Protected Objects Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I move, That the Protected Objects Amendment Bill be now read a second time. New Zealand’s unique cultural heritage creates the context in which we live. It is a context of accumulated experience, a context of knowledge, and a context of New Zealand’s national identity. Cultural heritage objects are an important part of our heritage, but their movable nature makes them vulnerable to illicit trade. A number of legal and practical difficulties inhibit cross-border recovery. This is a worldwide issue that requires not only strong domestic legislation but also international cooperation.

The Protected Objects Amendment Bill is the result of a long process of review of the Antiquities Act 1975. Through the bill, the Antiquities Act will become the Protected Objects Act 1975. The bill seeks to address shortcomings in the Act and improve its operation in order to provide a strengthened framework for the protection of cultural heritage objects, while maintaining the balance with the rights of private property owners that were established under the Act.

One of the most important benefits that the bill will deliver is increased international protection for New Zealand’s cultural heritage objects that are stolen or illegally exported from New Zealand. Regrettably, international trafficking in cultural heritage objects continues to present a challenge to law enforcement. The only effective means of addressing this is through international cooperation. I am delighted that this bill will enable New Zealand to accede to the two most international conventions in this area: the 1970 Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. The Unesco convention provides a broad framework for cooperation in this field, while the UNIDROIT convention was developed to provide for more concrete remedies. Taken together, these treaties address many of the legal problems that otherwise bedevil attempts to recover cultural heritage objects.

In outline, these new provisions deal with the following situations. First, they apply when objects have been illegally exported from reciprocating States—essentially, member States to the Unesco and UNIDROIT conventions. In this case, the State concerned may claim recovery in the High Court. The second situation is when objects have been stolen from cultural institutions in Unesco States. The recent looting of the Baghdad Museum demonstrates the importance of these provisions. In such cases, each State must take on the task of securing recovery at the request of another State party. In New Zealand, this will be done under the provisions of section 10D, inserted by clause 13, through a power of seizure by the Customs Service. Of course, New Zealand is not a major international art market or transit State. We expect that occasions when it is necessary to utilise these new provisions will be relatively few, but they allow New Zealand to meet its international obligations and are an essential quid pro quo for achieving a much more effective means of protecting our own priceless cultural heritage from illegal trafficking.

Another focus is on improving the process for establishing the ownership of found Māori artefacts, which are now referred to in the bill as “taonga tūturu”. The bill provides a more streamlined administrative process for establishing the ownership of found taonga tūturu. Importantly, the bill also removes the need for applicants to enter costly legal proceedings in order to establish their ownership. To this end, it changes the rules of the Māori Land Court to allow the registrar of the court to make ownership orders where ownership is not disputed. It is anticipated that these measures will significantly increase the incidences of ownership being established over taonga tūturu, consistent with the purpose of the Act.

There has been concern for some time that penalties for the illegal export of cultural objects are too low to be effective. The bill therefore increases penalties for offences under the Act. For example, for exporting an object illegally an individual can be imprisoned for up to 5 years or fined up to $100,000.

The bill seeks to enhance clarity and consistency in decision making about the export of protected objects. It establishes, as schedule 4, inserted by schedule 1 of the bill, nine categories of protected New Zealand objects that offer precise definitions of the types of objects that are subject to export regulation. The bill also updates criteria used to assess the significance of objects in these categories and provides for the formal engagement of expert examiners to advise the chief executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage on decisions regarding export permission.

Fifteen submissions on the bill were received, including four oral submissions. After consideration of all submissions, the Government Administration Committee recommended a small number of amendments, and the Government concurs with these recommendations. I will outline the more substantive of them. One recommendation relates to various references in the bill to the age at which certain categories of New Zealand objects become eligible for protection under the Act. A number of submissions proposed reducing this age from 60 to 30 years, as is the case under Australia’s Protection of Moveable Cultural Heritage Act. On considering the international situation, the committee found that the Australian threshold was exceptional and that such a provision would likely infringe too greatly on the legitimate trade in cultural objects such as relatively contemporary artworks. The committee therefore recommended a reduction of the threshold to 50 years, bringing New Zealand into line with more common international practice.

In response to a number of submissions, the committee recommended an amendment in clause 9 that will give expert examiners the protection from legal liability that might result from recommendations made in good faith. A further recommendation relates to the regulation-making powers of the bill. Two powers from clause 28 have been deleted and one further clarified, as recommended by the Regulations Review Committee.

