Protected Objects Amendment Bill

As I was saying when the Committee rose when we were debating this issue previously, I am deeply grateful for the support of the Opposition. I found the contribution of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to be a useful bipartisan approach to legislation that has been before the House in a variety of forms for a long time. Indeed, this bipartisan approach was promised by the present National Party spokespeople on the arts at an Auckland forum. I am relieved that, finally, their undertaking appears to be taking form.

This legislation is designed to amend and strengthen our ability under the law we have, the Antiquities Act, to prevent illicit trade in cultural objects of significant international importance here in New Zealand. I was concerned to hear some of the Opposition speakers, particularly, talking about “shrunken heads”. That indicates a strange lack of knowledge of kōiwi tangata Māori, which has been a major piece of diplomatic and cultural work by some really sincere and deeply moved New Zealanders who feel that the keeping of New Zealand ancestors’ remains in museums or in private collections around the world is deeply offensive. I have to say that this work is resulting in a worldwide movement where human remains are being repatriated and treated with the respect they deserve. So if any members want briefings on this issue, I would be happy for the staff of Te Papa to offer these. International protection is the only way to oppose this unfortunate trade, and to oppose the trade much more broadly.

Jo Goodhew appeared to be demanding retrospective expropriation of property. Although I have some sympathy with things that are of New Zealand importance, I am not in favour of that. I hope this legislation will require a new process for people who have title to property now whereby proper consideration is given on matters of New Zealand importance.

The MP Chris Finlayson referred to new sections 10B and 10C regarding the return of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects and the payment of compensation to the owners of such objects. He asked what standard of proof would be required. I think we all agree that this is basically a civil matter rather than a criminal one, so that the balance of probability standard would be in use rather than “beyond all reasonable doubt”. So I do not know whether Mr Finlayson wants to take that any further.

I would like to commend the bill to the Committee. I think we have a range of challenges before us now. Steve Chadwick talked about Hinemihi pare. It is a difficult issue when valuable and important New Zealand artefacts have been exported, legally or illegally in the past—in this case legally, as far as we know—

Hon Member: What?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Hinemihi pare, which was exported legally in the past, is now up for sale. I am concerned that although it would be wonderful for us to have the power and the money to bring all of these important New Zealand artefacts—particularly Māori artefacts—back, other members also raised the issue of the late Charles Upham’s medals. Although I think there are a range of views—Charles Upham himself said that these medals were won not by him but by the men he fought with—what we have to do in a democracy and a country that is increasingly acknowledging that there are important artefacts and important cultural icons that will matter for us and for the future is to have a robust debate about the different value that one generation may put on artefacts compared with the next. I think of the Te Māori exhibition, which demonstrated to many New Zealanders that artefacts that were often disregarded—either not in museums or in museums—were of international value and importance, as well as, of course, demonstrating the astonishing artistic tradition of Māori. We now find that those artefacts—this art—are attracting interest all around the world, and that, of course, increases their monetary value. It is also an indication of the increase in value to New Zealanders.

This legislation is trying to update New Zealand legislation, but it is also trying to act as a kickstart for others around the world so that we will have international protection. We have seen the catastrophe of museums being raided in Iraq, following the US and British incursion there. We have to recognise that the world’s culture matters to all of us. The Protected Objects Amendment Bill is an important step for New Zealand to take to recognise New Zealand’s culture, and to stand up in the world and recognise the importance to every nation in the world and every group of people of their cultures.

I thank the National Party for its support. I sincerely thank New Zealand First for its intelligent and able support of this legislation. I commend the bill to the Committee.

Kia ora, Mr Chairman. I want to clear up a few things that may not have been clear from the last time I spoke. I used the colloquialism “shrunken heads”. That is how people used to refer to them. I am not referring to the Labour members, I am referring to what used to be called the trade in shrunken heads. I am quite chuffed that the Protected Objects Amendment Bill is before the House because back around 1998, I travelled overseas to retrieve moko mōkai—our ancestors, so to speak—and brought them back here. As a lot of people have said in the House, if we had had something like this legislation 100 years ago, it would have been wonderful.

