Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill

I move, That the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill be now read a third time. This bill relates to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which is commonly called the 1954 Hague convention. New Zealand ratified the convention on 24 July 2008, but, of course, legislation is required before New Zealand can accede to the convention and its two protocols.

The Hague convention was a specific response to the massive destruction of cultural property during the Second World War. It recognises that mutual commitment between nations is necessary if we are to spare the world’s cultural heritage from the consequences of war. The bill is being advanced now to demonstrate this country’s ongoing commitment to the system of international law, particularly as it relates to armed conflict. Acceding to the protocols will reinforce the current operational practice and excellent reputation of our armed service personnel overseas. It will also enhance this country’s participation in the system of international instruments designed to protect and enhance cultural activity. I will say just one or two things about each of the parts of the bill.

First, Part 1. For the purposes of the bill, “cultural property” refers both to movable and immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, as well as to the buildings used to house the properties. So in a New Zealand context, it would likely include our major metropolitan museums, art galleries, and libraries; nationally important archives and scientific collections; and registers of births, deaths, and marriages, land information, citizenship, and protected objects. Category I historic places and registered wāhi tapu are also likely to be included, along with the list of national historic landmarks currently being considered by the Government.

Clause 5 sets out how to determine whether a territory is occupied, following on from the 1907 Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Clause 5(c) provides that “The fact that occupation of a territory meets with no armed resistance does not prevent the territory from being considered occupied.” Clarifying whether a territory is occupied is going to be very important in the context of offences created in Parts 2 and 3 of the bill. Many of the offences have to take place in the context of either armed conflict or an occupation, or, in the case of the dealing offences, the property must have been removed during armed conflict.

Part 2 criminalises serious violations of the second protocol and sets out appropriate penalties for the offences. Part 3 addresses obligations required under the first protocol to prohibit unlawful trade in cultural property from warring States. Part 4 prevents unauthorised use of the convention emblem used to identify cultural property, and outlines the penalties for so doing. This provision was not required by the convention or its protocols, but is none the less considered to be a sensible provision to include in the bill. Part 5 provides various necessary supporting provisions and addresses the role of the Attorney-General in the prosecution of offences, the liability of directors and officers of bodies corporate, and the certification of facts by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the making of regulations to prescribe the necessary forms required to implement the bill.

So I am very pleased to see this legislation conclude its passage through the House. I thank all colleagues for their support. In supporting the bill they are reinforcing this country’s commitment to other international agreements to prevent the illegal export or import of important cultural artefacts, such as the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The history of the Geneva Convention demonstrates how these agreements can over time result in greater awareness and commitment to improved standards of conduct. In implementing the provisions of the bill, this country will be meeting its obligations and playing its part in the mutual recognition and protection of important cultural heritage, both here and abroad. I commend the bill to the House.

In the Forum in Rome there is an archway that pulled me up short when I saw it, because in bas-relief on that archway is depicted the triumphant return of Titus from the siege of Jerusalem. The soldiers are carrying under the flag of the Roman Republic, the SPQR emblem, both the Ark of the Covenant and the menorah, the seven-branched lamp stand that was used in the ancient tabernacle of the desert and in the Temple in Jerusalem. I was really shocked. I knew that Titus had been and laid waste to Jerusalem once upon a time. I had learnt that somewhere. But to bring back artefacts of such cultural and religious significance—the offence that I felt at seeing that repeated and preserved for posterity in that marble archway in the Forum was deeply shocking.

That is an example of why this convention is important. In the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill, this Parliament will be giving New Zealand the imprimatur to fulfil its obligations that are required for accession to the first and second protocols to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.

Of course, the Romans were not the only ones to have perpetrated such cultural offences over history, but it was a remarkable offence to take two of the most important religious artefacts, remove them from the Temple of Jerusalem, and install them in Rome in the Forum. That was in AD 70. There are other examples across the world, and across time as well. The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage has, rightly, referred in his introductory speech to artefacts that were taken, removed, stolen, expropriated during the course of World War II, which caused great offence. This is something that conquerors do to the conquered, and have done for a long time.

Another example that New Zealanders may be familiar with if they have ever travelled abroad are, of course, the bronze horses in the Basilica di San Marco, which came from Constantinople. They have gone backwards and forwards between Istanbul and Venice ever since, but remain now in Venice, not without controversy.

