Harawira Hone: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Harawira Hone: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2967] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Before I start on my korero tonight I would like to note a couple of things. First I was seriously embarrassed by the speech made by Mahara Okeroa the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and by his downplaying of the concept of Maori artefacts being protected objects. The way he presented that speech spoke much about Labour’s dishonouring of the concept of things Maori and the fact that Mahara could allow himself to be used to make that speech suggests that some very bad things are going on for Maori within the Labour Party. Sitting here and listening to him talk about protected objects like they were something from Mars I was ashamed. This is Aotearoa and protected objects come primarily from the saving of taonga which in this country are primarily Maori. For him to use the word “Maori” about as many times as the Minister of Finance used it in his Budget last year suggests a contempt for things Maori. That is simply unacceptable to the Maori Party. 
The second point I would like to make is that if Mr Ardern is correct in saying that the committee that oversaw this bill the Government Administration Committee is made up of three Labour members and two National members then it is no wonder that protected objects like the powhiri are seriously under threat. We need only consider the comments made by the Prime Minister in terms of how she thinks the Government will dictate how powhiri are to be conducted and the manner in which Judith Collins and colleagues disrespected the powhiri when it was offered to them the other day to see that we are in trouble. Everybody in this House is in trouble if we think we can talk about protected objects in an abstract manner when what we are seriously supposed to be talking about is the protection of taonga that are intrinsic to this nation—to both Pakeha and Maori. 
Having got that off my chest if I were to guess at a waiata that every member of this House might know it would probably be the one called “E Hara i te Mea”: 
E hara i te mea 
No naianei te aroha 
No nga tupuna 
Tuku iho 
Tuku iho. 
It is not true that love is a recent discovery. Love is something that comes from our ancestors and is handed down through the passage of time. In this way nga taonga tuku iho no nga tupuna—the treasures handed down to us by our ancestors—are universally understood by all New Zealanders as being objects of value. Within the context of this bill those taonga tuturu relate to Maori culture history or society and were used by Maori manufactured or modified by Maori or brought to Aotearoa by Maori. We are pleased to note the recommendation from the select committee that the age threshold for protected objects and taonga tuturu should be amended from 60 to 50 years which now means that all four members of the Maori Party are well protected!  
The concept of respect for Maori culture history or society as preserved under nga taonga tuturu is extremely relevant in the context of the sustained attacks on one of our key means of protecting and retaining our cultural heritage. The shameful assault on powhiri from both sides of this House gives us little faith that Parliament has come to terms with understanding objects protocols and values of cultural significance to either Maori or non-Maori. How can a so-called Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage—the Prime Minister at that—issue a directive: “The Government protocol is that women can sit in the front row … We like the kaupapa where there’s a Government facility involved to reflect the values of the Government and of New Zealand in general.”? The strange thing is that none of the Maori members from the Labour caucus objected yet I know them well enough to know that they would not stand for the kind of treatment of their powhiri that has been spoken of here by their Prime Minister. 
The powhiri purge has apparently been taken up by Ruth Dyson the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) by the previous Minister of Education Trevor Mallard and notoriously by the Department of Corrections which has the misguided belief that renaming a powhiri as a whakatau means it can now own the cultural and intellectual property rights of the process. What will the next step be—that the Prime Minister will instruct the judiciary that from now on lawyers are to desist from standing when the judge enters the courtroom in order that the “values of … New Zealand in general” will be reflected? Will the radar also hover over the tikanga in this debating chamber and will the authority of the Speaker come into question as not reflecting the values of New Zealand? We cannot have it both ways. The Maori Party applauds the sensible advice of Professor Ranginui Walker that tangata whenua organising any powhiri should decide seating positions not the Government. And we have to ask reluctantly again where Labour Maori MPs have been during this prolonged and savage battering of our culture. I say “our culture” because I recognise that for all our differences we are all Maori.  
I raise these issues tonight because they address the concepts that are central to the Protected Objects Amendment Bill—the protection of taonga the rangatiratanga of mana whenua the vexed issue of ownership and the appropriate role of the Crown. The need for negotiating ownership of taonga with iwi authorities and the Crown is critical. The bill amends the administrative processes for determining ownership of taonga tuturu by stipulating that the chief executive must notify any parties that might have an interest. We support the submitter who argued that clause 15 should be amended so that newly found taonga tuturu will not be prima facie the property of the Crown but should instead be held prima facie to be the property of Maori. The Maori Party also endorses the view put forward by the submitter—and acknowledged by the select committee—that the phrase “property of the Crown” may not be viewed positively for Maori and indeed warrants further analysis and debate. 
Although we can commend the intent of this change we see an urgent need to establish clear protocols with mana whenua for those who claim ownership of taonga tuturu—protocols of use access and loaning. Nowhere is this more vividly evident than here in Wellington with the finding last December of three punga whare which were unearthed during an archaeological assessment of a Taranaki Street site beside the pub Molly Malones that is being turned into apartments. This was the first archaeological evidence of a Maori pa in the area. The whare are the first evidence of Te Aro Pa and are therefore of huge significance to the Wellington Tenths Trust to Ngati Ira and indeed to all tangata whenua. At the site pieces of shell fire-cracked rocks rubbish pits tobacco pipes and other taonga were also found. How relevant will this bill be to ensuring our taonga tuturu are protected? Situations like that are exactly why we need protocols for use and to prevent abuse for access and for protection. Who takes priority? Although we support the improvements made through the bill to enhance the administrative processes of ownership of taonga tuturu recovered during archaeological digs or found by chance we would like to see it strengthened to establish strong relationships with mana whenua.  
That brings me to another key issue of debate in terms of the protocols required to determine representation of Maori groups—and indeed of all communities of interest—as set out under section 30 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I heard today about a tahuhu currently being held in Cambridge being displayed as a tekoteko. Discussion and consultation with the mana whenua of that tahuhu would inform the appropriate authorities of the need to hang the taonga from the ceiling as indeed a tahuhu should be displayed rather than standing it upright. Such relationships are critical in repatriating Maori cultural material back home to Aotearoa.  
In considering the issue of protocols I seek to return to the protocols for cultural and intellectual property rights of iwi developed by the late Dr Hirini Melbourne based on the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He reminds the House that iwi have the right to self-determination and to be recognised as the exclusive owners of their cultural and intellectual property. The protocols recognise that indigenous peoples are capable of managing their traditional knowledge but are willing to offer it to all humanity provided that their fundamental rights to define and control such knowledge are protected by the international community. There is an insistence that the first beneficiaries of indigenous knowledge must be the direct indigenous descendants of such knowledge. Finally he notes that all forms of discrimination and exploitation of indigenous people and indigenous knowledge and cultural and intellectual property rights must cease. 
I have not quite finished but that will do for now. Kia ora tatou katoa.