Finlayson Christopher: Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7249. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill relates to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict which is commonly called the 1954 Hague convention. New Zealand ratified the convention on 24 July 2008 but of course legislation is required before New Zealand can accede to the convention and its two protocols. 
The Hague convention was a specific response to the massive destruction of cultural property during the Second World War. It recognises that mutual commitment between nations is necessary if we are to spare the world’s cultural heritage from the consequences of war. The bill is being advanced now to demonstrate this country’s ongoing commitment to the system of international law particularly as it relates to armed conflict. Acceding to the protocols will reinforce the current operational practice and excellent reputation of our armed service personnel overseas. It will also enhance this country’s participation in the system of international instruments designed to protect and enhance cultural activity. I will say just one or two things about each of the parts of the bill. 
First Part 1. For the purposes of the bill “cultural property” refers both to movable and immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people as well as to the buildings used to house the properties. So in a New Zealand context it would likely include our major metropolitan museums art galleries and libraries; nationally important archives and scientific collections; and registers of births deaths and marriages land information citizenship and protected objects. Category I historic places and registered wahi tapu are also likely to be included along with the list of national historic landmarks currently being considered by the Government. 
Clause 5 sets out how to determine whether a territory is occupied following on from the 1907 Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Clause 5(c) provides that “The fact that occupation of a territory meets with no armed resistance does not prevent the territory from being considered occupied.” Clarifying whether a territory is occupied is going to be very important in the context of offences created in Parts 2 and 3 of the bill. Many of the offences have to take place in the context of either armed conflict or an occupation or in the case of the dealing offences the property must have been removed during armed conflict. 
Part 2 criminalises serious violations of the second protocol and sets out appropriate penalties for the offences. Part 3 addresses obligations required under the first protocol to prohibit unlawful trade in cultural property from warring States. Part 4 prevents unauthorised use of the convention emblem used to identify cultural property and outlines the penalties for so doing. This provision was not required by the convention or its protocols but is none the less considered to be a sensible provision to include in the bill. Part 5 provides various necessary supporting provisions and addresses the role of the Attorney-General in the prosecution of offences the liability of directors and officers of bodies corporate and the certification of facts by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the making of regulations to prescribe the necessary forms required to implement the bill. 
So I am very pleased to see this legislation conclude its passage through the House. I thank all colleagues for their support. In supporting the bill they are reinforcing this country’s commitment to other international agreements to prevent the illegal export or import of important cultural artefacts such as the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The history of the Geneva Convention demonstrates how these agreements can over time result in greater awareness and commitment to improved standards of conduct. In implementing the provisions of the bill this country will be meeting its obligations and playing its part in the mutual recognition and protection of important cultural heritage both here and abroad. I commend the bill to the House.