Finlayson Christopher: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2970] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As the MP for Taranaki - King Country said the National Opposition supports the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. As Mrs Stewart also said this is a very interesting bill which deals with some very important matters in the cultural life of New Zealand. The particular thing that interests me and the area I want to address in my second reading speech is the part of the bill that enables New Zealand’s participation in the Unesco and International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) conventions. As the commentary on the bill states they prohibit the import of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects and provide for the forfeiture and return of such illegally exported objects. 
I cannot understand why it has taken so long to introduce this legislation because the problem has been with us for many years as I will describe in a few minutes by reference to a matter that my friend the MP for Taranaki - King Country also referred to. But I do note that the second schedule sets out the Unesco convention which came into force on 24 April 1972. The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects was signed in Rome on 24 June 1995. So although it has taken the New Zealand Parliament quite some time to give effect to or to enter into those conventions and bring them into domestic law I am very pleased to see clause 13 of the bill which I think will be very important. 
What is the problem all about? Mr Ardern referred to a story about an incident in Taranaki many years ago. Indeed it was a matter that gave rise to litigation brought by the Attorney-General for New Zealand in the High Court in England and it went all the way to the House of Lords. Let me say something about the facts of that particular situation. Years ago in New Zealand a great chief—and I understand from the Minister the Hon Mahara Okeroa it was a chief of Te Atiawa—had a treasure house. In that treasure house were stored things such as dried fish special foods and valuables. At the entrance to the house there was a great door. It had five panels carved with exquisite skill depicting human figures with serpentine bodies and white pointed heads. 
As Mr Ardern said for various reasons that door was lost in the swamps around Waitara for many years. Then in 1972 a member of the hapu of Ngati Rahiri which I understand is that Minister’s hapu came across that door while cutting a track through the swamp. The next year there came to New Zealand a person by the name of Entwistle and he managed to persuade the member of Ngati Rahiri to sell him the door for $6000. He thereupon took it back to England and sold it to a fellow called Ortiz for US$65000. Then Mr Ortiz got into financial difficulties and put it up for auction at Sotheby’s in 1978. But when the Attorney-General for New Zealand commenced the proceeding the object was said to be worth Stg£300000 and it was taken off the market. 
The issue that arose—[ 
Interruption 
] These difficult issues are really best left for grown-ups so if the member for Waimakariri could try to contain himself it would be very helpful. Most of his contributions in this House are asinine and buffoonish and he does the House no credit. I am trying to deal with an important cultural issue. If the member cannot control himself he should leave the House because he diminishes the House and makes a fool of himself. To come back to the bill I say the real issue was whether the New Zealand Historic Articles Act could be enforced in England. Regrettably in both the Court of Appeal and House of Lords the law lords and lord justices said the legislation could not be enforced because that would have had the effect of enforcing in an extraterritorial way a piece of New Zealand legislation which would be contrary to international law. 
That case was decided in 1978 and I quote from what Lord Denning said in his conclusion: “The retrieval of such works of art must be achieved by diplomatic means. Best of all there should be an international convention on the matter where individual countries can agree and pass the necessary legislation. It is a matter of such importance that I hope steps can be taken to this end.” Indeed the House of Lords said exactly the same thing in closing. It recognised that it could not enforce in England a New Zealand piece of legislation but expressed the hope that something could be done about that because it was an important issue. 
New Zealand has been facing that kind of problem for a number of years. It is a similar problem to that faced by other countries when protected goods of a historical nature are brought into New Zealand but really belong in the country of origin. That is why these clauses are so important. They provide on the basis of reciprocity for a foreign reciprocating State to commence a proceeding in New Zealand for the return of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects to the proper jurisdiction. It is exactly the procedure that Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal case to which I have referred recommended was so necessary in order to get some movement at the diplomatic level. 
It is important to note that we are talking about reciprocity. New Zealand will have to be a reciprocating State. For example Australia or the United Kingdom will have to sign up to the international conventions as well. If they do not there will be no relief under the legislation. The first point to note is that a reciprocating State may claim in a court of competent jurisdiction that an object be returned and the court must order it to be returned if it has been unlawfully exported and if the claimant State can show that removal of the object significantly impairs certain of the interests set out in new section 10C(2) of the principal Act inserted by clause 13 of the bill. And indeed compensation and costs can be awarded at the same time. 
I welcome these provisions and the belated accession to the two conventions to which I have referred. They raise very important matters which I acknowledge are beyond the understanding or comprehension of the member for Waimakariri. None the less those of us who do understand these matters recognise that in terms of protecting cultural property the bill goes a very long way. By signing up to the two conventions we will be able to work within the international community to ensure that this kind of serious abuse does not occur in the future and indeed will be minimised. 
That is the part of the bill I wanted to talk about tonight. It is important legislation. It does a great deal to protect New Zealand’s cultural property and to protect the cultural property of other States. I welcome this second reading and I look forward to the Committee stage and to the enactment of the legislation. 
Bill read a second time.