Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) Link to this
I move, That the Protected Objects Amendment Bill be now read a third time. In today’s global climate, culture is an increasingly sought-after commodity, and the protection of our movable cultural heritage requires robust and effective legislation. The illicit international trade in cultural objects ranks alongside drugs, money-laundering, and illegal arms trading as one of the largest international criminal industries. It provides a strong incentive for the related crimes of theft and the pillage of archaeological sites, historic complexes, and religious monuments. Significant New Zealand cultural objects have been exported without permission in the past, and the current legislation provides inadequate protection for the future.
New Zealand has had first-hand experience of the legal problems that can arise in trying to recover illegally exported cultural heritage objects that surface in the international art market. Members of this House are aware that the New Zealand Government litigated, at great expense, in the English courts in the 1980s in an attempt, which was ultimately unsuccessful, to recover maihi that came off a pātaka from Ngāti Rāhiri of Te Ātiawa. New Zealand is also a likely destination or transit State, particularly for items from our region.
The Antiquities Act 1975 has been known for some time to have shortcomings in its ability to address the issues arising from illicit trade. It has shortcomings also in relation to its definitions, its penalties regime, the export restrictions, and the determination of the ownership of discovered Māori objects. With the third reading of this bill, we near the end of what has been a long process of review of the Act. The bill changes the title of the Act to the Protected Objects Act 1975, and it puts in place a number of amendments that will bring the legislation into line with the needs of the 21st century.
The bill was introduced to the House on 3 February 2005. It had its first reading on 5 April 2005 and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. The committee received 15 submissions from interested groups and individuals, including four oral submissions. The hearing of evidence took 1 hour and 14 minutes, and consideration took a further 1 hour and 10 minutes. The committee reported back to the House on 1 August. The bill was read a second time on 10 May, and completed its Committee stage on 25 July. Technical amendments and a change to the commencement date of the bill to 1 November were made by Supplementary Order Papers 12 and 48 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard.
This bill comes at a time when New Zealand’s heritage landscapes, buildings, sites, and objects, as well as our records of the people, ideas, and events that have played a role in our history, are being recognised as invaluable assets. Those are the things that, above all else, sustain our sense of national identity. We have seen the establishment and funding of regional museums, policy for capital construction projects, the establishment of the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund, the best-practice Policy for Government Departments’ Management of Historic Heritage, and the funding of the hugely significant Kerikeri Heritage Bypass project. Preserving and celebrating our unique cultural heritage is about being able to take our place in the world and build our future from a sound basis of pride in being a Kiwi. That is one of the reasons why, over the past two terms, the Government has introduced a programme of funding and legislative measures aimed at better protecting New Zealand’s cultural heritage.
The Protected Objects Amendment Bill is a key component of the Government’s programme of changes in the heritage sector. The bill puts in place the provisions necessary for New Zealand to sign up to the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law and Unesco international conventions, and establishes a register of precious objects that could be subject to claims for recovery through conventions if illegally exported. A key driver of that has been to secure reciprocal protection from other State parties for New Zealand cultural objects that are stolen or illegally exported.
The bill makes less expensive and onerous the processes for claiming the ownership of heritage objects through the Māori Land Court. It provides for a substantial increase in penalties for illicitly exporting or destroying our precious heritage objects, ensuring that there is a real and powerful deterrent. The bill clarifies and further defines the categories of heritage objects for which permission to export is required. It makes the processes for applying to export heritage objects more consistent, and it requires professional advice to be given by experts. The benefit of those changes will, ultimately, be priceless—the assurance that we retain those objects whose unique value makes them an indispensable part of New Zealand’s cultural heritage. Every time an important cultural object is illegally exported, our nation’s heritage is eroded and all New Zealanders are poorer, if not financially, then culturally—because this is an issue for all New Zealanders.
Legislation aimed at protecting our cultural heritage has always been based on the principle that the Crown has a legitimate interest in ensuring that items of major heritage value, including those in private ownership, are retained in New Zealand. That said, heavy-handed legislation that constantly impinges on legitimate activity is clearly not desirable. The bill therefore seeks to preserve the careful balance between the national interest and private property rights that was established in the Antiquities Act. Because it targets a limited number of objects, it will not impose change on the majority of collectors and traders.
In concluding this speech, I would now like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the members of the Government Administration Committee for their consideration of the bill and the improvements that have been made in the light of their report. Several useful contributions were also made by other members of the House during the Committee stage. I would also like to thank those in the community who spent time and effort on preparing submissions on the bill and the position paper of May 2003.
