Robertson Grant: Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson Grant: Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5787] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I join with Jacqui Dean in saying what a pleasure it was to work through the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill in the Government Administration Committee under the able leadership of David Parker. I concur that we worked in a collegial manner. We even inserted a diagram into the commentary—one of the highlights of the time the select committee spent on the bill! I will not traverse the detail of the bill because I think Jacqui Dean has done that very well but I take a brief call on what the bill is about: criminalising actions such as stealing or destroying important cultural property in times of war prohibiting trade in cultural property removed from an occupied territory and preventing unauthorised use of the convention emblem as Miss Dean just talked about. 
It is important to give examples of what cultural property means in terms of this bill. Within the protocols and the convention we can see terms as listed under clause 4 like “monuments of architecture” “archaeological sites” “groups of buildings” “works of art” “manuscripts books and other objects of artistic historical or archaeological interest” “scientific collections” and “collections of books or archives” and then in turn the places where those things are stored: “museums” “large libraries” and “depositories of archives”. It is important for people to understand that that is what we are talking about. There is limited scope within this bill. It is not about every single thing—it is not about a fork a plate or a spoon that is taken out of a house; it is about items that are of historical and cultural importance. 
Why should we do something like this? It is important for New Zealand to be able to follow through on its obligations and on the conventions and the protocols we sign up to. To be honest something the select committee grappled with was how we make real the conventions and protocols that we sign up to. We need to be upfront. When we negotiate these things internationally New Zealand is part of a wider group. We want to be able to show that we are committed to preserving in this case cultural and historical items of significance. But when we have to turn that into real law it does sometimes present some difficulties to make it meaningful. In the commentary on the bill we see the ways in which we amended the bill to try to make it more real and meaningful and Jacqui Dean has already talked about that. In particular we ensured that we inserted the words “(whether in or outside New Zealand)” in clause 7(1)(a) to make it clear that a person could be charged regardless of where the alleged offence was committed. That slightly broadened things out. We did not want it to become so broad and so over the top as to be regarded as somehow ridiculous so we ensured that universal jurisdiction would not be created over the grave violation offences that are set out in the bill and new clause 9A does that. 
As the commentary on the bill says we were also concerned that the bill did not take into account the issue “if a person committed an offence in a Second Protocol Party state and then came to New Zealand New Zealand would not be able to prosecute the offender where he or she was a national of a state that is not a Second Protocol Party.” We have clarified that and there is a diagram explaining how that will happen. 
I think that the select committee has done its job here. It has improved the bill so that it can be implemented in New Zealand law and so that it is meaningful in New Zealand law. I thoroughly recommend it to the House.