Ardern Shane: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4263] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Like the member who has resumed her seat Steve Chadwick I too support the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the fine contributions to this debate tonight from my two colleagues Chris Finlayson and Tim Groser. I think that at this stage we should probably remind ourselves of the origins of this debate tonight. My reading of it is that the emotion that brought this issue to a head—and I hope members will not mind the pun—was the shrunken head debate that took place in this country about the return of such artefacts in the mid-1990s. I think my good colleague the Hon Tau Henare may have been the Minister at the time who participated in some of that debate and discussion. I see the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard has some anxiety about what I am saying. I am not sure whether that is because she thinks she may be protected under this bill. I am not sure about that but maybe she will take a call and clear that matter up for us. But that is my understanding of the situation. 
The bill brings New Zealand into line with an internationally recognised Unesco set of standards. That in itself and the reciprocal nature of that so that we are able not only to negotiate the return of some of our artefacts but also to reciprocate when people bring other nations’ icons or treasures to New Zealand is something I think we should all be a part of. The bill also brings us into line with the various other conventions that exist internationally and add strength to this legislation—for example the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) convention which has some history now. It was passed in 1995 in Rome—on 24 June I see here in clause 6 of the bill. So this bill is obviously overdue and for that reason I am pleased the Committee is quite unanimous in its support for it. I am not sure whether there are any dissenting voices in the Committee at all—there may be; I am not sure—but it seems as though the House is fairly unanimous in its support for this legislation. 
The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage will be given some powers that will have to be monitored and some people who submitted to the Government Administration Committee raised concerns about that. But I think the protections put in place under the legislation with regard to that and the very high tests that have to be met should help those who have concerns in that area. 
As far as I can tell the bill also brings quite clear definition to what could be described as Maori cultural artefacts. Of course there is a lot of debate in New Zealand at the moment as to the meaning of the various terminology used in some of the legislation in that area. Because we are dealing with physical objects this legislation will bring clarity to that issue. I am sure that those who submit to the chief executive through the various avenues they will have will be able to bring expertise to his deliberations on what actually represents an artefact. 
There have been some quite erudite speeches about international experiences. The one that I spoke of in the first reading was an event that took place in Taranaki which I think my good colleague Chris Finlayson referred to. That case made its way right to the House of Lords in England. It was decided in the High Court in London that it was impossible for a foreign jurisdiction to implement what was clearly intended in New Zealand law. In enabling New Zealand to sign up to the Unesco convention and the UNIDROIT convention the bill provides clarity and reciprocity in respect of international law in terms of what can and cannot be decided at the various points in the judicial system when such things are debated. 
If the Minister in the chair has any concerns about some of the comments made by various members tonight she should take a call and clear them up. I know she probably has no understanding whatsoever of the bill which is in her name so I am not expecting a learned speech. But if she has some concerns—and I have seen a certain amount of head-shaking and guffawing by her although no knitting—then she should take a call and clear up those issues.