Okeroa Mahara: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Okeroa Mahara: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2961] 
Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
 on behalf of the 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: I move  
That the Protected Objects Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. New Zealand’s unique cultural heritage creates the context in which we live. It is a context of accumulated experience a context of knowledge and a context of New Zealand’s national identity. Cultural heritage objects are an important part of our heritage but their movable nature makes them vulnerable to illicit trade. A number of legal and practical difficulties inhibit cross-border recovery. This is a worldwide issue that requires not only strong domestic legislation but also international cooperation. 
The Protected Objects Amendment Bill is the result of a long process of review of the Antiquities Act 1975. Through the bill the Antiquities Act will become the Protected Objects Act 1975. The bill seeks to address shortcomings in the Act and improve its operation in order to provide a strengthened framework for the protection of cultural heritage objects while maintaining the balance with the rights of private property owners that were established under the Act. 
One of the most important benefits that the bill will deliver is increased international protection for New Zealand’s cultural heritage objects that are stolen or illegally exported from New Zealand. Regrettably international trafficking in cultural heritage objects continues to present a challenge to law enforcement. The only effective means of addressing this is through international cooperation. I am delighted that this bill will enable New Zealand to accede to the two most international conventions in this area: 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. The Unesco convention provides a broad framework for cooperation in this field while the UNIDROIT convention was developed to provide for more concrete remedies. Taken together these treaties address many of the legal problems that otherwise bedevil attempts to recover cultural heritage objects. 
In outline these new provisions deal with the following situations. First they apply when objects have been illegally exported from reciprocating States—essentially member States to the Unesco and UNIDROIT conventions. In this case the State concerned may claim recovery in the High Court. The second situation is when objects have been stolen from cultural institutions in Unesco States. The recent looting of the Baghdad Museum demonstrates the importance of these provisions. In such cases each State must take on the task of securing recovery at the request of another State party. In New Zealand this will be done under the provisions of section 10D inserted by clause 13 through a power of seizure by the Customs Service. Of course New Zealand is not a major international art market or transit State. We expect that occasions when it is necessary to utilise these new provisions will be relatively few but they allow New Zealand to meet its international obligations and are an essential quid pro quo for achieving a much more effective means of protecting our own priceless cultural heritage from illegal trafficking. 
Another focus is on improving the process for establishing the ownership of found Maori artefacts which are now referred to in the bill as “taonga tuturu”. The bill provides a more streamlined administrative process for establishing the ownership of found taonga tuturu. Importantly the bill also removes the need for applicants to enter costly legal proceedings in order to establish their ownership. To this end it changes the rules of the Maori Land Court to allow the registrar of the court to make ownership orders where ownership is not disputed. It is anticipated that these measures will significantly increase the incidences of ownership being established over taonga tuturu consistent with the purpose of the Act. 
There has been concern for some time that penalties for the illegal export of cultural objects are too low to be effective. The bill therefore increases penalties for offences under the Act. For example for exporting an object illegally an individual can be imprisoned for up to 5 years or fined up to $100000. 
The bill seeks to enhance clarity and consistency in decision making about the export of protected objects. It establishes as schedule 4 inserted by schedule 1 of the bill nine categories of protected New Zealand objects that offer precise definitions of the types of objects that are subject to export regulation. The bill also updates criteria used to assess the significance of objects in these categories and provides for the formal engagement of expert examiners to advise the chief executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage on decisions regarding export permission. 
Fifteen submissions on the bill were received including four oral submissions. After consideration of all submissions the Government Administration Committee recommended a small number of amendments and the Government concurs with these recommendations. I will outline the more substantive of them. One recommendation relates to various references in the bill to the age at which certain categories of New Zealand objects become eligible for protection under the Act. A number of submissions proposed reducing this age from 60 to 30 years as is the case under Australia’s Protection of Moveable Cultural Heritage Act. On considering the international situation the committee found that the Australian threshold was exceptional and that such a provision would likely infringe too greatly on the legitimate trade in cultural objects such as relatively contemporary artworks. The committee therefore recommended a reduction of the threshold to 50 years bringing New Zealand into line with more common international practice. 
In response to a number of submissions the committee recommended an amendment in clause 9 that will give expert examiners the protection from legal liability that might result from recommendations made in good faith. A further recommendation relates to the regulation-making powers of the bill. Two powers from clause 28 have been deleted and one further clarified as recommended by the Regulations Review Committee. 
An issue arose during the select committee process that I believe is important to note though it did not result in recommendations for change. It relates to the provision in the Antiquities Act that newly found taonga tuturu are prima facie property of the Crown. It is acknowledged that the phrase “property of the Crown” may not be viewed positively by Maori. The provision is however merely a legal mechanism to ensure that taonga are handled appropriately until custody or ownership can be awarded. The bill makes no change to the process for establishing appropriate ownership of taonga tuturu but as noted earlier it does simplify it. 
The Government believes that this bill will provide a firm foundation for the protection and management of New Zealand’s movable cultural heritage. New Zealand will benefit from a more transparent environment for legitimate international trade in cultural objects and a reduction in illegal exports as deterrents come into effect. I acknowledge the positive tone and well-considered comments of those who made submissions. I am also appreciative of the hard work of the members of the Government Administration Committee. I believe that the amendments as proposed are useful improvements to the bill. The Government intends to propose two Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee of the whole House that contain minor technical changes only. I look forward to advancing a bill that provides some very workable and sensible solutions. I commend the progress of this bill to the House.