More recently, however—and some of the things that make this poignant for New Zealand—has been the removal of Māori artefacts from New Zealand to parts of Europe under the rubric of ethnography, of souvenir taking, of some memorabilia from what were, essentially, conquests in the 19th century in our own history. Some of these artefacts have turned up in museums—for example, very significant ethnography museums in Germany. Most recently, of course, we have seen the repatriation of some items that were taken. They have been returned by the French, because they are of huge significance to Māori and to New Zealand’s history.

This convention, then, and the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill will allow the prosecution of people who engage in this kind of theft in situations of war. This is a bill that arose out of the Labour Government. It has taken some time to get to the House. Again, as with other bills that began in the Labour administration, one wonders why it has taken quite so long to get here. But it is here now, and Labour will be supporting it.

The bill, of course, criminalises actions such as stealing or destroying important cultural property in times of war, and it will also prohibit the trade in cultural property removed from occupied territory. It provides a way of prosecuting people who undertake these crimes. In fact, the bill comes complete with a couple of dear little flow charts that demonstrate just how the procedures might be pursued in the course of prosecuting anybody.

The interesting thing about the bill is that it looks to enable New Zealand to prosecute people, whether a crime is being committed inside or outside New Zealand. That is quite complicated in terms of international law. This bill, I hope, will address that issue and allow that to be effected in a way that protects cultural property from theft.

In the passage of this bill our Parliament will reinforce New Zealand’s commitment to the international measures that protect cultural activity and cultural property. This is important as far as our UN obligations go, and our international obligations more generally, but it will also reinforce our participation in the Unesco family as a champion of the protection of cultural property.

Not only has great offence been caused to numerous countries over the millennia of human existence but also, most particularly, the offence created within our own country because of the expropriation and theft of cultural icons and taonga is something that this bill will address. The Labour Party is fully in support of it, given that it originated with us, and it is something that we feel New Zealand should commit to. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. There is no doubt that the problems around this have occurred through generation after generation over the march of history and so-called civilisation. The taking of precious cultural property from one country to another during times of war has caused huge hurt. This bill, ratifying our wish to bind ourselves to the Hague convention, is again another very important step. The bill does ensure that New Zealand honours its international obligations to protect cultural property in situations of armed conflict. Undoubtedly, the National Government values the need to protect culturally significant artefacts throughout the world, particularly in areas of armed conflict, and I think it is highly relevant when we consider what is going on in the Middle East right now. Just a couple of hours ago some of us had a briefing from the representative of Israel, who pointed out just how delicate the situation is, not just in the West Bank but more so in Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Gaza, Syria, and Jordan, and that it could easily expand out into Turkey—all areas that have hugely important cultural treasures, making this bill very important.

This bill shows the work we are doing to preserve and support culture internationally as well as domestically, and it is important to point out that the bill comes with a variety of offences. For instance, it is an offence to do the following to a protected piece of cultural property, or to encourage another person to do one of these acts: make cultural property the subject of attack, use cultural property in military action, cause extensive destruction of cultural property, or steal or vandalise cultural property. This is a very important piece of legislation, which, I would imagine, all parties welcome into our Parliament and welcome its progress. Thanks.

It is a great pleasure to speak in favour of the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. This bill requires of New Zealand obligations to adhere to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and it also offers us protection as well in the event, as unlikely as it probably seems to most of us at the moment, that New Zealand should be the stage for armed conflict in the future. So this legislation enables us to ensure that our representatives overseas—and I must say that the New Zealand Defence Force has a superb reputation around the world for the way it conducts itself on overseas deployments—in terms of Defence Force personnel or any other New Zealand representatives or New Zealanders, whether they are representing the country formally or not, are held accountable for their actions regarding cultural property. It also allows us to prosecute anybody who does any damage to our own cultural assets here in New Zealand.

The convention allows for the use of an emblem that is, essentially, made up of blue and white triangles, which can be affixed to cultural property and used to signify buildings, in particular, that are of cultural significance. Of course, the bill makes very clear what types of buildings and assets can have that emblem affixed to them and how that emblem can be used. The emblem can be used to identify only those types of assets and, of course, it would be an offence to try to pass off military assets as a cultural asset in some sort of effort to perhaps persuade an invading force that those assets were not for military use. The use of the distinctive emblem in cases other than the cases mentioned in the bill for cultural uses, and uses of the emblem that are outside of the scope of the bill, shall be forbidden, and the emblem is not to be placed on any immovable cultural property, unless at the same time there is displayed an authorisation duly dated and signed by the competent authority of the high contracting party. It is all very technical stuff that, essentially, says we can keep our cultural assets safe, or, at least, have a mechanism by which to hold people accountable, should that not happen.