I also want to raise two other issues. One issue is those taonga that are in museums at the moment that were taken from urupā in the last 100 years. I refer to one specifically where there is some dispute, which is the Fraser collection. Fraser was a very interesting person up in the Whangarei area and just so happened to “find” all of these artefacts. Now they are called the Fraser collection and they are in the Auckland Museum, and I want to ask the Minister how this bill protects those artefacts.

I am absolutely overawed by the fact that now we have legislation that states that people cannot go around willy-nilly finding things and sticking them in their back pockets, and then hocking them off overseas and so on. That is good. I remember that when we were talking last week, the issue of Nazi memorabilia came up from Ron Mark. I concur with him that a lot of our soldiers came back from the Second World War with the spoils of war. Some of those spoils of war were actually what we would term now “Nazi memorabilia”; is that catered for in this bill? Also there are those spoils of war from the Korean War. I had an uncle in the Korean War and I have seen some of his stuff that he brought back. I want to know whether the bill takes care of that.

But all in all, I think this bill is a wonderful start. Maybe at a later date, when we have had time to digest and when this bill has gone through its process, we can come back and revisit some of the clauses and some of the issues that have been raised—not straightaway, but in the very near future. So I wonder whether the Minister could give us a lead on those two issues that I have raised.

Kia ora anō tātou. Tā te mea ko te wā tēnei mō te reo Māori e tika ana kia whakatairangatia te reo Māori, māku e kōrero i te reo Māori ki a tātou e whiriwhiri ana i tēnei pire. Ērangi rawa ko ngā wāhanga e pā ana ki ngā mana tunga e kīa nei, ko ngā taonga tuku iho.

I te tuatahi, tautoko ana au i ngā whakapae me ngā āwangawanga, ērangi rawa, ko ngā māharahara a taku whanaunga a Tau Henare, ki te kitea he taonga me pēhea rānei te hapū, te iwi rānei nō rātou tērā taonga e hari i tā rātou take kia whakapūmautia ai kei a wai rānei te mana mō tērā taonga, e hari ana au ka kite au i roto i te pire nei, kua riro mā te Kōti Whenua Māori e whakatau, ā, ka āhei tātou te iwi Māori ki te haere atu ki te aroaro o te Kōti Whenua Māori, tā te mea taunga ana tātou ki ngā whakahaerenga me ngā ritenga o tērā kōti.

Te take e toe ana hei kōrerotanga māku, ki te kitea he tāonga i tāwāhi, i hea kē rānei kei raro i te ture nei e kī ana, kei te Karauna anō te mana mō ngā taonga pēnei. Pēnā e tika ana tērā kōrero me tino awhi te Karauna i ngā mātāpono o te Tiriti kia noho mārama ai te iwi, te hapū, ēnei tāonga hākoa kei raro i te taitara o te Karauna mō te wā poto, ko te mauri o ngā taonga rā kei roto i te iwi, i te hapū rānei nō rātou wērā taonga i te tuatahi. Kia ora tātou katoa.

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

[Greetings to us. Because this is a time for the Māori language, it is appropriate that it be promoted, and I will address us in Māori as we consider this bill relating to precious objects called taonga tuku iho.

In the first instance, I support the accusations and concerns, especially those of my relation Tau Henare, about what a subtribe or an iwi should do if a taonga that belongs to them is found—whom they should go to, to have it certified that that taonga is really theirs. It was pleasing for me to see in this bill that the Māori Land Court will rule, and we are able to go before it because we are familiar with that court’s proceedings and customs.

The remaining matter for me to talk about is that if a taonga is found overseas, or wherever, this legislation states that the Crown has jurisdiction over taonga under those circumstances. If that statement is correct, then the Crown must embrace the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi so that iwi and hapū have a clear understanding that even though the title is under the Crown for a brief period, the life force of those taonga remains with the iwi and hapū that owned the taonga in the first place. Greetings to us all.]