An issue arose during the select committee process that I believe is important to note, though it did not result in recommendations for change. It relates to the provision in the Antiquities Act that newly found taonga tūturu are prima facie property of the Crown. It is acknowledged that the phrase “property of the Crown” may not be viewed positively by Māori. The provision is, however, merely a legal mechanism to ensure that taonga are handled appropriately until custody or ownership can be awarded. The bill makes no change to the process for establishing appropriate ownership of taonga tūturu, but, as noted earlier, it does simplify it.

The Government believes that this bill will provide a firm foundation for the protection and management of New Zealand’s movable cultural heritage. New Zealand will benefit from a more transparent environment for legitimate international trade in cultural objects and a reduction in illegal exports as deterrents come into effect. I acknowledge the positive tone and well-considered comments of those who made submissions. I am also appreciative of the hard work of the members of the Government Administration Committee. I believe that the amendments, as proposed, are useful improvements to the bill. The Government intends to propose two Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee of the whole House that contain minor technical changes only. I look forward to advancing a bill that provides some very workable and sensible solutions. I commend the progress of this bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. As one of the members of the Government Administration Committee during some of the submission process—not the entire process; I was there briefly during the process of this bill’s consideration—I will state that the intention of National is to see this bill pass through the House and receive the Royal assent. There are a number of reasons: first, it brings New Zealand into line with the internationally recognised Unesco set of standards; second, it gives more powers to agencies operating under the Antiquities Act to enforce the law; and, third, it also identifies some of what we would describe as our treasured and protected objects.

One of the submitters to the select committee intrigued me by bringing up a situation that took place in Taranaki—I can see the former chair of the select committee, Dianne Yates, nodding in acknowledgment. Prior to the New Zealand Wars some sacred and special artefacts had been buried by a Māori iwi in order to protect them from an imminent invasion by another tribe from the north. After that invasion, nobody who was left standing from that particular iwi remembered where the artefacts had been buried. Therefore, the artefacts were lost. A farmer ploughed up the artefacts from the swampy area in which they were buried 150-odd years later, after the swamp had been drained and sunk and the artefacts had come close to the surface. The farmer who discovered the objects was able to sell them, without consulting anybody, on the international market—via the Internet, if my memory serves me correctly. Of course, New Zealand would have had a very strong interest in retaining those artefacts in New Zealand. This bill will amend the Antiquities Act 1975 to strengthen the ability of the relevant authorities to intervene and stop that kind of thing from happening.

Submissions on some more bizarre things were brought to the select committee, such as that of the traction engine society. The society identified some very early imports of particular kinds of machines that are now unique in the world. Only three or four of those machines are left, they are all here in New Zealand, and, of course, they have a very high monetary value. Collectors around the world are in search of those things, and obviously they could be sold off. Somebody needs to decide whether selling those machines is of any significance, and whether we mind them being sold, without the process being too heavy-handed. There is an element of doubt about whether the process will be too heavy-handed—we will have to see how it goes.

Of course, I was brought into the debate when somebody suggested that Myrtle, the tractor that went up the steps of Parliament, could one day be one of those artefacts. Myrtle is a classic example of an iconic piece of agricultural machinery that came to Wellington, did a little stunt on the steps of Parliament, and was condemned by all and sundry on the Government benches as being an act of vandalism and some kind of vicious assault on the historic buildings of Parliament. Incidentally, when Myrtle came to Wellington it was worth about $200, but when it went home it was worth $20,000. Potentially, Myrtle could be traded on the international market, which could mean that some of Parliament’s history would be lost to New Zealand forever. So amending the Antiquities Act may protect Myrtle from some vicious overseas buyer who might snap up the opportunity to have an old Ferguson tractor.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: What year was Myrtle?

I know where the member is heading. The age of an artefact became an issue because of the question of what is and what is not an artefact. For the information of the member who is inquiring, I tell him that Myrtle fits within the category of artefact in the bill. I never introduced that idea; it came in as a result of the advice that was brought to the select committee.

The bill also increases the amount that people can be fined for an offence under the Act to $100,000—which is a fairly hefty penalty, but a very thorough test would have to be met before that fine would be applied—or such people may receive an imprisonment period of up to 5 years. So if those penalties do not act as a deterrent, then I am not sure what will. For that reason, I hope we will no longer see the kind of trade that we have seen.