It is important that New Zealand plays its part in these types of international agreements. We have a good reputation around the world for leading the charge on this type of activity, and this bill ensures that our international reputation as a peaceful, stable, and internationally engaged nation is retained. For those reasons the Labour Party is very happy to support it.

Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is really happy to be supporting this Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. I have just read Keith Locke’s second reading speech from 2008, which shows you how long ago it was that this bill was first brought into this House.

I do not see it as a minor piece of legislation. I think it is actually quite significant and plays an important part in the international body of jurisprudence around dealing with an issue that is by no means going away. It is a big international issue, it is an important issue, and this is a very, very good bill. Obviously, the ability to stop the theft and trade of the spoils of war is complicated, but at least we are starting with something coherent for our own country, and that is a very good thing. We are laying out clearly what it is that we can do to be part of the positive commitment to the Hague convention, which is also a very positive thing.

Interestingly enough, in Keith Locke’s speech he talks about the way in which what happens to the spoils of war is not something that happens at random, but is actually often part of a deliberate destruction of significant cultural property of people in order to have a huge effect on the national psyche. I think that is a really important point when we are considering the importance of this bill. If you look at the national psyche of Iraq or other countries in the Middle East and what has happened to much of their taonga, how significant that has been, and how those many artefacts have been hocked off around the world by people, it is important to criminalise this because of that effect—not only the loss of those taonga to those nations but also the psychological effect of nations who have been subjected to war losing their taonga.

I guess we are also keen to bring this point back home. I agree with the Hon Maryan Street’s comments about moko mōkai, but also if you look at the history of this country, the spoils of war have been very much part of the history of this country, and in a way that we would no longer countenance. But it is good to remember that the spoils of war have included women, and the spoils of war have included taonga. All of those things have been used to destroy the psyche of nations and should be criminalised as well as the taking of life. It is not good enough to say that bad things happen in war, which is why I support this bill, because it is saying no, that we can be accountable, that we can track what goes on, and that we can prosecute people who are perpetuating these illegal and immoral acts.

Take, for example, the experience of Bell Block in Taranaki. The archaeologists there, when they carried out the extensive works in Taranaki, found that the original ancient marae in Bell Block had been destroyed by the British occupying forces as part of the spoils of war, if you like, by literally building their camp on top of the ancient pā site at Bell Block. That did huge damage to what could have been a fantastic taonga for the local people and also for the history of this country. Those things cannot happen so easily today, as we have Heritage New Zealand, but it is still interesting to consider the spoils of war in our own context when considering this bill, which has a strong international focus.

If we consider the wharenui that is in Te Papa, Te Hau ki Tūranga, the Rongowhakaata wharenui was a spoil of war, and the settlement bill that came before this House not long ago was part of acknowledging that. It is very important for us in taking the moral high ground, as we should in this bill, to acknowledge that the spoils of war have had a huge psychic effect on tangata whenua of this country in our own history of colonisation.

So it is excellent that we move forward on all these fronts in terms of the idea that these iconic buildings, in some cases, taonga, and others are acknowledged as being central to the peace and well-being of nations, to their identity and psyche, and to the rule of law.

The Green Party is very pleased to be supporting this bill. We are very aware that there is a lot to be done internationally to make it happen and that it is very, very complex. We are aware that the problem affects many nations other than our own, but at least we are making a start in saying what we can do in this country.

We are not limiting it just to soldiers. The flow chart that was referred to also covers, perhaps, mercenaries and, perhaps, people involved in war, and they can also be found to be criminals if they participate in this destruction. This destruction has affected many, many peoples all around the world including the Sri Lankan people—the Tamils when they lost the Jaffna library, which was burnt in the 1980s. A library is more than just a building; it is a repository of culture. So this bill is very much acknowledging that culture is broad, culture is deep, and culture is people’s identity, and if we steal it and destroy it as conquerors, then we need to be held to account.

So it is going to be interesting to see how various military actions of the 21st century are viewed in terms of the spoils of war and in terms of how we are going to hold them to account. This bill is very timely. We need to follow up on our obligations. We have signed meaningful protocols and we need to make sure that we make this real.

