Finlayson Christopher: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:633;Page:4647] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am sure the Associate Minister would agree with me when I paraphrase St Paul—we have certainly run the race with the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. I am sure we are pleased it has reached its first reading and because the Associate Minister gave a very full and fair speech I do not intend to speak for very long. 
Darren Hughes 
: Third reading. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is the third reading; I apologise. I saw the member for Rimutaka light up. I was sure that when I was talking about St Paul he was thinking about himself but no that was not the case. 
I will begin by saying how disappointed Mr Groser is that he is not here for this third reading. He is actually in Geneva at the moment dealing with the World Trade Organization arbitration between Airbus and Boeing which is of course a huge tribute to New Zealand and to Mr Groser himself. I say to the member for Otaki that it is slightly disappointing that not one Labour member of Parliament has had the class to congratulate him on his hugely important appointment. 
The Associate Minister briefly mentioned the legislative history of this bill. I think it is fair to say that what should have been a reasonably straightforward bill which could have got through the House fairly quickly turned into something of a Homeric epic. The introduction of the bill as the Associate Minister said was on 3 February 2005 and it is only in August 2006 that we reach the happy stage of holding the third reading debate. That says something about the way Parliament is run and I do not think it is particularly good for the country that it takes so long to get legislation through the House. I think we have to sharpen up in that regard. 
As I have said throughout the course of the debates that I have been involved in on this bill National supports this bill. As the Associate Minister said it amends and improves the Antiquities Act which provides for a system of domestic control over the export of cultural heritage objects but does not provide for the means to recover objects that have been illegally exported. As the Associate Minister said that is why we need it in order to accede to the Unesco convention that provides specific structures for international cooperation and for the cross-border recovery of items that are significant in terms of our cultural heritage. Accession to the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law convention is also required because it complements the Unesco convention and allows for a person to sue in a foreign court for the return of foreign cultural objects. 
In previous speeches I have referred to—and I think the Associate Minister even briefly referred to—the facts of a case that the Attorney-General of New Zealand brought in the English courts to recover an object that had been taken from the Associate Minister’s own hapu. It went all the way to the House of Lords but nothing could be done. That is the sort of the problem that has been faced with regard to New Zealand taonga and antiquities for many years. Indeed I can recall a former professor of law of mine recounting a story to me. He and his wife were looking through a second-hand shop in Toronto and happened to come across a Goldie painting which I think they picked it up for a very very small price because the owner of the shop did not realise how valuable it was. That makes one think of how many protected or valuable objects have been lost to New Zealand because of the absence of legislation such as this. So it is high time there was legislation in this area. But in order to have legislation passed through the Parliament we of course first needed the international conventions that I have referred to. 
Unfortunately the new regime has no retrospective effect. I do not say that in a critical way because there is no way around that. It will take effect only from the date appointed by the Governor-General and the same will apply in any foreign jurisdiction. But hopefully from this time forward we will be in a situation where the kinds of facts represented in the Ortiz case will not occur again. 
So as I said National supports this bill. It is very important legislation and I am pleased it is coming into force just as soon as the Governor-General signs it. We hope that this new regime will stop the illegal export of protected New Zealand goods. We also hope that the regime we have set up will provide protection as Mr Groser said in his second reading speech for the Elgin Marbles - type situation; there are many countries that have basically been pillaged of protected objects because of the actions of others. 
In conclusion it is worth recording that National was originally responsible for the passage of the Historic Articles Act in 1962. That Act was the precursor of the Antiquities Act 1975 which this bill amends and updates. One of the many false and misleading claims made by the Prime Minister in recent years is that National has never done anything for culture. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. When the facts are examined one can see that National has an extremely proud record in the arts culture and heritage area. As I said we were responsible for the passage of the Historic Articles Act in 1962. We established the Historic Places Trust which has been the subject of amending legislation in recent times we were responsible for the establishment of the Arts Council and we were responsible for the establishment of the Film Commission. Actually we provided the first Minister for arts culture and heritage Mr Highet in 1975. So our record is a very proud one and the legislation that was passed in 1962 which became the Antiquities Act in 1975 is the legislation that this amendment bill seeks to improve. 
I support the third reading of this bill as does the National Party. We look forward to the bill being signed into law as soon as possible.