Going back to the origins of the bill to find out why it was suddenly brought to Parliament, I remind members of the very emotional period we went through with the return of the shrunken heads. Most New Zealanders had either a negative or a positive view on that matter, but generally the reception was positive. While that process was taking place, the question was asked as to whether we were adequately protected in terms of what was in New Zealand at that time that would be deemed, some 100 or 150 years after the event, to be significant artefacts for New Zealand. As a result of the concerns raised during that process, the Māori Land Court was given powers to approve or not approve of various Māori artefacts being sold overseas, which was a good step forward. So the select committee, in general, was able to come to a consensus on that issue, although there were concerns on one side that the measures were a little weak, and on the other side that they might be too strong, which is typical of the sort of stuff that goes on in a select committee.

Earlier in the debate it was mentioned that the Government Administration Committee, with five members—two from National and three from Labour—was a non-representative select committee of Parliament. I say to members who have those concerns that the opportunity for them to be subbed on to that committee and have their say is always there. If those members choose not to take that option, then it is a bit unfair to say we were acting in a first-past-the-post type of committee, because in this instance that was definitely not the case. In fact, members from other parties expressed a view in certain areas, and those views were well represented in the findings of the committee. So I suggest that those who think the process was not done in that way should go back and do some research into what took place in that committee. The reality is that it was a very representative parliamentary select committee.

The other point that has come out of the discussion tonight, from a range of different angles, was whether there is an overemphasis in respect of things that may be described as Māori, wāhi tapu, or whatever one might try to embrace in that wider discussion. I do not think that is the case with this legislation, because in the Protected Objects Amendment Bill, we are talking about physical objects and things that can be traded internationally. So that brings quite a clear definition as to what we might be talking about. Obviously, the final decision of those who make that choice will always be debated, and there will always be room for some discussion, but the clarity of the bill is absolute in terms of what may or may not be traded.

In essence, the bill will receive widespread support from Parliament. The legislation is overdue, especially when we think of what has already been lost in terms of New Zealand’s artefacts and early culture to what is now a very global market, in which one can trade, buy, and sell stuff electronically around the world within seconds. It is welcome legislation.

As the former chair of the Government Administration Committee, I am very pleased to speak on the Protected Objects Amendment Bill, and I thank the present chair of that select committee, Shane Ardern. I remind the House that in the last Parliament the Government Administration Committee consisted of five members. The committee deals with a wide range of very, very interesting subjects. This bill, in particular, is about New Zealand’s national identity. It is about things we own in this country, things that are part of our culture, and things we value.

I will read the introduction to the bill: “The bill will amend the Antiquities Act 1975 to provide a more precise definition of protected New Zealand objects subject to export regulation,”—

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: Don Brash!

I do not think he is a protected New Zealand object—and he does not want to be in New Zealand.

The introduction continues: “and to prohibit the permanent export of protected New Zealand objects that are of such significance that their export would diminish New Zealand’s cultural heritage.” [Interruption] I do not think exporting Don Brash would diminish New Zealand’s cultural heritage; I do not think he qualifies under this Act, at all. “The bill also enables New Zealand’s participation”—this is very interesting—“in the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions,”—which are appended to the bill—“that prohibit the import of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects, and provide for the forfeiture and return of such illegally exported objects.”

This is a very, very important bill. We have talked about New Zealand objects that are in other countries, and, of course, this House has already received a petition, which we support, from the Greek people in respect of the Elgin Marbles. That is the kind of thing that the bill is about, but it deals with New Zealand objects.

I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for working so well together on a number of issues that are important to New Zealand—art, culture, and our national identity. It is very important that many of the aspects of the upcoming Budget are about New Zealand’s national identity and what it means to be a New Zealander. I am very proud that the Protected Objects Amendment Bill has been brought in by the Labour-led Government.

I am very pleased to take a call on this very important bill. It struck me that the Government Administration Committee is a particularly effective committee because, on this very important bill, it took only an hour and a bit to hear the submissions, and it took another hour and a bit to reach a unanimous conclusion. So obviously all sides of the House are in favour of this bill.

I am very pleased to support this bill, but I would like more discussion during the Committee stage on some of the issues I raise here. Possibly because I am a member to whom this bill is new, I thought about it and wondered how some of the provisions would actually be implemented. A very good reason to support this bill is that we learnt that in August 2004 Interpol estimated illicit trade in art and artefacts worldwide each year to be worth somewhere between US$4 billion and US$10 billion. So it is important that all countries try to cooperate to stop this illegal trade.