The Government has set aside $100,000 for publicity and education in the first year following the enactment of this bill. A further $85,000 each year has been set aside for the likely increased costs of administering the Act. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage will undertake a comprehensive information campaign in order to raise awareness of the changes and their practical impact. In addition, the ministry has a database of over 500 stakeholder individuals and groups who will receive regular information and updates prior to the Act’s commencement. I am confident that this will ensure the smooth and effective implementation of the new provisions.
I am excited that we have arrived with this bill.
Hon MAHARA OKEROA Link to this
I thank the member for being so perceptive. The sound framework that the bill provides for the protection and management of New Zealand’s movable cultural heritage will define our nation as one that truly cherishes the tangible reminders of its past. I commend the bill to the House.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
I am sure the Associate Minister would agree with me when I paraphrase St Paul—we have certainly run the race with the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. I am sure we are pleased it has reached its first reading, and because the Associate Minister gave a very full and fair speech I do not intend to speak for very long.
Darren HughesCHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
It is the third reading; I apologise. I saw the member for Rimutaka light up. I was sure that when I was talking about St Paul, he was thinking about himself, but no, that was not the case.
I will begin by saying how disappointed Mr Groser is that he is not here for this third reading. He is actually in Geneva at the moment, dealing with the World Trade Organization arbitration between Airbus and Boeing, which is, of course, a huge tribute to New Zealand and to Mr Groser himself. I say to the member for Otaki that it is slightly disappointing that not one Labour member of Parliament has had the class to congratulate him on his hugely important appointment.
The Associate Minister briefly mentioned the legislative history of this bill. I think it is fair to say that what should have been a reasonably straightforward bill, which could have got through the House fairly quickly, turned into something of a Homeric epic. The introduction of the bill, as the Associate Minister said, was on 3 February 2005, and it is only in August 2006 that we reach the happy stage of holding the third reading debate. That says something about the way Parliament is run, and I do not think it is particularly good for the country that it takes so long to get legislation through the House. I think we have to sharpen up in that regard.
As I have said throughout the course of the debates that I have been involved in on this bill, National supports this bill. As the Associate Minister said, it amends and improves the Antiquities Act, which provides for a system of domestic control over the export of cultural heritage objects, but does not provide for the means to recover objects that have been illegally exported. As the Associate Minister said, that is why we need it, in order to accede to the Unesco convention that provides specific structures for international cooperation and for the cross-border recovery of items that are significant in terms of our cultural heritage. Accession to the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law convention is also required, because it complements the Unesco convention and allows for a person to sue in a foreign court for the return of foreign cultural objects.
In previous speeches, I have referred to—and I think the Associate Minister even briefly referred to—the facts of a case that the Attorney-General of New Zealand brought in the English courts to recover an object that had been taken from the Associate Minister’s own hapū. It went all the way to the House of Lords, but nothing could be done. That is the sort of the problem that has been faced with regard to New Zealand taonga and antiquities for many years. Indeed, I can recall a former professor of law of mine recounting a story to me. He and his wife were looking through a second-hand shop in Toronto and happened to come across a Goldie painting, which I think they picked it up for a very, very small price, because the owner of the shop did not realise how valuable it was. That makes one think of how many protected or valuable objects have been lost to New Zealand because of the absence of legislation such as this. So it is high time there was legislation in this area. But in order to have legislation passed through the Parliament, we, of course, first needed the international conventions that I have referred to.
Unfortunately, the new regime has no retrospective effect. I do not say that in a critical way, because there is no way around that. It will take effect only from the date appointed by the Governor-General, and the same will apply in any foreign jurisdiction. But hopefully, from this time forward, we will be in a situation where the kinds of facts represented in the Ortiz case will not occur again.
So, as I said, National supports this bill. It is very important legislation, and I am pleased it is coming into force just as soon as the Governor-General signs it. We hope that this new regime will stop the illegal export of protected New Zealand goods. We also hope that the regime we have set up will provide protection, as Mr Groser said in his second reading speech, for the Elgin Marbles - type situation; there are many countries that have basically been pillaged of protected objects because of the actions of others.
