Kaye Nikki: Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — Second Reading 
Kaye Nikki: Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5789] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to be here speaking on the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. I start by acknowledging what Grant Robertson said and also Jacqui Dean regarding the collegial nature of the Government Administration Committee. 
Grant Robertson 
: The all-powerful Government Administration Committee. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: The all-powerful Government Administration Committee. I am really delighted to be a member of that committee. I also acknowledge the work of Minister Finlayson who is an outstanding Minister. I get good feedback about him constantly. I also acknowledge some of the comments Mr Carter made regarding the importance of actively protecting culture in New Zealand. New Zealand is a country that is rich in culture so I am delighted to be here speaking on the bill. 
In terms of the bill New Zealand ratified the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict in July 2008 under the previous Government as has been mentioned by many speakers. The convention was originally created in response to the widespread destruction of culturally significant artefacts and property during World War II. The key thing about the bill is that it will make New Zealand’s law compatible with the provisions of the Hague convention and therefore allow us to accede to the first and second protocols of the convention. 
In terms of the offences that are covered in the bill it is an offence to do the following to a protected piece of cultural property or to encourage another person to do one of the following acts: make cultural property the subject of an attack use cultural property in a military action commit extensive destruction of cultural property or steal or vandalise cultural property. I also think it is very important—and the Minister acknowledged this—that the bill also makes it an offence to remove cultural property from a country or to assist another in doing so. 
I will make a couple of other comments about issues that were raised in the committee’s report when the committee was looking at the legislation. Mr Grant Robertson has mentioned one of them which was the insertion of the new clause 9A to ensure that universal jurisdiction would not be created over grave violation offences set out in the bill. 
 The other key aspect that the committee made an amendment on was by inserting the words “whether in or outside New Zealand” in clause 7(1)(a) to make it clear—and I think this is very important—that a person could be charged regardless of where the alleged offence was committed. The committee further recommended that the word “or” be substituted for the word “and” in clause 7(1)(c) which is a very important aspect of this change. I also acknowledge the outstanding diagram which has been acknowledged by Grant Robertson and Jacqui Dean and which was inserted into the legislation. 
In conclusion the bill is very important because it enables New Zealand to accede to the first and second protocols to the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict which was signed at The Hague in 1954. The bill is outstanding legislation for which the all-powerful Government Administration Committee deserves to take the credit. The bill is in the name of an outstanding Minister as well. I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time.