Ardern Shane: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2963] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. As one of the members of the Government Administration Committee during some of the submission process—not the entire process; I was there briefly during the process of this bill’s consideration—I will state that the intention of National is to see this bill pass through the House and receive the Royal assent. There are a number of reasons: first it brings New Zealand into line with the internationally recognised Unesco set of standards; second it gives more powers to agencies operating under the Antiquities Act to enforce the law; and third it also identifies some of what we would describe as our treasured and protected objects. 
 One of the submitters to the select committee intrigued me by bringing up a situation that took place in Taranaki—I can see the former chair of the select committee Dianne Yates nodding in acknowledgment. Prior to the New Zealand Wars some sacred and special artefacts had been buried by a Maori iwi in order to protect them from an imminent invasion by another tribe from the north. After that invasion nobody who was left standing from that particular iwi remembered where the artefacts had been buried. Therefore the artefacts were lost. A farmer ploughed up the artefacts from the swampy area in which they were buried 150-odd years later after the swamp had been drained and sunk and the artefacts had come close to the surface. The farmer who discovered the objects was able to sell them without consulting anybody on the international market—via the Internet if my memory serves me correctly. Of course New Zealand would have had a very strong interest in retaining those artefacts in New Zealand. This bill will amend the Antiquities Act 1975 to strengthen the ability of the relevant authorities to intervene and stop that kind of thing from happening. 
Submissions on some more bizarre things were brought to the select committee such as that of the traction engine society. The society identified some very early imports of particular kinds of machines that are now unique in the world. Only three or four of those machines are left they are all here in New Zealand and of course they have a very high monetary value. Collectors around the world are in search of those things and obviously they could be sold off. Somebody needs to decide whether selling those machines is of any significance and whether we mind them being sold without the process being too heavy-handed. There is an element of doubt about whether the process will be too heavy-handed—we will have to see how it goes. 
Of course I was brought into the debate when somebody suggested that Myrtle the tractor that went up the steps of Parliament could one day be one of those artefacts. Myrtle is a classic example of an iconic piece of agricultural machinery that came to Wellington did a little stunt on the steps of Parliament and was condemned by all and sundry on the Government benches as being an act of vandalism and some kind of vicious assault on the historic buildings of Parliament. Incidentally when Myrtle came to Wellington it was worth about $200 but when it went home it was worth $20000. Potentially Myrtle could be traded on the international market which could mean that some of Parliament’s history would be lost to New Zealand forever. So amending the Antiquities Act may protect Myrtle from some vicious overseas buyer who might snap up the opportunity to have an old Ferguson tractor. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What year was Myrtle? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I know where the member is heading. The age of an artefact became an issue because of the question of what is and what is not an artefact. For the information of the member who is inquiring I tell him that Myrtle fits within the category of artefact in the bill. I never introduced that idea; it came in as a result of the advice that was brought to the select committee. 
The bill also increases the amount that people can be fined for an offence under the Act to $100000—which is a fairly hefty penalty but a very thorough test would have to be met before that fine would be applied—or such people may receive an imprisonment period of up to 5 years. So if those penalties do not act as a deterrent then I am not sure what will. For that reason I hope we will no longer see the kind of trade that we have seen. 
Going back to the origins of the bill to find out why it was suddenly brought to Parliament I remind members of the very emotional period we went through with the return of the shrunken heads. Most New Zealanders had either a negative or a positive view on that matter but generally the reception was positive. While that process was taking place the question was asked as to whether we were adequately protected in terms of what was in New Zealand at that time that would be deemed some 100 or 150 years after the event to be significant artefacts for New Zealand. As a result of the concerns raised during that process the Maori Land Court was given powers to approve or not approve of various Maori artefacts being sold overseas which was a good step forward. So the select committee in general was able to come to a consensus on that issue although there were concerns on one side that the measures were a little weak and on the other side that they might be too strong which is typical of the sort of stuff that goes on in a select committee. 
Earlier in the debate it was mentioned that the Government Administration Committee with five members—two from National and three from Labour—was a non-representative select committee of Parliament. I say to members who have those concerns that the opportunity for them to be subbed on to that committee and have their say is always there. If those members choose not to take that option then it is a bit unfair to say we were acting in a first-past-the-post type of committee because in this instance that was definitely not the case. In fact members from other parties expressed a view in certain areas and those views were well represented in the findings of the committee. So I suggest that those who think the process was not done in that way should go back and do some research into what took place in that committee. The reality is that it was a very representative parliamentary select committee. 
The other point that has come out of the discussion tonight from a range of different angles was whether there is an overemphasis in respect of things that may be described as Maori wahi tapu or whatever one might try to embrace in that wider discussion. I do not think that is the case with this legislation because in the Protected Objects Amendment Bill we are talking about physical objects and things that can be traded internationally. So that brings quite a clear definition as to what we might be talking about. Obviously the final decision of those who make that choice will always be debated and there will always be room for some discussion but the clarity of the bill is absolute in terms of what may or may not be traded. 
In essence the bill will receive widespread support from Parliament. The legislation is overdue especially when we think of what has already been lost in terms of New Zealand’s artefacts and early culture to what is now a very global market in which one can trade buy and sell stuff electronically around the world within seconds. It is welcome legislation.