Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Protected Objects Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:4377] 
Protected Objects Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 19 July. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 As I was saying when the Committee rose when we were debating this issue previously I am deeply grateful for the support of the Opposition. I found the contribution of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to be a useful bipartisan approach to legislation that has been before the House in a variety of forms for a long time. Indeed this bipartisan approach was promised by the present National Party spokespeople on the arts at an Auckland forum. I am relieved that finally their undertaking appears to be taking form. 
This legislation is designed to amend and strengthen our ability under the law we have the Antiquities Act to prevent illicit trade in cultural objects of significant international importance here in New Zealand. I was concerned to hear some of the Opposition speakers particularly talking about “shrunken heads”. That indicates a strange lack of knowledge of koiwi tangata Maori which has been a major piece of diplomatic and cultural work by some really sincere and deeply moved New Zealanders who feel that the keeping of New Zealand ancestors’ remains in museums or in private collections around the world is deeply offensive. I have to say that this work is resulting in a worldwide movement where human remains are being repatriated and treated with the respect they deserve. So if any members want briefings on this issue I would be happy for the staff of Te Papa to offer these. International protection is the only way to oppose this unfortunate trade and to oppose the trade much more broadly. 
Jo Goodhew appeared to be demanding retrospective expropriation of property. Although I have some sympathy with things that are of New Zealand importance I am not in favour of that. I hope this legislation will require a new process for people who have title to property now whereby proper consideration is given on matters of New Zealand importance. 
The MP Chris Finlayson referred to new sections 10B and 10C regarding the return of unlawfully exported protected foreign objects and the payment of compensation to the owners of such objects. He asked what standard of proof would be required. I think we all agree that this is basically a civil matter rather than a criminal one so that the balance of probability standard would be in use rather than “beyond all reasonable doubt”. So I do not know whether Mr Finlayson wants to take that any further. 
I would like to commend the bill to the Committee. I think we have a range of challenges before us now. Steve Chadwick talked about Hinemihi pare. It is a difficult issue when valuable and important New Zealand artefacts have been exported legally or illegally in the past—in this case legally as far as we know— 
Hon Member 
: What? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Hinemihi pare which was exported legally in the past is now up for sale. I am concerned that although it would be wonderful for us to have the power and the money to bring all of these important New Zealand artefacts—particularly Maori artefacts—back other members also raised the issue of the late Charles Upham’s medals. Although I think there are a range of views—Charles Upham himself said that these medals were won not by him but by the men he fought with—what we have to do in a democracy and a country that is increasingly acknowledging that there are important artefacts and important cultural icons that will matter for us and for the future is to have a robust debate about the different value that one generation may put on artefacts compared with the next. I think of the Te Maori exhibition which demonstrated to many New Zealanders that artefacts that were often disregarded—either not in museums or in museums—were of international value and importance as well as of course demonstrating the astonishing artistic tradition of Maori. We now find that those artefacts—this art—are attracting interest all around the world and that of course increases their monetary value. It is also an indication of the increase in value to New Zealanders. 
This legislation is trying to update New Zealand legislation but it is also trying to act as a kickstart for others around the world so that we will have international protection. We have seen the catastrophe of museums being raided in Iraq following the US and British incursion there. We have to recognise that the world’s culture matters to all of us. The Protected Objects Amendment Bill is an important step for New Zealand to take to recognise New Zealand’s culture and to stand up in the world and recognise the importance to every nation in the world and every group of people of their cultures. 
I thank the National Party for its support. I sincerely thank New Zealand First for its intelligent and able support of this legislation. I commend the bill to the Committee. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairman. I want to clear up a few things that may not have been clear from the last time I spoke. I used the colloquialism “shrunken heads”. That is how people used to refer to them. I am not referring to the Labour members I am referring to what used to be called the trade in shrunken heads. I am quite chuffed that the Protected Objects Amendment Bill is before the House because back around 1998 I travelled overseas to retrieve moko mokai—our ancestors so to speak—and brought them back here. As a lot of people have said in the House if we had had something like this legislation 100 years ago it would have been wonderful. 