I do wonder how much the passage of this legislation itself will actually contribute to a reduction. The mere fact that people see illicit trade as very valuable to engage in means it becomes a global business, and it seems to me that New Zealand and other countries that have signed this convention must show some real commitment for its enforcement. The New Zealand Parliament, as I have mentioned in the past, is pretty good at passing well-intentioned laws to stop all sorts of things, but the enforcement itself is usually the problematic part. My concern is that we obviously have those, shall I say, professionals who engage deliberately in trying to trade illegally in these well sought after artefacts, so I suggest we must gear up to enforce this law.

But, having said that, just now my good colleague Shane Ardern raised the subject of a farmer who discovered artefacts on his own land. How would the enforcement of this Act take into account innocent individuals who find that some artefacts have come into their possession? It seems to me that the fact the farmer put that artefact up for auction on the Internet means he was obviously convinced he could do so—he did not try to hide or run away—and was not even aware that he had a responsibility to report his find. I do not know which enforcement agency he should have contacted, or whether he should have contacted a museum, for example. I would like to discuss such issues further.

Perhaps whoever takes the next call can enlighten us as to any education campaign that is to accompany this legislation so we can educate the public about the increased penalties and the value of keeping New Zealand treasure here for our people to enjoy. A public campaign should be mounted. I just wonder whether the Government has a plan on hand for an education campaign to inform the public, and particularly to protect individuals who might come into possession of an artefact or who may be offered an artefact for sale.

The other issue I would like some discussion on during the Committee stage concerns how extensive the list of expert examiners is, how one verifies that the artefacts in question are of a quality and standard we would want to protect, and how to ensure we do not necessarily stifle individuals who may have very valid reasons for wanting to export or sell artefacts that belong to them. There have been some difficult questions raised recently in relation to Anzac Day. We have had, I would say, quite a painful discussion about war medals—whether the family descendants should be able to sell them, and whether, because such medals are so important in terms of New Zealand history, the country should have more of a claim to a family’s possession. How does this legislation manage to balance on the one hand the value to our country as a whole and on the other hand the individual’s entitlement to do what they deem fit with a piece of property in their possession?

It seems to me that ultimately it comes down to public awareness of the importance of maintaining our treasure in our country. It is also about people nurturing a public spirit approach as to when a treasure is best kept in a museum or a public place for all to enjoy rather than an individual wanting it for his or her own private collection. I think it will take time—through our schooling and through individuals showing their generosity—to make sure that treasures can be kept for the public to enjoy.

I want to divert a little bit and mention some personal experiences. When I travelled in London and in the Netherlands a few years back, I looked at some of the fantastic masterpieces from China—Chinese paintings—that were kept in overseas museums. Some of them may not be available at all in museums in China. So I must say I have a lot of sympathy for some of the provisions in the bill whereby museums would cooperate with each other when they find there are valuables that belong to the New Zealand public. I also agree with the provisions whereby the Government and various overseas countries can cooperate and organise a way to return such things to each country so that its public can enjoy those values that rightly belong to the people of each individual country.

It was a pleasure to take part in this debate. I hope the points I have raised will be further enlightened in the Committee stage.

Before I start on my kōrero tonight, I would like to note a couple of things. First, I was seriously embarrassed by the speech made by Mahara Okeroa, the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and by his downplaying of the concept of Māori artefacts being protected objects. The way he presented that speech spoke much about Labour’s dishonouring of the concept of things Māori, and the fact that Mahara could allow himself to be used to make that speech suggests that some very bad things are going on for Māori within the Labour Party. Sitting here and listening to him talk about protected objects like they were something from Mars, I was ashamed. This is Aotearoa, and protected objects come primarily from the saving of taonga, which in this country are primarily Māori. For him to use the word “Māori” about as many times as the Minister of Finance used it in his Budget last year suggests a contempt for things Māori. That is simply unacceptable to the Māori Party.

The second point I would like to make is that if Mr Ardern is correct in saying that the committee that oversaw this bill, the Government Administration Committee, is made up of three Labour members and two National members, then it is no wonder that protected objects like the pōwhiri are seriously under threat. We need only consider the comments made by the Prime Minister in terms of how she thinks the Government will dictate how pōwhiri are to be conducted, and the manner in which Judith Collins and colleagues disrespected the pōwhiri when it was offered to them the other day, to see that we are in trouble. Everybody in this House is in trouble if we think we can talk about protected objects in an abstract manner, when what we are seriously supposed to be talking about is the protection of taonga that are intrinsic to this nation—to both Pākehā and Māori.

