Ardern Shane: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4650] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 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. 
Hon Member 
: It’s because it’s illegal. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: 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.