Prebble Richard: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19621] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the Protected Objects Amendment Bill and to oppose the bill. I draw to the attention of the previous speaker who claims to be from the only unaligned party the fact he gave a speech that could have been given by either of the two old parties and I do not believe that he has examined the bill correctly. 
The reason the ACT party is opposed to the bill to put it simply is because all this bill does is reduce the price of New Zealand art. The Government thinks that by that measure we are somehow encouraging or protecting New Zealand art. Of course we are not. The idea that this bill somehow encourages New Zealanders to own art as one of the previous Government members has said or to spend their energies trying to protect our cultural heritage seems to me to be transparently nonsense. It is also based on the interesting notion that the best way for New Zealand to protect our unique art and culture is to put it on an island that is subject to earthquakes and volcanoes and that by making sure none of it can be taken to an alternative site we are somehow going to protect New Zealand’s culture. That of course is not so. 
The idea is also based I think on the notion that the State has a better record of protecting art so I just put this notion to members who think that: what private owner would have taken a significant portion of New Zealand’s best cultural artefacts and art to Wellington a city subject to earthquakes and then put it in a special museum built by the water—in fact built in the same place that in 1846 before a tidal wave would have been some metres under water? Only the State could have done that and here we are having State bureaucrats tell us yet again that they know better and that what we need to do in order to protect art is to go along with the latest UN convention. What a load of nonsense! 
I have looked at the record to see which countries have most actively pursued the Unesco convention and which ones have been the most active in claiming that the State ought to protect cultural heritage and that record in fact shows a list of nations with an appalling record of looking after their art. The nation that has refused point-blank to go along with this way is of course the United States which now has without any doubt at all the best art collections in the world. There is no doubt about it—if people want to go and look at art they do not go to Europe; they go to the United States. That is where they will find the best art galleries and a large number of them are privately owned. Do they protect their art work? They most certainly do. 
When we look at this bill we have to ask: “Where are the incentives for a person who owns a piece of art or Maori art that is 59 years old?”. Well actually the incentive is to export it immediately because once it is 60 years old that person is not allowed to do so. Then there is the question of foreign objects—for some reason or another this bill covers foreign objects in New Zealand. Somehow we are deciding that even though they came here we need to make sure that that never happens again. That provision covers objects once they are over the age of 100 years so if a person has something that is 99 years old it is not covered. 
I also make this point to the House. There are actually large numbers of private art collections in New Zealand and what is their incentive is under this bill? Is the incentive to show that art to lend it to museums and to be good public citizens? Of course not. The actual incentive of this bill for someone who owns art or a collection of Maori artefacts is to be secretive about it—certainly to refuse to allow art experts to ever examine it and not to display it. If owners do that they will escape the provisions of this bill because people will simply not know whether someone owns art. 
I can assure members that I have seen some private art collections in New Zealand that are superb and they are extremely well looked after. The owners who have in some cases spent millions of dollars have actually done a better job of restoring and keeping their art than most of our public museums. I am not making an attack on those museums. As MPs we have all seen museum staff turning up to Parliament to tell us that their institutions are underfunded and that they have collections they are not able to keep properly. They are not always able to keep collections under air conditioning. Many of us have seen art that is not being properly looked after yet we have this bill based on socialist arrogance and the belief that people who are private owners will not look after things of value. But apparently if we pass laws of this sort—telling owners they cannot export the art and have the international price for it—somehow we will protect our national heritage. 
I dispute the notion that the fact that we have some New Zealand art around the world is not of assistance to all New Zealanders. Of course it is. It is of assistance for all sorts of reasons. One reason is that it guarantees an artwork’s survival in the event of a cataclysmic event occurring. We are a nation whose history shows that such events have occurred and could occur again. 
Stephen Franks 
: Pluvial. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes we are pluvial. Also the largest volcanic eruption in human recorded history occurred in this country. Perhaps people do not care but I think it would be a good idea if some of our art and history were remembered. The next thing is that having others look at our art collect it study it and think about it adds to the knowledge of this nation. There have been many many incidents where overseas collectors and appreciators of art and culture have come back to New Zealand and have drawn to our attention the value of our collections. I can remember for example when a New Zealand Maori collection was taken to the United States. It was only the reaction of the American art collectors that drew to the attention of many New Zealanders the fact that we have more things of value here than we thought. The thinking behind this bill is that those works of art should never have left this country. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh nonsense! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is the thinking behind this bill. Of course it is. There is a notion that by putting in place an export ban somehow we are protecting this country’s culture. I have read the bill. I say that the bill is a socialist attack. All that it does is reduce the value of every private art collection in New Zealand. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh nonsense! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The ex-Minister knows that that is so. Even she is not that silly even though she has demonstrated frequently how stupid she is which is the reason she is sitting where she is. 
Darren Hughes 
: She never lost her electorate seat. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: She did. She gave it up and became a list MP and then went back again. Her voting record does not compare with mine. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Get over it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I think the member is having difficulty getting over her present position. 
The ACT party is opposed to this bill for the reasons I have stated. We do not believe that it will carry out any of its objectives. We think it is yet another example of the Government abusing State power.