I think a lot of work was done at the Government Administration Committee, which I was not part of, in 2008. Now, at last, we are coming to the point where we are saying we can sign it off. I do not think that anyone in this House would be in disagreement. It is not always clear whether we would be able to cover every theft that takes place in war, but I think it is clear that we will do our best.

The Green Party is very interested in history, and in our own history and our own accountability, and also the issue of moko mōkai, which was raised, which is ongoing. I can think of a mountain, Kīkītangiao in Tai Tokerau, where an Austrian so-called explorer—his name was Andreas Reischek—stole from urupā some taonga that are still in Europe. So there is still a lot of work to be done around this. I am not sure whether this bill applies directly to moko mōkai—those initiatives are ongoing—but there is a lot of unfinished business on the planet around this issue.

We are pleased to support this bill because we believe it helps to finish that business, and it helps to provide legal instruments, hopefully, as a deterrent to some of the appalling destruction that has taken place in the name of the rights of the conqueror to take the spoils of war. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to speak on this bill, the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill, because I think it does an extremely important thing for New Zealand. It helps us meet our international obligations. You see, the bill ensures that New Zealand honours these international obligations to protect cultural property in situations of armed conflict.

Earlier in this debate, the Labour list MP Maryan Street made reference to the legislation first having been introduced to the Parliament under Labour’s watch of the country, under its Government, which was for a 9-year period. She seemed quite concerned that not enough progress was made at that time. She also asked why progress had been made now, because she said that this is an important bill. Well, I can say to Miss Street that there is only one reason: it is because the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, the Hon Chris Finlayson, is probably the best Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage we have seen in this country for at least as long as I can remember, and probably as long as Maryan Street can remember, which is much longer than I could remember. I want to thank the Minister for his commitment. Miss Street ran out of time but she too, I sensed, wanted to praise Minister Finlayson for his hard work and being able to do something in this House that Miss Street was so concerned that Labour had not quite got to when it ran out of time. I want to thank Miss Street for those sentiments on behalf of the Minister. I know he has a lot of warmth for her.

Can I say that National values the need to protect culturally significant artefacts throughout the world, particularly in areas of armed conflict. I want to also recognise the last speaker in this debate for the Greens, Catherine Delahunty, who did say that there were other areas that the Greens were concerned about. Well, this deals only with armed conflict, but some years ago before I returned to New Zealand with my young family I worked for a Greek member of the European Parliament who had been a Minister of Culture in Greece for many years, from the island of Lésvos. There was not a day that went by that he did not raise the issue of the Elgin Marbles with me—not formally, of course; I did not have the ability to do anything about this. In Greece in the 19th century the Elgin Marbles were removed and taken off to the United Kingdom, where so very many people have a chance to see them, but I do recognise that there are other issues around culture. I want to recognise that Catherine Delahunty said that the Greens were concerned about history—some would say rewriting it, but I will not, because this is a very reasonable debate at the moment. Well, I did say it, but there you are.

But what I would say is that it is good to see the House joining together on an issue like this. This shows that the work we are doing to preserve and support culture internationally as well as domestically is very well supported. I thank all parties of the House for joining with the National Government in doing something that Miss Street was so concerned that Labour was not able to do over 9 years. Thank you.

I am pleased to rise to take a quite excruciatingly short call in support of this Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. New Zealand First is completely in favour of this bill. There is a tradition, obviously, in warfare that to the victor belong the spoils, but we obviously, as a people and as a civilisation, have moved on from that. We are more civilised in our conduct of warfare now and we no longer attempt to carry out cultural genocide.

Mr Lees-Galloway made the point that the New Zealand Defence Force has an excellent record in terms of not stealing stuff from overseas. Indeed it does. Though it has to be said that if the Defence Force had better transport assets in terms of ships and aircraft, the boys would probably nick more things from overseas and bring them home.

I just wish to say that I echo the sentiments of Dr Hutchison in saying that this is a fine bill, which all parties across the House support. I think the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage has done a superb job in preparing it for its final passage through the House. The amendments are wonderful amendments.

In closing I would like to say that this bill comes to us from the 48th Parliament. It has waited 4 years already. It does not need to be delayed any longer by convoluted oratory on the part of myself. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Call it plunder. Call it “To the victor go the spoils.” Call it theft. Call it stealing. Call it what you want, but it is theft. It is stealing. It is part of what makes up the word “genocide”. It is not only about killing people and wiping people from the face of the earth, it is actually wiping everything about that person off the face of the earth. That is what plunder is. “To the victor go the spoils.” may have been the mantra of some people, but that is a poor excuse for theft. In the 15th century or in the 12th century, it is all the same. Can I say with hand on heart that that is part of the reason why our soldiers are up in Bamian. It is about re-educating people about trying to protect others’ cultural artefacts. That is why our soldiers are up there—not only to protect the living, but also to protect the cultural artefacts.