In conclusion, it is worth recording that National was originally responsible for the passage of the Historic Articles Act in 1962. That Act was the precursor of the Antiquities Act 1975, which this bill amends and updates. One of the many false and misleading claims made by the Prime Minister in recent years is that National has never done anything for culture. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. When the facts are examined, one can see that National has an extremely proud record in the arts, culture, and heritage area. As I said, we were responsible for the passage of the Historic Articles Act in 1962. We established the Historic Places Trust, which has been the subject of amending legislation in recent times, we were responsible for the establishment of the Arts Council, and we were responsible for the establishment of the Film Commission. Actually, we provided the first Minister for arts, culture, and heritage, Mr Highet, in 1975. So our record is a very proud one, and the legislation that was passed in 1962, which became the Antiquities Act in 1975, is the legislation that this amendment bill seeks to improve.
I support the third reading of this bill, as does the National Party. We look forward to the bill being signed into law as soon as possible.
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I rise to speak in support of the bill. Firstly, I want to congratulate the Minister who, while giving an impassioned speech, almost lost some of his own protected objects during the course of it but he managed to get back on track. So I say to him: “Good work.” As the previous speaker has just said, this legislation has been around for a while. Obviously it has needed the attention of the House but, more specifically, the bill tries to define and describe precisely the types of protected New Zealand objects that are subject to export regulation. It prohibits the permanent export and wilful damage of such objects. So I looked at the bill very, very carefully. I wondered, particularly when I looked at some of the schedules, whether this bill was perhaps some code for the Leader of the Opposition and the National Party, because we know that both are relatively close to extinction and both need some form of protection.
When I look at new schedule 4, to be inserted into the principal Act by clause 30, on which very good work has been done by the Government Administration Committee, I see that it defines “fossil”. It is very important that fossils are protected from export—
Ah well, this is the point. I see that “fossil” has been defined in this way: “ ‘fossil’, irrespective of how it is preserved, means an object constituting the remains or traces of a non-human organism that lived in New Zealand prior to human habitation; including (but not limited to) the whole organism or parts of it, or trace evidence of its behaviour”. Actually, it sounded very much like Don Brash to me, when I thought about that definition. Obviously at some stage—and probably it will be sooner rather than later; although I think to be fair and honest from Labour’s perspective, we would prefer later rather than sooner—Don Brash will be leaving the National Party leadership, and obviously there may well be an attempt to try to export him. But I think that he could well be protected under the definition of “fossil” in the Protected Objects Amendment Bill.
That is right. So I think it is incredibly important that National members realise that while they might try to get rid of him, he could well be around in New Zealand for a very long time, because he could well come under the provisions of clause 5 of schedule 4.
Then we go on to look at some of the other things in schedule 4. I found the Protected Objects Amendment Bill very interesting when I was reading it. Clause 3(2) in schedule 4 talks about documentary heritage objects, and states: “(2) Objects in this category include … (c) photographs and negatives: …”, so I wondered whether we might have a couple of photographs that are protected from being exported. Two sprang to mind. The first one was of the Leader of the Opposition climbing into the stock car.
That was a great photo, and I am certain no one would want to export that, because it is certainly now a part of the wonderful campaign heritage of the previous election.
It is absolutely a taonga, and one that people should be referring back to. No one should be allowed to export that photo, because it certainly belongs in New Zealand.
The other photo that came to mind was the walking the plank photo. I thought that was a photo that, once again, should be protected. It should be preserved in New Zealand. Clearly the National Party should make sure that photo is not able to be exported. The Government has come to the party and is now passing legislation to ensure that that particular photo—the wonderful photo of Dr Brash walking the plank—will remain in New Zealand and not be able to be exported. There will be serious fines for people who try to do that. So if National members were trying to clear the decks of their past history, and to sneak those photos into an envelope—the walking the plank and the climbing into the stock car photos—and send them away, there will be quite serious fines for doing that. I cannot quite remember, but I think they might be up to $10,000 or something like that. I wonder whether that is GST-inclusive or GST-exclusive.
No, those members do not know, because they had some problems with their returns, as I recall, around that matter.
Anyway, I continued looking at schedule 4, because I actually thought, deep down, that this legislation was code for the National Party and the Leader of the Opposition. Further on in schedule 4, clause 5 talks about natural science objects and I found in that clause a definition of “taxon”. A taxon—I was not sure about this, I must say; we learn something every day—means “a taxonomic grouping of extant or extinct organisms, such as a genus, species, or sub-species”. However, in my mind, all we really need to do is to say: “Taxon equals the National Party.” That is what it is. The National Party is certainly an extinct organism.
