Dean Jacqui: Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — Second Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5785] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in rising to speak to the second reading of the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill which languished for many years under the previous Labour Government but has been brought to the House again by the Hon Chris Finlayson the most excellent Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. He really does put his mark on culture in New Zealand with his commitment to legislation such as this. This National-led Government truly understands the importance of the protection of cultural objects. We do not just talk about it and then let the bill lie around for a while. We have brought this legislation to the Chamber and I am very pleased to be speaking at its second reading. 
I am really grateful for the good work in the Government Administration Committee chaired by David Parker. There were a number of excellent members from the National side of the House and Labour of course. I acknowledge my colleagues and the collegial way in which we worked through quite a technical bill. To highlight that I make note of the diagram on page 3 of the commentary. It was a hard-fought inclusion in the commentary on the bill —though it was not an internal fight—in order to aid clarity and understanding. There are a number of complex and technical issues contained in this bill pertaining to who shall be liable and with whom the responsibility lies whether they are New Zealanders and whether they are in the armed forces. Due to the number of provisions in the bill we felt in the select committee that a diagram would aid understanding of the bill—so there it lies in the commentary. I think it is the best diagram I have seen in a piece of legislation and I hope it aids understanding. 
The purpose of the bill most important and as acknowledged by the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage Chris Finlayson is that it will enable New Zealand to accede to the first and second protocols of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. We are all well aware of and very concerned about the destruction of cultural property. We noted that a lot of destruction was undertaken through the course of World War II; in fact there was widespread destruction of culturally significant artefacts and property. 
The first protocol is concerned with the export trade in cultural objects from warring States. The second protocol aims to provide additional protection to the most important cultural objects in the world and it would be fair to say that some of those are pretty readily identifiable. This bill creates a number of criminal offences including the removal of cultural property from an occupied territory. An example would be where somebody in the armed forces souvenirs a piece of cultural property a marvellous piece of culture from that country. A further offence relates to dealing in such property. Obviously cultural property can have a significant value which is often one of the reasons why it is removed. The bill also covers various acts against cultural property in situations of armed conflict. It will also make it a criminal offence to use the symbol of the Hague convention without authorisation. 
In a lighter moment in the committee there was much interest around what the Hague convention symbol would look like. I imagined something quite grand but no it is just an “H” or something quite plain. However in this bill it is a criminal offence to use the symbol without authorisation. That is probably a good thing because we are dealing with significant items of cultural heritage of other peoples’ countries and we should respect that. 
There is also a category called enhanced protection property which relates to property under a special protection regime set out in this bill. This category is for property of particular significance. It will be an offence under this legislation to do the following to a protected piece of cultural property or enhanced protection property or to encourage another person to do one of these acts. This means someone cannot just sit in the back telling another person to nick it because it will not matter—it covers that as well. It will be an offence to make cultural property the subject of attack. That means one cannot fire rockets knowingly at cultural property. One could but then it would be an offence under this legislation. I hope it would not happen that cultural property would be the subject of attack. It will be an offence to use cultural property in military action. We discussed whether that meant using a significant building as a shield. The extensive destruction of cultural property will be an offence or stealing or vandalising cultural property. That is probably the pertinent part of it because it is the stealing and vandalising that is most offensive. That is captured in this bill. 
Under this bill penalties are spelt out including fines and prison sentences. It also makes it an offence to remove cultural property from a country or to assist somebody else in doing so. That is an offence not only for the person who would be removing pinching or nicking that item of cultural property but also for somebody who assists someone else in doing that. Again that is an important feature of this legislation. In this call I have outlined perhaps the most pertinent part of this legislation which is the high value that we in New Zealand place on cultural property and the respect we give to such property not only in our country but also in other countries. It is a proud moment for this House in acceding to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. I recommend this bill.