The Labour spokesperson the Hon Maryan Street talked about the reasons that were given for the theft of cultural artefacts. There were ethnological reasons, there was even some curiosity, and they were taken for scientific and medical research. I visited a university in Scotland and was told by a professor there that some of the artefacts were actually taken on request from the school of dentistry to see the difference between the Pacific teeth—Māori teeth—and European teeth. No medical research was ever done on these moko mōkai that we were there to retrieve. I must take my hat off to those institutions that these days have realised the folly of the past and actually have given these taonga back to New Zealand.

But this piece of legislation, the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill, also begs the question about—and we find it really easy, all of us in the House, to get up and talk about what happens overseas—what has happened and continues to happen here in our own country. My colleague from the Greens Catherine Delahunty has talked about Te Hau ki Tūranga. Not only was it stolen, but also it was chopped up so that it could fit into the Dominion Museum. Let us think about that. There is the Fraser Collection in the Auckland Museum. The harbour board man, Mr Fraser, back in the day just happened to find some artefacts—in fact, he found a hell of a lot of artefacts—and called them the Fraser Collection, without so much as a by-your-leave of the local people. It is a good bill, it is New Zealand coming into line with other countries of the world, but let us not forget those taonga, those artefacts, that belong to this country. We should make every effort to support, one, the return of those artefacts—those cultural artefacts—and, two, the protection of the artefacts that tell a story about New Zealand as well.

I hear what my colleague Mr McClay said about the Elgin Marbles. There were the bronze statues from Africa. You can walk this earth and tell stories of the plunder that has happened to the people who lose the war, and we must do everything in our power to support them in their time of need to get back the artefacts that tell the story about them. Kia ora.

It is an honour and a privilege to be able to speak to this bill, the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. I agree with the former speaker on his feet, Tau Henare—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: The future Speaker!

—future Speaker, sorry—that this is a good bill, and it certainly makes sure that New Zealand follows through with the international obligations that it has through signing up to the Hague convention of 1954.

Can I just touch on what Richard Prosser said earlier on. I think there is a time and a place for humour in this House, but for him to try to bring up humour around this issue and the reputation of our armed forces probably was not the right moment. I just do want to join with the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway in talking about the reputation of our armed forces around the globe in this area. They are absolutely outstanding and upstanding when they are out there doing duties on behalf of New Zealanders.

I am going to take only a very brief call. This bill sets out to achieve three simple things: to create a number of criminal offences in relation to cultural property, to prohibit trade in cultural property removed from occupied territory, and to prevent unauthorised use of the convention emblem. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway did talk about the third point, the prevention of unauthorised use of the emblem. We think that is very important, because there could be moves by some people overseas to use this emblem in, I guess, a scurrilous way to protect things that should not be protected. So we think that bringing that provision within this bill is certainly something that we support.

In his opening remarks the Minister, Chris Finlayson, talked about this convention coming into force because of what happened in World War II, and there have been many stories from previous speakers about what has happened in the past and about some of the injustices that have happened in the past, but I just wanted to also support what Tau Henare said about our own history, with our own taonga, around this. New Zealand has had its conflicts. There are things of great cultural significance to our indigenous people that have been taken and have been traded overseas and, thankfully, some of them have come back to New Zealand. I think that it is absolutely fitting that we recognise the importance of those cultural items by making sure that we pass this legislation through today.

Of course, there are also conflicts happening at the moment, and Paul Hutchison spoke about the conflict in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we are still seeing sites of religious importance being targeted by some people, and we hope that through the fact that New Zealand is meeting its international obligations with other nations, we can stamp out that kind of behaviour, because you would hope that in the 60-ish years since the Second World War we would recognise that carrying out this kind of behaviour—that, as many people have said, to the victors go the spoils. You would hope we have learnt from those instances where it is absolutely inappropriate to take some of those spoils, in a cultural sense.

It is a privilege to be able to speak to this bill. As Mr Henare said, it is a good bill, and it absolutely makes sure that we follow through with our obligations under our ratifying of the Hague convention.

Bill read a third time.