I do not know. I suppose the problem is that some people are wondering whether it would be possible at some stage to export the National Party, holus-bolus, overseas. I think that under this particular provision in schedule 4 the definition of “taxon” clearly applies to the National Party—it being an extinct organism, genus, species, or subspecies—and someone would be prevented from doing that. There may be a lot of people in New Zealand who would think that exporting the National Party would be a good thing. I am not sure what that person would get for it overseas; maybe someone was thinking of putting it on TradeMe. But I think that, under this legislation, no one would be allowed to export the National Party for fear of incurring some sort of fine.
The final thing I looked at when I looked further through schedule 4 was a list of cultural issues I think they were called, or some such thing. That list came up with all sorts of things that should be protected, such as “social and political issues”. I looked down the list and I expected to find “bedrock values” in there, because we would think that, in New Zealand, bedrock values should not be able to be exported. So I thought the Leader of the Opposition would have at least tried to put an amendment into the bill by looking at New Zealand bedrock values, mentioning them in the schedule, and attempting to define the term. Of course, the problem is that when asked what those bedrock values are, Dr Brash had some difficulty in defining them. I think he talked about the idea of things that all New Zealanders share. He said that there are some issues around the values of some people who come in from overseas—for example, men’s treatment of women, I think he said.
The next question was whether this issue was a bit of a problem with the Exclusive Brethren, and whether the Exclusive Brethren shared those bedrock values. The problem that Dr Brash got into was that he did not think forward to the next question.
He always gets himself into that problem. I think there was an issue previous to that one, was there not? I cannot remember what it was about. It was not bedrock values, it was something else.
That is what it was—it was about who was mainstream. Basically, in the end, defining who was mainstream came down to it being everybody who voted National. People who were in the mainstream were people who supported National, and those who were not in the mainstream were everybody else in New Zealand. So that led to some hilarity and, in the end, what do we hear about mainstream now? Not one skerrick, not one sausage, and not one razoo do we hear about mainstream. Now the topic is “bedrock”—and I bet people that “bedrock” goes the same way. It will be one of those things that the National Party never mentions again, because the leader of the National Party is somebody who simply cannot think those things forward. Of course, basically, that is why he is no good at the job. The problem is that he has not got it, because either one has it or one has not.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKERI support the bill. It is good and I think, by and large, it is doing a good thing for the National Party.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this
That speech was made by a once quite reasonable Minister of the Labour Government. What we have just heard illustrates what happens to the fossils from the Labour Party when the Prime Minister of New Zealand no longer requires them to be part of her team.
I will come back briefly to the Protected Objects Amendment Bill—on which there was not a lot of discussion in the last contribution—and say at the outset that the National Party supports its passage. We do so for a number of very sound reasons, one of the most important being that it brings New Zealand into line with internationally recognised treaties and with organisations such as Unesco. It also gives New Zealand artefacts, and such like, the same protection as one would expect internationally.
But I shall digress just for a moment to tell the member who has just finished his speech that I know of one photograph that will definitely become part of New Zealand’s archives—the photograph of one little “Fergie” tractor being driven up the steps of Parliament. In fact, the tractor itself could even become a protected object under this legislation. I will tell the member why that might be so. He may jump to the conclusion that the reason is the famous, defunct “fart tax”, but it is not.
The reason is that that same little tractor was brought all the way back to Wellington from the Waikato and driven to the courthouse with a billboard on the back of it, stating: “Unlike the Prime Minister, we don’t destroy the evidence.” I think the billboard itself will one day fall under the schedules of this legislation, because the words on it absolutely capture the political climate we find ourselves in at the moment.
Certainly, as the previous speaker said, we see a range of things under new schedule 4, added to the principal Act by schedule 1, that this bill sets out to protect, and one of them is social and political issues of note. I say to the House that the tractor incident is a political issue of note, because what we had then we still have today, which is a Prime Minister who is prepared to go to any lengths to cover up or protect the poor innocent ears of society from some of what goes on in the Labour Party—from some of the things the Labour Party sees as being fair and credible things for an MP to do.
So I thank the previous member for giving me this opportunity to respond in terms of this political issue of note. It is a political issue of note, because we are seeing a deterioration in the standards that apply in this House that goes well beyond where this House has ever gone in the history of New Zealand and of this Westminster-style Parliament. I say to that member, who is now listening to my speech from a different place, that he is quite right when he raises under schedule 4 some of the aspects that relate to political issues of the moment.