Having got that off my chest, if I were to guess at a waiata that every member of this House might know, it would probably be the one called “E Hara i te Mea”:

E hara i te mea

No nāianei te aroha

No ngā tupuna

Tuku iho

Tuku iho.

It is not true that love is a recent discovery. Love is something that comes from our ancestors and is handed down through the passage of time. In this way, ngā taonga tuku iho no ngā tupuna—the treasures handed down to us by our ancestors—are universally understood by all New Zealanders as being objects of value. Within the context of this bill, those taonga tūturu relate to Māori culture, history, or society, and were used by Māori, manufactured or modified by Māori, or brought to Aotearoa by Māori. We are pleased to note the recommendation from the select committee that the age threshold for protected objects and taonga tūturu should be amended from 60 to 50 years, which now means that all four members of the Māori Party are well protected!

The concept of respect for Māori culture, history, or society as preserved under ngā taonga tūturu is extremely relevant in the context of the sustained attacks on one of our key means of protecting and retaining our cultural heritage. The shameful assault on pōwhiri from both sides of this House gives us little faith that Parliament has come to terms with understanding objects, protocols, and values of cultural significance to either Māori or non-Māori. How can a so-called Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage—the Prime Minister at that—issue a directive: “The Government protocol is that women can sit in the front row … We like the kaupapa, where there’s a Government facility involved, to reflect the values of the Government and of New Zealand in general.”? The strange thing is that none of the Māori members from the Labour caucus objected, yet I know them well enough to know that they would not stand for the kind of treatment of their pōwhiri that has been spoken of here by their Prime Minister.

The pōwhiri purge has apparently been taken up by Ruth Dyson, the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF), by the previous Minister of Education, Trevor Mallard, and, notoriously, by the Department of Corrections, which has the misguided belief that renaming a pōwhiri as a whakatau means it can now own the cultural and intellectual property rights of the process. What will the next step be—that the Prime Minister will instruct the judiciary that from now on lawyers are to desist from standing when the judge enters the courtroom, in order that the “values of … New Zealand in general” will be reflected? Will the radar also hover over the tikanga in this debating chamber, and will the authority of the Speaker come into question as not reflecting the values of New Zealand? We cannot have it both ways. The Māori Party applauds the sensible advice of Professor Ranginui Walker that tangata whenua organising any pōwhiri should decide seating positions, not the Government. And we have to ask reluctantly again where Labour Māori MPs have been during this prolonged and savage battering of our culture. I say “our culture” because I recognise that, for all our differences, we are all Māori.

I raise these issues tonight because they address the concepts that are central to the Protected Objects Amendment Bill—the protection of taonga, the rangatiratanga of mana whenua, the vexed issue of ownership, and the appropriate role of the Crown. The need for negotiating ownership of taonga with iwi authorities and the Crown is critical. The bill amends the administrative processes for determining ownership of taonga tūturu by stipulating that the chief executive must notify any parties that might have an interest. We support the submitter who argued that clause 15 should be amended so that newly found taonga tūturu will not be prima facie the property of the Crown, but should instead be held prima facie to be the property of Māori. The Māori Party also endorses the view put forward by the submitter—and acknowledged by the select committee—that the phrase “property of the Crown” may not be viewed positively for Māori, and indeed warrants further analysis and debate.

Although we can commend the intent of this change, we see an urgent need to establish clear protocols with mana whenua for those who claim ownership of taonga tūturu—protocols of use, access, and loaning. Nowhere is this more vividly evident than here in Wellington with the finding last December of three punga whare, which were unearthed during an archaeological assessment of a Taranaki Street site beside the pub Molly Malones that is being turned into apartments. This was the first archaeological evidence of a Māori pā in the area. The whare are the first evidence of Te Aro Pā and are therefore of huge significance to the Wellington Tenths Trust, to Ngāti Ira, and indeed to all tangata whenua. At the site, pieces of shell, fire-cracked rocks, rubbish pits, tobacco pipes, and other taonga were also found. How relevant will this bill be to ensuring our taonga tūturu are protected? Situations like that are exactly why we need protocols for use and to prevent abuse, for access, and for protection. Who takes priority? Although we support the improvements made through the bill to enhance the administrative processes of ownership of taonga tūturu recovered during archaeological digs, or found by chance, we would like to see it strengthened to establish strong relationships with mana whenua.

