Groser Tim: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Groser Tim: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4389] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I am not going to go into the detail although just on that last point I think the Minister might want to refresh her memory on the definitions of “substantially physically authentic”; I think it might be a little bit different in terms of vintage cars. But as we are looking at the title I want to just step back and look at the broader purposes of the legislation. I will not try to go through like a school-ma’m marking people for their speeches but I thought that the debate we had when we first went into Committee on this bill was quite interesting especially to me as a new member of the Parliament. In this rather strange dialectical process on which this is modelled from time to time one can feel the House come together quite genuinely I think—not just in a formalistic sense. I had a strong sense of that when we were first in Committee on this bill and I thought that was noteworthy. We listened to one member tell us with a degree of justifiable emotion I thought about her community’s attempt to get back a treasured taonga for the community—unfortunately unsuccessfully. I think that is the sort of issue we are dealing with. 
I agree with the Minister that the bill is related in its broader purpose to New Zealand’s national identity. I have always felt that this country—the last place suitable for human habitation on a large scale in the world and that was inhabited by human beings—must be considered above all other countries as a work in progress. I just have a feeling that the kind of coming together we had in the Chamber on this debate on the last occasion we were in Committee on the bill probably would not have happened 15 years ago. There is a growing consensus about this issue of which this is merely one part—but I think an important part—and it struck me very much at the time. 
The National Party is very happy to support the bill. We support the objectives although as members will have heard some of us have questions in our minds about certain definitions. Sensible compromises generally have been struck over some issues that are not necessarily straightforward such as the definition of “comparable examples” dealt with in clause 6 and the matter I referred to earlier about “substantially physically authentic” in new section 7A of new Part 1 inserted by clause 9. 
Although the bill may not be perfect—because some of those definitional boundaries I guess are always a little bit hard to draw—we think it is a good one. We think it will do the business. It will bring the terminology up to date with recent legislation and will put in place appropriate penalties for serious breaches. I hope some common sense will be applied by those responsible for that process in the future. It does indeed provide a proper process for the registration of protected objects. Some of us have had time to look at the detailed provision on the role of experts and the very important exemption they have from any legal liability for giving their best-endeavours assessment of the historical significance of a contested protected object. I think there is some reasonable sound stuff in the bill which serves the country well. 
I am also pleased that the legislation is applicable to foreign protected objects. I have not yet because of clash of opportunity been to see the Constable collection— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You must go. 
TIM GROSER 
: I certainly will. I know my colleague went and was obviously hugely impressed. I saw a presentation on it on television. Although perhaps in a technical sense the collection is a huge part of British culture and it probably has a price tag on it for insurance purposes in every real sense it is a collection priceless to that culture—a culture that has of course played a very important part in the formation of our culture. I am glad that the bill gives practical effect to the controlled import and export of great cultural artefacts such as the Constable paintings and of course to our own protected objects in that respect. 
We know that the matter of illicit trade is one of real moment. I have seen estimates that members have drawn in debates before I arrived in Parliament between $4 billion and $10 billion and one could buy a couple of Boeing 747s or Airbuses for that amount. This is not a small issue. In my earlier comments I drew attention to the underlying issue by reference to the notorious example of the Elgin Marbles. The bitterness about the export of the great cultural objects of the Parthenon is still felt not just in Greece but around the world—in my personal opinion it is obviously shared by many many other people. So it is not a small issue. What makes us a people is not just material objects important though they are but also a sense of identity. This bill is a vital part of that and I am pleased it will give us the ability to sign up to the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) convention—I never know how to pronounce that acronym in English but it is pronounced UNIDROIT in French; maybe it is the same in English—and the Unesco convention. I have been told that if ever I speak in French I will be expelled from the National Party so I will not do that. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: What about Latin? 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Latin is fine. 
TIM GROSER 
: Yes Latin is fine. The bill allows a person to sue in a foreign court for the return of stolen cultural objects. Also—and I think very importantly although one has to feel sorry for the poor mug who buys something that is stolen without realising it—we have the convention that outlines the only practical approach which is that a property right is not extinguished by on-sale. So that is a valuable adjunct to this legislation. 
A number of members have drawn attention to the fact that the bill does not have retroactive effect and I think there is a certain sadness on the part of all of us that this is the case. As members pointed out it is a bit like shutting the gate after much of the horse has bolted—in this case some of our own prized cultural objects. I will not make more than a veiled reference to what happened at the World Trade Organization overnight but this is a prime example of the excellent being the enemy—of the good people walking away from what is actually a good outcome simply because they wanted an excellent outcome. Happily that is not the case here. So although one can certainly criticise those two conventions as being well short of excellence particularly in respect of the issue of retroactivity I think the mood of the Committee is a good start and we welcome that. 
The definitions are quite interesting. Unfortunately if we take a purist view of it the bill does not apply to items stolen from private collections but it applies more broadly than just to museums. I note that the definitions include for example religious or secular public monuments and I am thinking about the recent theft—fortunately temporary—of  
Pania of the Reef 
 in Napier. In terms of my own personal history Napier was a very important place in my upbringing and I am sure that people who are Napier citizens felt far more strongly than I did. We were lucky we were dealing with rank amateurs there. Probably the international price of  
Pania of the Reef 
 was relatively modest its emotional significance being far greater. I think our immediate feeling over that was just how the illicit trade—in this case fortunately by just a bunch of amateurs—of these objects can strike right at the heart of our citizenry. They are very much a part of us. 
This bill is a very good initiative and National is very pleased to support it.