Protected Objects Amendment Bill

I want to talk about ngā taonga tūturu and the role of the Māori Land Court in establishing ownership and custody of artefacts. One of the first questions I want to ask—and I had a discussion with one of my Māori colleagues from the other side of the House—is about the use of the term “taonga tūturu”. Although I can absolutely appreciate that term, I wondered whether any thought had been given to the use of the phrase “ngā taonga tuku iho”. On the one hand, some might say that “taonga tūturu” imports the same meaning, but because it is “taonga tūruru” and the other one is “taonga tuku iho”, there is a difference.

Taonga tuku iho has the sense of the obligation to pass things down to succeeding generations. I know that that is certainly one of the underlying sentiments that can be gleaned from the bill, but I wondered whether the Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, might like to take a call and indicate whether the use of “ngā taonga tuku iho” was considered and how it was that “ngā taonga tūturu” is the sentiment that is expressed. I am sure other Māori members who are far more fluent than I am might have a contribution on this particular issue, and I think their contribution, if they feel so minded to make one, would be interesting.

Ngā tūturu, of course, is about the essence of something. That in itself is very, very important. So I certainly support the change from “artefact” to “ngā taonga tūturu”. But I would have thought that maybe “ngā taonga tuku iho” gave that important component of the obligation of current generations to make sure that taonga pass on to succeeding generations. If that indeed is the sentiment that is in the bill—and I am sure the Minister will say it is there, anyway—then we understand very, very clearly why this bill is so important, because if we do not take steps to make sure that these taonga, these treasures, are properly looked after and cared for and that they remain here in Aotearoa, then current generations are failing in their obligation to make sure that they are passed on to our successors. So that is an issue around the definition.

Then there is the issue of the role of the Māori Land Court in determining ownership. Before I come to that, I want to say to the Minister that it is very proper that Māori phraseology has been inserted into the bill, especially in these times when we as New Zealanders are all so much more aware of the need to protect our treasures and of the importance of protecting taonga Māori, Māori treasures. These things belong to all of us as New Zealanders and they help to underpin our identity and our feeling of nationhood, one with the other.

Coming to the role of the Māori Land Court—and I was not on the select committee—I note that one submitter noted that section 11 of the principal Act provides for the Māori Land Court to take an active role in the authentication of artefacts found since 1976. Apparently, a suggestion was made that museums already perform the role that the Act reserves to the Māori Land Court, but the response to that was that the role played by museums is different. Determination of ownership, of course, is the preserve of the Māori Land Court—that is, ownership in a customary sense. So it does make sense for the role of the Māori Land Court to be confirmed, and it does make sense for museums to do the work they do, which is to record details relating to newly found artefacts and authenticate them. That is a proper role for museums—that is their role. It is good, as well as different to the role of ownership of artefacts, and it is proper that the Māori Land Court does that.

I have to say—and I am not sure whether any thought was given to this; maybe the Minister might also think it is worth making a comment on—that these days so much more work is being given to the Māori Land Court. Although provision has apparently been made for the appointment of more judges, will proper provision be made for appropriate resourcing for the Māori Land Court to do all of the work it has traditionally done and also, should there be an increase in activity in this area—and there may well be—for it to take upon itself such activity? Has thinking been given to the fact that resourcing is all-important to all our courts, not least of which is the Māori Land Court, to make sure that they can perform their role properly? Otherwise, of course, giving more responsibility to a court without proper resourcing is just a waste of time. If we are serious about authentication and making sure that ownership is established properly, then I would like to think that the officials and those who were responsible for putting this bill together have thought about that.

Coming back to the general thrust of the part, I say that it is very important and proper, and we in National are very pleased to see it. I am very pleased, as a Māori, that we as a nation now see the importance of incorporating some of these descriptions in a way that gives proper recognition to the fact that they are part of tikanga Māori and that it is proper to use the terms that more appropriately capture the essence of these treasures—these things—that are important.

I just want to refer briefly to the pare, the carved piece, that comes from the meeting house Hinemihi in Te Arawa—I am Te Arawa as well as Tūwharetoa. Although that meeting house found its way legitimately—I guess—overseas and probably does not fall into the category being dealt with here, the fact that that pare, the carved piece above the doorway of that revered meeting house, is now on sale internationally at figures of $1.9 million to $2 million again underpins, I think, just how important this bill is and how important taonga tūturu are. In fact tūturu, I suppose, very well encompasses the symbolic component of Hinemihi. That is a taonga—that meeting house, not to mention the pare above the doorway. If we are talking about tūturu, that should be here in New Zealand. That is tūturu. That object—that meeting house—is home on the land where it belongs. That is the meaning of tūturu as well.

So, as I say, if we had known to do these things earlier we might have, but it is not a minute too soon that this Committee gets a chance to debate these matters. As I say, I am looking forward to hearing from one or two of the other Māori members—in addition to my colleague Tau Henare, who is raring to go again, and that is great—who might have a chance to say something as well.