That brings me to another key issue of debate in terms of the protocols required to determine representation of Māori groups—and, indeed, of all communities of interest—as set out under section 30 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I heard today about a tāhuhu currently being held in Cambridge being displayed as a tekoteko. Discussion and consultation with the mana whenua of that tāhuhu would inform the appropriate authorities of the need to hang the taonga from the ceiling, as indeed a tāhuhu should be displayed, rather than standing it upright. Such relationships are critical in repatriating Māori cultural material back home to Aotearoa.

In considering the issue of protocols, I seek to return to the protocols for cultural and intellectual property rights of iwi developed by the late Dr Hirini Melbourne, based on the Mātaatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He reminds the House that iwi have the right to self-determination and to be recognised as the exclusive owners of their cultural and intellectual property. The protocols recognise that indigenous peoples are capable of managing their traditional knowledge, but are willing to offer it to all humanity, provided that their fundamental rights to define and control such knowledge are protected by the international community. There is an insistence that the first beneficiaries of indigenous knowledge must be the direct indigenous descendants of such knowledge. Finally, he notes that all forms of discrimination and exploitation of indigenous people and indigenous knowledge, and cultural and intellectual property rights, must cease.

I have not quite finished, but that will do for now. Kia ora tātou katoa.

New Zealand First supports the second reading of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. As has been pointed out, New Zealand First did not have a member on the Government Administration Committee, and that is a shame, because the committee obviously deals with some very interesting legislation. We are very pleased to see that this bill has returned to the House, because as a country we must ensure that our New Zealand objects are protected. Basically, they are fundamental to our cultural heritage.

All our artefacts and art objects, everything that we value, and everything that makes us unique as New Zealanders must be protected. We do not want to see historical objects exported overseas as it usually takes a huge amount of time to ever have them returned to our New Zealand shores. I think we have seen this over the last few years in relation to the return of Māori human remains and the shrunken heads that were talked about earlier.

We do understand that sometimes objects will be temporarily sent overseas to be included in exhibitions and galleries for a short amount of time, but the very best aspect of this is that the objects are returned to New Zealand after a specified time. We definitely like that. We do not want to see any of our culture lost to New Zealanders or to New Zealand. New Zealand First was very pleased to see the setting up of a register of protected New Zealand objects that people have been refused permission to export, and that is exactly as it should be. We must compliment the Government Administration Committee on promoting that aspect. We do not want, nor can we afford, to lose any objects of cultural importance, particularly those that we sometimes hear about that have been exported illegally overseas, never to be available to the New Zealand public again. It is essential to maintain our treasures here in New Zealand.

I note that under section 15 of the Antiquities Act the Museum of New Zealand is already required to maintain a register of artefacts, and that is exactly as it should be. We note that the time threshold for protected objects has been reduced from 60 years to 50 years. New Zealand First would have preferred the age threshold to remain at 60 years, although we note that both Canada and the UK have a 50-year threshold for protected objects, so we will be following that area with a lot of interest.

We want to see a reduction in illegal exports, and we are hoping that this bill will provide some workable solution to the problem. We note from the commentary on the bill that the bill enables New Zealand’s participation in the Unesco and International Institute for the Unification of Private Law conventions, which prohibit the import of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects, and provide for the forfeiture and return of those objects. It is really important that New Zealand is able to participate in this type of convention.

So New Zealand First is happy to see the bill back in the House. We hope it will provide a workable solution and ensure that protected objects remain in New Zealand. We will follow the bill’s progress through the House with interest.

As the MP for Taranaki - King Country said, the National Opposition supports the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. As Mrs Stewart also said, this is a very interesting bill, which deals with some very important matters in the cultural life of New Zealand. The particular thing that interests me and the area I want to address in my second reading speech is the part of the bill that enables New Zealand’s participation in the Unesco and International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) conventions. As the commentary on the bill states, they prohibit the import of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects and provide for the forfeiture and return of such illegally exported objects.

