Tizard Judith: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4385] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 Part 2 “Nga taonga tuturu ownership and Maori Land Court” is a relatively small part of this legislation. I appreciated as always the useful and searching questions from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. She asked whether the definition of “nga taonga tuku iho” had been considered. My understanding is that we have had a great deal of consultation on this legislation and the alternative was not put forward. What we are doing here is trying to determine the ownership of found artefacts not of heirlooms or owned property. That issue would have to go to a court. But I have to say that I have had a number of questions from Maori constituents concerned for example about a situation whereby a family member who has custodianship—kaitiakitanga—of nga taonga tuku iho has for example changed religions and destroyed them. I am very pleased to see that under this legislation it will be an offence to destroy artefacts but I think it is very much a family and legal issue and is not one for the Crown to deal with in terms of found objects. 
The member’s second question was around the resourcing of the Maori Land Court. Sadly that is not dealt with in this legislation but if at any stage I had any information I would keep an eye on it. Where I felt that the Maori Land Court was being overwhelmed with this work I would certainly make urgent representations to the Minister with responsibility for resourcing courts. 
Tau Henare asked about the issue of artefacts. Again it was an issue where there was a significant amount of consultation. A Maori reference group was established to advise on this amendment and others around the bill. There were no submissions to the select committee on the inclusion of artefact. Although I hate to stray into earlier parts that we have covered if the member looked at those definitions he would find that the definition is quite wide. This terminology was proposed by the reference group and has gone through the select committee process and I am very satisfied with that. 
The other question raised by Tau Henare related to the issue of how the land court would operate. As I understand it the Registrar of the Maori Land Court will make ownership determinations to avoid going through the full court process where all parties agree on ownership. My observation is that although I know there was some issue around the assertion in the legislation that the Crown would retain ownership until ownership had been debated that is a device and increasingly museums—particularly Te Papa but all museums around New Zealand—are taking the role not of owners but of caretakers orkaitiaki. 
I think we are seeing with the koiwi repatriation and the repatriation of human remains to other countries including Australia that museums around the world are increasingly respecting artefacts particularly human remains for their cultural and personal importance to the descendants of the people. Sometimes it is not possible for Te Papa to establish where koiwi have come from. They may have been taken into collections overseas and sometimes bought and sold and when they are returned it is not always possible to know where they have come from but there is a group advising Te Papa and if any member of Parliament or of the public wanted more information about that I would be very happy to provide it. I know that Te Papa is trying not only to be very open but also to acknowledge that these are the remains of ancestors of New Zealanders and must be treated as such not as artefacts or in the words of Tau Henare as shrunken heads. 
I thank members again for their I am sure sincere appreciation. But in relation to DNA tests I think of an expression that I received from my Scottish ancestors which is that it is a wise man who knows his father. I leave that with the Committee.