Wong Pansy: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Wong Pansy: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2966] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on this very important bill. It struck me that the Government Administration Committee is a particularly effective committee because on this very important bill it took only an hour and a bit to hear the submissions and it took another hour and a bit to reach a unanimous conclusion. So obviously all sides of the House are in favour of this bill. 
I am very pleased to support this bill but I would like more discussion during the Committee stage on some of the issues I raise here. Possibly because I am a member to whom this bill is new I thought about it and wondered how some of the provisions would actually be implemented. A very good reason to support this bill is that we learnt that in August 2004 Interpol estimated illicit trade in art and artefacts worldwide each year to be worth somewhere between US$4 billion and US$10 billion. So it is important that all countries try to cooperate to stop this illegal trade. 
I do wonder how much the passage of this legislation itself will actually contribute to a reduction. The mere fact that people see illicit trade as very valuable to engage in means it becomes a global business and it seems to me that New Zealand and other countries that have signed this convention must show some real commitment for its enforcement. The New Zealand Parliament as I have mentioned in the past is pretty good at passing well-intentioned laws to stop all sorts of things but the enforcement itself is usually the problematic part. My concern is that we obviously have those shall I say professionals who engage deliberately in trying to trade illegally in these well sought after artefacts so I suggest we must gear up to enforce this law. 
But having said that just now my good colleague Shane Ardern raised the subject of a farmer who discovered artefacts on his own land. How would the enforcement of this Act take into account innocent individuals who find that some artefacts have come into their possession? It seems to me that the fact the farmer put that artefact up for auction on the Internet means he was obviously convinced he could do so—he did not try to hide or run away—and was not even aware that he had a responsibility to report his find. I do not know which enforcement agency he should have contacted or whether he should have contacted a museum for example. I would like to discuss such issues further. 
Perhaps whoever takes the next call can enlighten us as to any education campaign that is to accompany this legislation so we can educate the public about the increased penalties and the value of keeping New Zealand treasure here for our people to enjoy. A public campaign should be mounted. I just wonder whether the Government has a plan on hand for an education campaign to inform the public and particularly to protect individuals who might come into possession of an artefact or who may be offered an artefact for sale. 
The other issue I would like some discussion on during the Committee stage concerns how extensive the list of expert examiners is how one verifies that the artefacts in question are of a quality and standard we would want to protect and how to ensure we do not necessarily stifle individuals who may have very valid reasons for wanting to export or sell artefacts that belong to them. There have been some difficult questions raised recently in relation to Anzac Day. We have had I would say quite a painful discussion about war medals—whether the family descendants should be able to sell them and whether because such medals are so important in terms of New Zealand history the country should have more of a claim to a family’s possession. How does this legislation manage to balance on the one hand the value to our country as a whole and on the other hand the individual’s entitlement to do what they deem fit with a piece of property in their possession? 
It seems to me that ultimately it comes down to public awareness of the importance of maintaining our treasure in our country. It is also about people nurturing a public spirit approach as to when a treasure is best kept in a museum or a public place for all to enjoy rather than an individual wanting it for his or her own private collection. I think it will take time—through our schooling and through individuals showing their generosity—to make sure that treasures can be kept for the public to enjoy. 
I want to divert a little bit and mention some personal experiences. When I travelled in London and in the Netherlands a few years back I looked at some of the fantastic masterpieces from China—Chinese paintings—that were kept in overseas museums. Some of them may not be available at all in museums in China. So I must say I have a lot of sympathy for some of the provisions in the bill whereby museums would cooperate with each other when they find there are valuables that belong to the New Zealand public. I also agree with the provisions whereby the Government and various overseas countries can cooperate and organise a way to return such things to each country so that its public can enjoy those values that rightly belong to the people of each individual country. 
It was a pleasure to take part in this debate. I hope the points I have raised will be further enlightened in the Committee stage.