I cannot understand why it has taken so long to introduce this legislation, because the problem has been with us for many years, as I will describe in a few minutes by reference to a matter that my friend the MP for Taranaki - King Country also referred to. But I do note that the second schedule sets out the Unesco convention, which came into force on 24 April 1972. The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects was signed in Rome on 24 June 1995. So although it has taken the New Zealand Parliament quite some time to give effect to, or to enter into, those conventions and bring them into domestic law, I am very pleased to see clause 13 of the bill, which I think will be very important.

What is the problem all about? Mr Ardern referred to a story about an incident in Taranaki many years ago. Indeed, it was a matter that gave rise to litigation brought by the Attorney-General for New Zealand in the High Court in England, and it went all the way to the House of Lords. Let me say something about the facts of that particular situation. Years ago in New Zealand a great chief—and I understand from the Minister the Hon Mahara Okeroa it was a chief of Te Ātiawa—had a treasure house. In that treasure house were stored things such as dried fish, special foods, and valuables. At the entrance to the house, there was a great door. It had five panels carved with exquisite skill, depicting human figures with serpentine bodies and white pointed heads.

As Mr Ardern said, for various reasons that door was lost in the swamps around Waitara for many years. Then, in 1972, a member of the hapū of Ngāti Rahiri, which I understand is that Minister’s hapū, came across that door while cutting a track through the swamp. The next year there came to New Zealand a person by the name of Entwistle, and he managed to persuade the member of Ngāti Rahiri to sell him the door for $6,000. He thereupon took it back to England and sold it to a fellow called Ortiz for US$65,000. Then Mr Ortiz got into financial difficulties and put it up for auction at Sotheby’s in 1978. But, when the Attorney-General for New Zealand commenced the proceeding, the object was said to be worth Stg£300,000 and it was taken off the market.

The issue that arose—[Interruption] These difficult issues are really best left for grown-ups, so if the member for Waimakariri could try to contain himself it would be very helpful. Most of his contributions in this House are asinine and buffoonish, and he does the House no credit. I am trying to deal with an important cultural issue. If the member cannot control himself he should leave the House, because he diminishes the House and makes a fool of himself. To come back to the bill, I say the real issue was whether the New Zealand Historic Articles Act could be enforced in England. Regrettably, in both the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, the law lords and lord justices said the legislation could not be enforced, because that would have had the effect of enforcing in an extraterritorial way a piece of New Zealand legislation, which would be contrary to international law.

That case was decided in 1978, and I quote from what Lord Denning said in his conclusion: “The retrieval of such works of art must be achieved by diplomatic means. Best of all, there should be an international convention on the matter where individual countries can agree and pass the necessary legislation. It is a matter of such importance that I hope steps can be taken to this end.” Indeed the House of Lords said exactly the same thing in closing. It recognised that it could not enforce in England a New Zealand piece of legislation, but expressed the hope that something could be done about that because it was an important issue.

New Zealand has been facing that kind of problem for a number of years. It is a similar problem to that faced by other countries when protected goods of a historical nature are brought into New Zealand, but really belong in the country of origin. That is why these clauses are so important. They provide, on the basis of reciprocity, for a foreign reciprocating State to commence a proceeding in New Zealand for the return of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects to the proper jurisdiction. It is exactly the procedure that Lord Denning, in the Court of Appeal case to which I have referred, recommended was so necessary in order to get some movement at the diplomatic level.

It is important to note that we are talking about reciprocity. New Zealand will have to be a reciprocating State. For example, Australia or the United Kingdom will have to sign up to the international conventions, as well. If they do not, there will be no relief under the legislation. The first point to note is that a reciprocating State may claim in a court of competent jurisdiction that an object be returned, and the court must order it to be returned if it has been unlawfully exported, and if the claimant State can show that removal of the object significantly impairs certain of the interests set out in new section 10C(2) of the principal Act, inserted by clause 13 of the bill. And indeed, compensation and costs can be awarded at the same time.

I welcome these provisions and the belated accession to the two conventions to which I have referred. They raise very important matters, which I acknowledge are beyond the understanding or comprehension of the member for Waimakariri. None the less, those of us who do understand these matters recognise that in terms of protecting cultural property, the bill goes a very long way. By signing up to the two conventions, we will be able to work within the international community to ensure that this kind of serious abuse does not occur in the future and, indeed, will be minimised.

That is the part of the bill I wanted to talk about tonight. It is important legislation. It does a great deal to protect New Zealand’s cultural property and to protect the cultural property of other States. I welcome this second reading, and I look forward to the Committee stage and to the enactment of the legislation.

Bill read a second time.