I am happy and very pleased to rise in support of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill, but in saying that, I raise a small concern to the Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, and perhaps she will be able to give me an explanation. I am somewhat at a loss to understand some definitions in clause 6, the interpretation clause, in Part 1. Subclause (3) amends section 2 of the principal Act by omitting from the definition of “collector” the word “artifacts” and substituting the words “taonga tūturu”. I wonder why someone would do that when the principal Act states: “ ‘Collector’ means any person or body (whether incorporated or unincorporated), other than a licensed auctioneer, a licensed secondhand dealer, or a public museum, possessing one or more artifacts:”. I would have thought that the words “protected object” would be a more general or more appropriate term than just “taonga tūturu”. I wonder whether the Minister could take a call, or get some advice from her officials, and explain which one is the more appropriate term. That might help to clarify matters for me. I just thought that people may want to refer to protected objects in general, rather than just taonga tūturu.

Clause 6(3) further amends section 2 of the principal Act by omitting from the definition “found” the word “artifact” in each place where it appears, and substituting in each case the words “taonga tūturu”. I wonder again when the principal Act states “found” and the explanation is “in relation to any artifact”, and as “artifact” is changed to “taonga tūturu”, then one is saying “in relation to any taonga tūturu” instead of protected object. The definition of “found” in section 2 of the principal Act goes on to state: “means discovered or obtained in circumstances which do not indicate with reasonable certainty”, etc. Certainly, the term “taonga tūturu” is not inappropriate and it does not incorporate the general term “protected object”. I wonder whether that is an oversight or whether it is something I do not understand.

Clause 6(3) further amends section 2 by omitting from the definition “replica of an artifact” the words “an artifact”, and substituting the words “a taonga tūturu;”—yet again. So one could have replicas of other artefacts that are not necessarily taonga tūturu. I wonder whether the words “protected objects” might have been appropriate in that context as well.

My concerns are about changes to the definitions and the way in which they are being used to amend the principal Act by referring to “taonga tūturu” and not the general term “protected objects”, and whether, in fact, “protected objects” should be a part of that as well. I ask the Minister to please give us an explanation, certainly in discussion of Part 1, and clarify that matter, so that we know whether “protected objects” should be a part of the definition of “collector” in the principal Act rather than just “taonga tūturu”. The same goes for the definition of “found” where the term “artifact” is changed to “taonga tūturu” and not the words “protected objects”. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an explanation. I note the officials are looking at that. I would be happy to rescind part of my—

Hon Judith Tizard: The definitions are all in the bill.

SANDRA GOUDIE: I know the definitions are in the bill.

Clearly, the Minister does not want to understand what I am trying to say here. If we look at protected objects, are we looking only at taonga tūturu? I would have thought taonga tūturu related only to Māori artefacts not protected objects. Therefore, would the Minister not want the definition to encompass all protected objects?

Hon Judith Tizard: You could look at “protected foreign object”, “protected New Zealand object”, and “ngā taonga tūturu. They are all covered.

SANDRA GOUDIE: But I am not seeing that in this definition here.

Hon Judith Tizard: OK, well read it more carefully.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and give us an explanation for that.

Hon Judith Tizard: No.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Clearly, she is not prepared to do that. That is fine—

Hon Judith Tizard: Read the bill.

SANDRA GOUDIE: I did read it, but it is not clear.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to raise briefly with the Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, something about the return of moko mōkai. The reason why they were brought home was to return them to the rightful people so they could be back with their whānau. To this day, I think, they still languish in Te Papa, and there is no mention of a regime whereby they are brought home and the rightful owners found. So I thought I would take a moment just to ask the Minister whether in future there would be some sort of working party that would try to figure out what we should do with the repatriated remains.

I have thought of one more issue and that is to do with our soldiers buried overseas. Not a day goes by without there being a request from whānau from somewhere throughout the country asking whether they can bring home uncle so and so, who may be buried in a Commonwealth grave overseas. I am not sure about this Government, but it has always been an issue—

Hon Judith Tizard: They are not covered by this bill.

Hon TAU HENARE: They might not be covered by this bill, but moko mōkai are, and it follows that there must be some sort of relationship. I am not asking for the return of our soldiers; I am just asking the Minister to be aware that the issue is out there. There are whānau out there who want to repatriate the remains of our soldiers. So hoi anō. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2