I also say to members opposite who interjected by saying that driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament was illegal that that incident was actually tested in court. They may be interested to read what the judge said. I will paraphrase what he said, because I cannot remember the exact quote. He said: “There may or may not be a force higher up at play here,”—that is pretty close to what he said—“but whatever the event is, this case should never have been brought to this court.” Members opposite should go back and study that case, because the judge could see what was going on. It certainly was not fair play, nor was it one law for all; it was one standard for Opposition MPs and another standard for the Prime Minister and other Government-supporting MPs.
Under this bill I think there is quite an archive of material in New Zealand that should be protected and never allowed to be sold offshore. Certainly, the photographs of the little Ferguson tractor circulated around the world. I have had photographs sent back from Moscow. Also, CNN and the BBC rang me up. So I thank the Government at this point in time for the opportunity it gave me as a result of its insistence, through the Commissioner of Police, that I be prosecuted and brought before the law. One could not have wished for a better opportunity, quite frankly. I am sure that that history will all be protected.
Just for a moment, I will come back to the bill. The chief executive will, at the end of the day, have the power—the legislative control—to decide what is and what is not an important artefact. Obviously, he or she will seek advice, and that is a good thing.
I guess the second important thing in this process—and it is an example of how if one lets the socialists go too far, they will always go too far—is the governance of the Historic Places Trust and other organisations. If we look at other legislation that has been debated in the House recently in respect of how these various organisations are governed, we will see that the Government has, in its wisdom, decided that having more Government appointees—Labour-lackey ministerial appointees—is the way to achieve a better outcome, rather than having people chosen on merit from within society to have a view on how the various pieces of legislation should be enforced. I say to the House that in this particular legislation, which we are supporting, the balance has been struck about right, but the Minister and Government members need to go back and look at some of the detail in various other bits of legislation they have passed in recent times to protect some of our heritage. They need to ask themselves why they have been diverted off what has been a very sound and reasonable process in deciding those things. I say to the Government members present that they should do a bit of research into this, because they might find some of it very useful when they campaign during the next election. Unfortunately, a lot of what they will find will be very damaging to them, and we will certainly use that to achieve the strongest possible outcome we can.
As my colleague who spoke previously said, National has a proud history in this area. It is often said that if one is from the left-academic side of politics, one will have a much higher regard for art, heritage, and things that should be protected. Yet if we go back through the legislative process, we will see that it is the National Party that has been to the fore in passing legislation to protect this kind of stuff, that has led the setting up of structures to ensure our heritage is looked after, and that has been involved in the promotion of various organisations that promote arts, and such like. It is not, as is commonly thought, entirely the domain of the academic left; it is the domain of all of New Zealand, and the National Party has a proud record in that. So we support this bill.
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this
This bill has one enormously important implication for New Zealand, which is that it prohibits the exportation of taonga tūturu. I want to explain what I mean by that by telling everybody that some commentators have suggested that the present leader of New Zealand First, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who is also the Minister of Foreign Affairs, will, at the end of his stint here, take up a position overseas. There are suggestions he may go to the United Nations or to the Pacific Islands Forum, or even that he may become the High Commissioner in London. Given the sterling work he is doing as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, those suggestions are quite sensible and logical. He has received world recognition and he has charmed Condoleezza Rice, so it is completely logical that people should make those suggestions.
However, this bill actually prohibits the exportation of taonga tūturu. I will explain the definition of that taonga. It relates to Māori culture, history, and society. No one can deny that Winston Peters has made a huge contribution to our society and our history as a nation—particularly for Māori. New paragraph (b) of the definition of taonga tūturu in clause 6 states: “was, or appears to have been,—(i) manufactured or modified in New Zealand by Māori;”. Well, Winston Peters had a Māori father, so therefore he meets that criterion. The only other criterion is that the taonga tūturu has to be more than 50 years old, and certainly Winston Peters is more than 50 years old. So as a result of this bill, Winston Peters will have to remain in New Zealand for the benefit of us all. We think that in itself is a good enough reason to vote for this legislation.
The National member Christopher Finlayson expressed disappointment that the bill has not moved fast enough through the House. Maybe he could ask his colleagues to spend less time on frivolous points of order and time-wasting debates. Then the House could focus more on the real business, which is to move important legislation like this bill through in a timely fashion. Who knows what may have gone out of this country in the interim period while those people were taking frivolous points of order?
Christopher Finlayson also mentioned the Elgin Marbles.