I too want to broach the subject of ngā taonga tūturu. Clause 15(1) states: “The heading to section 11 is amended by omitting the word ‘artifacts’, and substituting the words ‘ngā taonga tūturu’.” Does that mean that the word “artifacts” goes completely? If it does, I am not that happy about it, because I believe that one should have both. “Artifacts” means exactly what it means; it is an artefact. But I think we would be better off leaving both of the words in there so it is quite clear, rather than to say that “ngā taonga tūturu” is a translation of “artifacts”—because that is what it means to remove the word “artifacts” and put in the words “ngā taonga tūturu”. I am not a fan of removing one and replacing it with the other. I think there is every reason to actually have both Māori and English in the provision, rather than trying to translate and interpret what one Māori concept is as opposed to an English concept; one has them both there so there will not be any hassle down the road. So if the Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, could enlighten the Committee that would be a miracle.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This is Part 2.

There is also the issue of why it should be the Māori Land Court—[Interruption] I was on Part 2.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Is there some issue about me not being on Part 2?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, just at the beginning. Yes, the member is right. You are into Part 2 now; you are quite right.

But I was speaking about ngā taonga tūturu and the word “artifact”. That comes in Part 2, does it not?

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: No, “artifact” does not.

Oh, it does not?

💬 Sandra Goudie: Yes, it does.

Well, why does the heading state: “Part 2, “Ngā taonga tūturu ownership and Maori Land Court”?

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Because it is in the interpretation.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Could the member please move on. He is on Part 2 now.

Oh, for goodness’ sake! They will try anything in this Committee to break the flow of a really well-thought-out kōrero. I did not come down here just to waste the Committee’s time. For goodness’ sake!

💬 Sandra Goudie: Here is a definition of “artifact”.

I thank my learned colleague very much for the definition of “artifact”: “ ‘Artifact’ means any chattel, carving, object, or thing which relates to the history, art, culture, traditions, or economy of the Maori or other pre-European inhabitants of New Zealand”—well, there were no pre-European inhabitants other than Māori—“and which was or appears to have been manufactured or modified in New Zealand by any such inhabitant,”. I am basically saying that those two should actually go together—“artifact” and “ngā taonga tūturu”. There is nothing wrong with having them together. There is absolutely nothing wrong with actually putting it out there and saying, “Here we are, this is what it’s all about.”

But I digress. One issue that I do want to raise with the Minister is why it is the Māori Land Court. Why should the Māori Land Court be the one to determine the ownership? Why are we not saying that, actually, ownership of artefacts or ownership of ngā taonga tūturu is such a big thing, why not put it up to the top court?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Because it costs money.

Well, of course it costs money. So is my colleague saying that we are better off putting it in the Māori Land Court because it is cheaper to get into the Māori Land Court? If that is the case then there is something wrong with our justice system—there is absolutely something wrong with our justice system. Who is to determine the ownership? Is it the Chief Judge on his own, or is it the district courts—the lower-level courts system? It is not that clear.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: It is the registrar.

So it is the registrar of the Māori Land Court who determines the ownership of ngā taonga tūturu. Well, I think that is a bit of a mess. I know a few of the registrars around town. They are all good people, but if one is going to determine ownership in a court system—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: It is where the ownership is agreed.

So who determines ownership when it is not agreed?

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Well, then it would have to go through a court process.

And which court would that be? Is it the Māori Land Court, or is it through the High Court system, or—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Through the Māori Land Court.

It is good that that has been sorted out.

I am grateful for the—[Interruption] Sorry? The member is having a conniption over there. I am grateful to the officials who have sorted out that matter, because ownership, when there is a dispute—especially when we are dealing with a Māori artefact—is sometimes mind-boggling. I refer back to the issue I raised earlier about moko mōkai. Because they could be so ancient, nobody particularly knows when those taonga may have come from. There may be an indication through tā moko where they may have come from geographically, but nobody particularly knows unless a DNA test is done, and God forbid that.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: It depends on whether you know who your father was.

I know who my father was, absolutely.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Have you had a DNA test?

I know who my father was and I find that insinuation absolutely shocking. I find it shocking that in this day and age, when some of our youngsters out there are crying out for their fathers and mothers, I have an accusation from Judith Tizard asking whether I know my father. Damn right I know who my father is, and he is a brilliant man.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

The issue was raised by the Minister, not me, Mr Chairman. I was in full flight talking about ngā taonga tūturu. I was talking about artefacts. I am appalled.

💬 Tim Groser: We’ll get you counselling afterwards, all right?

Victim support.

I think it is a serious matter in terms of some of the issues that have been raised tonight, especially about ownership. I would not like Parliament to get it wrong, because if we do, especially on an issue like this, there will be repercussions down the line. There will be Waitangi Tribunal claims about ownership. Claims about ownership issues are already before the tribunal. Hopefully this part will go some way towards sorting that out.

I do congratulate the Minister. I was only taking the proverbial about this and I understand that she was only joking, as well.

