Tisch Lindsay: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19618] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will support the Protected Objects Bill going to a select committee. Over the last couple of years we have looked at what has been happening in the illicit trading of objects of value and the two conventions the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects which the Minister mentioned are worthy of consideration. Not all countries are members. In fact I have a list here of those countries that have ratified and acceded to the UNIDROIT convention of 1995. The list is quite interesting. There are 23 countries on it. Countries that one might have thought might be on it like Canada the United States and Australia are missing. I will mention a couple of those later on because they do have in their own legislation provisions that protect their objects. 
First I will look at the Unesco convention of 1970 then at the UNIDROIT convention. Much information came to the Government Administration Committee about this time last year and we will be signing up to these conventions if we pass this legislation. The major point I make is that there is growth in trade of illicit items of significant cultural value and the Unesco convention provides specific structures for international cooperation between States and for cross-border recovery of items. I think that is significant. 
New Zealand has acknowledged the need to protect our cultural heritage since 1901 so it is not something new but we have not been party to the Unesco convention. The UNIDROIT convention complements the Unesco convention and allows for a person to sue in a foreign court for the return of stolen cultural objects. It also requires that stolen or illegally exported objects are returned regardless of whether the buyer purchased them in good faith. At present only 23 States are party to the UNIDROIT convention compared with 103 countries or States that have ratified the Unesco convention. 
So there is a significant difference between the Unesco and UNIDROIT conventions. Neither convention is retrospective in its application; nor will their provisions apply to objects stolen or illegally exported before the date of New Zealand’s accession. We will never be able to get back objects that have been stolen or illegally exported in the past but I think that from now on in these conventions are worthy of further consideration. 
What are the advantages for New Zealand of accession to the Unesco convention? Objects stolen from collections such as those in museums or from religious or secular public monuments or similar institutions in New Zealand would be required to be returned. Accession would support New Zealand’s participation in the legitimate international trade in cultural objects by increasing market certainty. But there are some disadvantages to being a member of this convention. It does not address the problems of New Zealand’s inability to invoke foreign laws for the return of New Zealand objects and for the protection given to good-faith purchases in foreign States. It requires only that objects stolen from collections in museums and similar institutions be returned and many developing countries do not have their collections listed. It does not provide for the return of objects stolen from private owners so that is a major handicap. 
 The advantage of accession to the UNIDROIT convention—which is where the possession of a cultural object by a good-faith purchaser would not extinguish a claim for recovery of a stolen cultural object—would allow New Zealand to recover stolen or illegally exported objects overseas where this action would not otherwise be available in countries whose laws favour good-faith purchases. Individuals would not have to rely on the New Zealand Government to seek the return of their objects on their behalf. This has two benefits. First it provides a choice of action for private citizens and secondly it lessens the burden on the New Zealand Government. 
The UNIDROIT convention does not require objects to be registered or designated by the State. Objects of which the State has no prior knowledge such as those illegally removed from archaeological sites or stolen from private collections can be recovered under the convention. However there are also disadvantages of accession to the UNIDROIT convention. It has a relatively low ratification rate. Only 23 countries have ratified it compared with the other convention which has 103 ratifications. This reduces the convention’s protections because New Zealand can invoke the convention only against other State parties. Under the UNIDROIT convention the purchaser of a cultural object even when it is purchased in good faith from a reputable seller runs a risk of losing his or her property should a claimant take steps to recover the cultural object and claimants are required to pay a sum in compensation to innocent purchasers for the loss of their property. 
So in summary there are advantages and disadvantages of both conventions but National is certainly happy to discuss these further as this bill goes into the select committee. As I am on the Government Administration Committee I will be looking more closely at the information that we have available. It is probably timely to look at some of the traffic of New Zealand cultural objects that have been taken out of New Zealand. In 1984 New Zealand unsuccessfully attempted to recover through the English courts a set of Maori pataka panels which had been recovered from a swamp in Taranaki illegally exported and sent for auction at Sotheby’s in London. The Motunui panels were withdrawn from sale but remained in the ownership of the purchaser overseas. They were described by the then director of the National Museum as “the single most exciting unit of now the extinct Taranaki carving style” and a “true masterpiece of Maori art”. 
There is also the Opito canoe case. This war canoe was found in the mid-1970s at Opito in the Coromandel. It was offered to the Auckland Museum for private sale from the Netherlands for US$10000. The sale did not proceed. The canoe was on sold to a dealer in Paris. It is not known how or when it left New Zealand. Inquiries here and in Europe by the Government and Interpol proved inconclusive. So there are many examples of where objects of importance to our economy culture and heritage have left the country and what this bill does is to give some credence and backing to a very important part of our heritage. For those reasons National will be supporting this first reading.