Protected Objects Amendment Bill

The office I have created here at Parliament has Māori taonga of all kinds throughout it. These are particularly special to me. As I look at them I think of my relationship with my hapū, being a Māori in this land, and also my people and our history. My tribal orientation and identity come through those taonga—that is why they are here. They are protected objects that restore to me my humanity. In turn, my humanity seeks to protect them. It is in recognition of this rangatiratanga that we have tangata whenua. As mana whenua the Māori Party comes to this bill passionate about the purpose of better protecting and preserving certain objects.

We are the exclusive keepers of the culture and intellectual knowledge of our traditional knowledge—our mātauranga me ona tikanga. It is becoming our role as guardians that we uphold our responsibilities and obligations to exercise Mana Motuhake in relation to our cultural taonga, including the whakapapa, mana, mauri, ihi, and wehi of those taonga. As part of that guardianship role we support the intention of the bill to introduce greater penalties to deter the possible illegal trafficking of Māori cultural material. Our Māori cultural material has rapidly become fodder for the global market. Indeed, the purchase price of taonga Māori on the international market has tripled in the last few years, as has the desire for the acquisition of genuine Māori brand gained currency.

The protection and ownership of the culture and heritage is perhaps best indicated in the instance of tā moko—our traditional Māori tattooing. Tā moko tū tangata whenua is considered a taonga. The heritage conveyed through its design is specific to the tribal origins and the personal history of the wearer. Ngahuia Te Awekotuku, a Māori professor of the arts, in her analysis “More than Skin Deep: Ta Moko Today”, has described foreign tattooists’ use of Māori designs as “pillaging the spirit of a tribal people to sate the culturally malnourished appetites of the decadent West.”

The roll-call of celebrity wearers of Māori moko includes former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson, who sports a facial tattoo with a distinctive Māori influence; American singer Ben Harper; US professional cyclist David Clinger, whose moko-inspired tattoo from an Argentinian tattooist covers the upper half of his face and most of his scalp; and, of course, there is Robbie Williams. Robbie Williams has quite a bit on his body. He is notorious for his body art. He has a Celtic cross on his right hip, the message “Elvis grant me serenity” on his right arm, the symbol of an Egyptian sun god, Beatles’ lyrics on his back, the French words for “Everybody’s got his own taste” on his chest, and now he has a Māori design on his right arm.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: How do you know, Pita?

Yes, true. I would be the first to agree with Williams’ idea of “Each to your own”, but people should make sure that it is their own before they start exploiting or appropriating taonga Māori, even if they acquired it legitimately and legally. In the case of Mr Williams, the cultural heritage—the identity and lineage—expressed in his moko comes from my ancestors, that of Ngāti Kahungunu. It appears that recently the rock star has admitted he is bored with looking at the images adorning his physique, and he is considering surgery to remove them.

Surgery is one option to restore ownership of other objects of Māori cultural heritage and to have them reside solely with tangata whenua. Prevention and prohibition of illegal trafficking is the first stop. In this way the fact that New Zealand has signed up to 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 is an excellent initiative that the Māori Party is fully supportive of. These initiatives will help to prevent the rapidly burgeoning international crime demonstrated in the looting of archaeological sites and of theft of items of significant heritage value, both of our own nation and other countries as well.

We must ensure ownership of these taonga remain firmly with mana whenua—the appropriate tribal owners—to protect misuse of cultural material. In this, I acknowledge those of our people who have defended our intellectual cultural property from attack. Members will remember the Danish toymaker who wanted the game Bionicle; that was stopped by Māui Solomon and others. The flaming poi is used on our cultural artefacts and has been described as an “emerging trend” by Time magazine for their use of it in the Nevada Burning Man Festival and, of course, there is Shane Kawenata-Bradbrook’s work. He is from Ngāi Tamanuhiri and Rongowhakaata. He obtained a public apology from the global tobacco giant Philip Morris for using Māori imaging on its packaging. I pay tribute to people like Aroha Mead of Ngāti Awa and the tribes involved in the Wai 262 claim before the Waitangi Tribunal on the flora and fauna and cultural intellectual property; those are Ngāti Kurī, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Kahungunu, and Ngāti Koata.

So while we are happy to support the provisions of the bill, we realise that the ownership of Māori cultural heritage objects may be revisited in our lifetime. In the case of Ngāti Kahungunu, for instance, our claim—pursuant to article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—expresses that recognition and protection of Ngāti Kahungunu cultural knowledge and Ngāti Kahungunu rongoā guarantee tino rangatiratanga over and the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of all our taonga within our tribal rohe. This is ground breaking work. Our people hold that in 1840 Ngāti Kahungunu collectively and individually retained their body of cultural knowledge and skills in respect of which Ngāti Kahungunu are kaitiaki. Te tino rangatiratanga includes the authority of decision making, the right to determine indigenous cultural and customary heritage rights, the right to protect, enhance, and transmit the cultural knowledge in relation to all taonga.

These are quite heavy issues to say in this House. The Protected Objects Amendment Bill is definitely heading in the right direction, but the debate must continue about the protection and ownership of taonga both repatriated and newly found. Our taonga do not belong to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, they do not belong to Te Papa, they do not belong to museums, art galleries, and private collections home and abroad, although we do have to acknowledge and respect the curatorial guardians who have cared for our taonga; their research, preservation, security, and possession of our treasure is appreciated. But the issue is about tribal ownership, and our ability to still own things as a group. We never forget that it is our inherent right under article 2—ko te tino rangatiratanga ki runga i ō tātou whenua, ō tātou kāinga, me ngā taonga.

[sovereignty over our lands, homes, and treasures]

Our cultural heritage estate, our taonga tapu, are so much part of who we are as indigenous peoples, that it is our life’s work to fulfil our responsibilities and obligations in terms of kaitiakitanga, as expressed in our ownership, authority, and protection.

The Protected Objects Amendment Bill is very important legislation. I was on the Government Administration Committee that looked at the very important issue of protected objects. National has supported this legislation right through. We had a number of very good submissions to the select committee. At the first reading, I talked about the various conventions and their importance, and of how New Zealand needs to be part of those conventions in order to protect our heritage and our culture. All through the readings and in the Committee stage, National has had a very good team that has crystallised and articulated the arguments about the necessity and importance of maintaining, restoring, and protecting for future generations those things that we believe are so important.

It is very easy to be able to sell off objects. We saw recently in Australia how bidders for a Victoria Cross had to pull out of the bidding because the law required the Victoria Cross to stay in Australia. That may well have affected the price that the Victoria Cross went for, but, at the end of the day, something so important to Australia was protected. Those are the sorts of provisions that are so important for us here—provisions that will protect our objects, our heritage, and our culture, not only for ourselves now but for future generations. National has great pleasure in supporting the third reading of this bill.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.