Part 2, “Ngā taonga tūturu ownership and Maori Land Court”, is a relatively small part of this legislation. I appreciated, as always, the useful and searching questions from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. She asked whether the definition of “ngā taonga tuku iho” had been considered. My understanding is that we have had a great deal of consultation on this legislation and the alternative was not put forward. What we are doing here is trying to determine the ownership of found artefacts, not of heirlooms or owned property. That issue would have to go to a court. But I have to say that I have had a number of questions from Māori constituents concerned, for example, about a situation whereby a family member who has custodianship—kaitiakitanga—of ngā taonga tuku iho, has, for example, changed religions and destroyed them. I am very pleased to see that under this legislation it will be an offence to destroy artefacts, but I think it is very much a family and legal issue and is not one for the Crown to deal with in terms of found objects.

The member’s second question was around the resourcing of the Māori Land Court. Sadly that is not dealt with in this legislation, but if at any stage I had any information I would keep an eye on it. Where I felt that the Māori Land Court was being overwhelmed with this work, I would certainly make urgent representations to the Minister with responsibility for resourcing courts.

Tau Henare asked about the issue of artefacts. Again, it was an issue where there was a significant amount of consultation. A Māori reference group was established to advise on this amendment and others around the bill. There were no submissions to the select committee on the inclusion of artefact. Although I hate to stray into earlier parts that we have covered, if the member looked at those definitions he would find that the definition is quite wide. This terminology was proposed by the reference group and has gone through the select committee process, and I am very satisfied with that.

The other question raised by Tau Henare related to the issue of how the land court would operate. As I understand it the Registrar of the Māori Land Court will make ownership determinations to avoid going through the full court process where all parties agree on ownership. My observation is that although I know there was some issue around the assertion in the legislation that the Crown would retain ownership until ownership had been debated, that is a device, and increasingly museums—particularly Te Papa, but all museums around New Zealand—are taking the role not of owners but of caretakers orkaitiaki.

I think we are seeing, with the kōiwi repatriation, and the repatriation of human remains to other countries including Australia, that museums around the world are increasingly respecting artefacts, particularly human remains, for their cultural and personal importance to the descendants of the people. Sometimes it is not possible for Te Papa to establish where kōiwi have come from. They may have been taken into collections overseas and sometimes bought and sold, and when they are returned it is not always possible to know where they have come from, but there is a group advising Te Papa and if any member of Parliament or of the public wanted more information about that, I would be very happy to provide it. I know that Te Papa is trying not only to be very open but also to acknowledge that these are the remains of ancestors of New Zealanders and must be treated as such, not as artefacts, or, in the words of Tau Henare, as shrunken heads.

I thank members again for their, I am sure, sincere appreciation. But in relation to DNA tests, I think of an expression that I received from my Scottish ancestors, which is that it is a wise man who knows his father. I leave that with the Committee.

Kia ora e te Heamana, kia ora tātou te Komiti. Ehara i te mea ki a mātou o te Pāti Māori ngā kōrero katoa. Kei te Kāwanatanga te mana mō ngā taonga tūturu nei. I hangaia te Kāwanatanga i tētahi atu rōpū Māori, arā, ko te Kaunihera Māori o Aotearoa. He aha te take e kore rātou e whakaae kia tuku tēnei mana ki te kaunihera?

He take anō, e tautoko ana a au i te kōrero a Tau Henare. E rerekē ana te taonga tūturu ki ngā taonga a tauiwi. Ngā taonga tūturu, ngā taonga i tuku iho mai i te ao Māori. Ko ngā taonga a tauiwi nā rātou anō te mana. E kohikohi i ngā taonga rere kē nei ki roto i te pouaka kotahi. Tuku atu ngā taonga a tauiwi ki ngā kōti a tauiwi, tuku atu ngā taonga tūturu ki te Kōti Whenua Māori.

Hei kōrero whakatika, e hē ana te kōrero a Tau Henare mō te hokinga mai o ngā kōiwi. E rerekē atu tērā kaupapa ki ngā tikanga o tēnei pire. E tautoko ana mātou hoki i te kaupapa mā te Kōti Whenua Māori te mana tirohanga ki te ngā tāonga tūturu nei, me te tautoko anō hoki i te īnoi a Georgina te Heuheu kia tuku pūtea atu ki te Kōti Whenua Māori hei kawe tika i taua mahi. Kia ora tātou katoa.

[An interpretation in English was given to the Committee.]

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairman, and to us in Committee. It is not as if we in the Māori Party have a monopoly on what is to be said. The Government has jurisdiction over these native treasures. The Government created another Māori organisation: namely, the Māori Council of New Zealand. What is the reason for its not agreeing to this mandate going to the council?

Regarding another matter, I support what Tau Henare said. Native treasures are different from foreign ones. Native treasures are those handed down from the Māori world. Foreign treasures have their own integrity, and we must not put these separate treasures in the one compartment. Foreign treasures should go to foreign courts, and native treasures to the Māori Land Court.

I want to correct what Tau Henare said about the returning of skeletal remains. That matter is quite different from what is in this bill. We also support the policy that the Māori Land Court should have jurisdiction over these native treasures, and, as well, we endorse Georgina te Heuheu’s plea that the Māori Land Court should be funded to enable it to carry out its functions properly. Greetings to us all.]

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 48 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2