Groser Tim: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Groser Tim: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4260] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting this amendment bill. I have to say that when I first came across this slightly Orwellian title I was a little confused about what precisely might be the objects that needed to be politically protected. I wondered whether it was the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. No I do not think that is the case. Was it perhaps the former Minister of Immigration Taito Phillip Field or was it perhaps the entire Labour Party—the Prime Minister’s list of the walking dead politically speaking? I think that through a careful examination of Part 1 we can put some of this to rest. 
Of course I have to say that amongst the list of the Labour Party walking dead members will probably realise I was particularly concerned about the fate of the former Minister Mr Jim Sutton and I wondered about the impact of this on his negotiating position. But I notice that Part 1 refers to rare collections and objects of palaeontological interest. I quickly came to the conclusion that I do not think we can describe Mr Sutton as having yet attained the status of palaeontological so I think we can lay that concern to rest. In fact I want to congratulate him on negotiating a very successful exit strategy. I understand that the Prime Minister is a skilled taxidermist but he finally did manage to negotiate an acceptable arrangement. 
With respect to the detailed provisions of the arrangement rather than go through them in some arid and rather academic way I would like to examine them against an actual. Mr Finlayson as he said promises to give members an arid and academic analysis and he is excellent at that I am sure. I would like to try to examine this with respect to an actual incident of cultural piracy the Elgin Marbles and ask ourselves had this excellent legislation been on the books of the authorities at the time would it have stopped the problem? 
I want to remind members of the particular circumstances surrounding the Elgin Marbles. Let us imagine that it is a hot and humid day in Athens— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No! 
TIM GROSER 
: Well it often is but air pollution which is of course atrocious in Athens was somewhat limited in 1799 because motorcars had not been invented. Let us say that one is Thomas Bruce the 7th Earl of Elgin and ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and one has as perhaps befits the 7th Earl of Elgin a certain noblesse oblige attitude towards life and cultural objects—a little bit like some of the Ministers in this Government who have been around power a little bit too long. So one goes along to the Parthenon with one’s flunkies looks at these marbles and says: “Well this would look rather nice in my country estate in Surrey and more to the point this will annoy enormously the 6th Duke of Norfolk who will covet these marbles.” I will be able to say to him: “Not in your dreams.” So one says to one’s flunkies: “I want these marbles.” The question is: had this legislation been in place in the Ottoman Empire would it have prevented that? Well I think we can trace the logic through. 
First of all we know that Lord Elgin then applied to the Ottoman Empire for what is called in Islamic law a firman which was the piece of paper or the authority to take the marbles away. Now of course the procedures of the Ottoman Empire of the day were one could say Byzantine but this is essentially a royal decree. Had this legislation been in place at the time the Earl of Elgin would have had to apply to the chief executive of the Ministry of Arts Culture and Heritage which the provisions in Part 1 make quite clear has the sole authority to authorise the export under very strict conditions. What is more the chief executive must also have regard to expert opinion. If we examine section 7B in new Part 1 inserted by clause 9 which covers the modern-day equivalent we will see that the chief executive alone has to consult experts on what issues are truly relevant to the day. Furthermore there are detailed provisions for a process of review. So I think by examining this issue we can see that the bill has a lot of built-in protection. Some of the provisions are merely designed to bring a few things up to date such as the provisions in clause 11 that change “his” to “his or her”. I do not think we need to explore the ground in between. But basically this is sensible legislation that addresses an issue of importance to New Zealand.