Hayes John: Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — Second Reading 
Hayes John: Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5788] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 As a member of the Government Administration Committee I have great pleasure in seeing the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill finally progress through the House. After all it is 55 years since the Hague convention was originally progressed in 1954. 
I can remember that when I first came to Parliament I was on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee under the wonderful chairmanship of one Dianne Yates. The reason that the bill went nowhere was due simply to her chairmanship which was incompetent at best. I commend the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage Chris Finlayson for his initiative in bringing the issue forward and progressing it and I am very glad that the people of New Zealand changed the Government so that we can allow the bill to move forward. 
As various people have talked in laborious fashion about the various parts of the bill I do not particularly want to revisit the issue. But I would like to say to my colleague from the Green Party Keith Locke—and I am pleased he supports the great work we have done—that none of the instances he offered are relevant in the context of the bill because we will not be applying it retrospectively. 
The other thing that is most important to understand is that the bill can begin to operate only if a territory has been occupied. So the wonderful collection put together by the de Beers that is in Dunedin’s museum—bits and pieces from all over the world that are available for all and sundry to see—is not at risk and I am very pleased about that. 
I think the example of the Bamian Buddhas being blown up and shot out of existence is more relevant. Whether Afghanistan was occupied by the Taliban is a moot question because the damage may well have been done by Afghani factions. Mr Locke also talked about the Sri Lankan example. Before he spoke I had been reflecting on how wonderful it was that the Buddhas in Sri Lanka or Buddha’s tooth in Kandy or the relics in Anuradhapura were left absolutely untouched by the war. I think it is a reflection of the respect of all the parties involved in that conflict that those religious icons and also the frescos in Sigiriya which are hugely important to Sri Lankan culture were left untouched. For that I am very grateful. I do not think we should involve ourselves in a partisan debate about whether a library was burnt down on purpose by the Sinhalese because it may well not have been. 
I think this bill will be really important in the context of future postings of the New Zealand military because under it they will now be held accountable. It has taken the better part of 55 years to progress and that is probably because a number of us would have had relatives at Monte Cassino and other theatres of war who removed artefacts under the guise of souveniring. That would now be prohibited under this arrangement. I also think our troops are far better educated now than they were at that time. 
At this stage on a Thursday afternoon I do not want to unnecessarily continue except to say that I am very very strongly supportive of the bill and I commend it totally to the House. I am sure it will be passed unanimously. Thank you.