced to jail temporarily lose some of their rights, including the right to vote.' Speeding up the vote count On the wider matter of when people are allowed to enrol, the law says an eligible voter can enrol right up to and including election day, at any voting place in New Zealand. According to public advice from the Electoral Commission, if people enrol early, then voting will be faster. The commission says that those who enrol before Writ Day (about a month before election day) will have their names on the printed electoral roll at the voting place. They'll also be mailed an EasyVote card, making it faster for the person issuing voting papers to find them on the roll. 'You can still enrol after Writ Day – but you may need to fill in an extra form when you go to vote.' Goldsmith justifies barring people from voting if they don't enrol more than 13 days out from election day, saying it should enable votes to be counted faster. 'The final vote count used to take two weeks – last election it took three,' he says. 'If we leave things as they are, it could likely take even longer. 'If you want to vote, you need to be enrolled. People have a whole year to get organised. I have every confidence New Zealanders can manage.' Ockers and 'drop kicks' Goldsmith says many countries require people to be enrolled before voting. Australia required people to be enrolled 26 days before the last election, and before 2020, New Zealanders were not able to enrol on election day. 'Those people were not disenfranchised, they were simply required to be enrolled. It is not difficult.' However, the Attorney-General points out the High Court of Australia has ruled on a voter registration deadline that departed from previous settings. She endorses that court's comments, that restricting the impact on the franchise of restricting the voter registration period is a 'heavy price'. Delivering a 2010 judgment on behalf of a seven-member panel of the High Court, Chief Justice Robert French had said the heavy price imposed on the constitutional mandate was disproportionate to the benefits of a smoother and more efficient electoral system, to which the amendments were directed. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said only 'drop kicks' enrolled late to vote. Goldsmith reiterates his unhappiness with the Act leader's comment. 'I said last week, Mr Seymour's comment was unhelpful. The purpose of the change, and a large number of other changes, is to take pressure off the system, so that the Electoral Commission can do its job effectively and efficiently.'