I also want to raise two other issues. One issue is those taonga that are in museums at the moment that were taken from urupa in the last 100 years. I refer to one specifically where there is some dispute which is the Fraser collection. Fraser was a very interesting person up in the Whangarei area and just so happened to “find” all of these artefacts. Now they are called the Fraser collection and they are in the Auckland Museum and I want to ask the Minister how this bill protects those artefacts. 
I am absolutely overawed by the fact that now we have legislation that states that people cannot go around willy-nilly finding things and sticking them in their back pockets and then hocking them off overseas and so on. That is good. I remember that when we were talking last week the issue of Nazi memorabilia came up from Ron Mark. I concur with him that a lot of our soldiers came back from the Second World War with the spoils of war. Some of those spoils of war were actually what we would term now “Nazi memorabilia”; is that catered for in this bill? Also there are those spoils of war from the Korean War. I had an uncle in the Korean War and I have seen some of his stuff that he brought back. I want to know whether the bill takes care of that. 
But all in all I think this bill is a wonderful start. Maybe at a later date when we have had time to digest and when this bill has gone through its process we can come back and revisit some of the clauses and some of the issues that have been raised—not straightaway but in the very near future. So I wonder whether the Minister could give us a lead on those two issues that I have raised. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. Ta te mea ko te wa tenei mo te reo Maori e tika ana kia whakatairangatia te reo Maori maku e korero i te reo Maori ki a tatou e whiriwhiri ana i tenei pire. Erangi rawa ko nga wahanga e pa ana ki nga mana tunga e kia nei ko nga taonga tuku iho. 
I te tuatahi tautoko ana au i nga whakapae me nga awangawanga erangi rawa ko nga maharahara a taku whanaunga a Tau Henare ki te kitea he taonga me pehea ranei te hapu te iwi ranei no ratou tera taonga e hari i ta ratou take kia whakapumautia ai kei a wai ranei te mana mo tera taonga e hari ana au ka kite au i roto i te pire nei kua riro ma te Koti Whenua Maori e whakatau a ka ahei tatou te iwi Maori ki te haere atu ki te aroaro o te Koti Whenua Maori ta te mea taunga ana tatou ki nga whakahaerenga me nga ritenga o tera koti. 
Te take e toe ana hei korerotanga maku ki te kitea he taonga i tawahi i hea ke ranei kei raro i te ture nei e ki ana kei te Karauna ano te mana mo nga taonga penei. Pena e tika ana tera korero me tino awhi te Karauna i nga matapono o te Tiriti kia noho marama ai te iwi te hapu enei taonga hakoa kei raro i te taitara o te Karauna mo te wa poto ko te mauri o nga taonga ra kei roto i te iwi i te hapu ranei no ratou wera taonga i te tuatahi. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the Committee 
. 
] 
[ 
Greetings to us. Because this is a time for the Maori language it is appropriate that it be promoted and I will address us in Maori as we consider this bill relating to precious objects called taonga tuku iho. 
In the first instance I support the accusations and concerns especially those of my relation Tau Henare about what a subtribe or an iwi should do if a taonga that belongs to them is found—whom they should go to to have it certified that that taonga is really theirs. It was pleasing for me to see in this bill that the Maori Land Court will rule and we are able to go before it because we are familiar with that court’s proceedings and customs. 
The remaining matter for me to talk about is that if a taonga is found overseas or wherever this legislation states that the Crown has jurisdiction over taonga under those circumstances. If that statement is correct then the Crown must embrace the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi so that iwi and hapu have a clear understanding that even though the title is under the Crown for a brief period the life force of those taonga remains with the iwi and hapu that owned the taonga in the first place. Greetings to us all. 
]  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am happy and very pleased to rise in support of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill but in saying that I raise a small concern to the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard and perhaps she will be able to give me an explanation. I am somewhat at a loss to understand some definitions in clause 6 the interpretation clause in Part 1. Subclause (3) amends section 2 of the principal Act by omitting from the definition of “collector” the word “artifacts” and substituting the words “taonga tuturu”. I wonder why someone would do that when the principal Act states: “ ‘Collector’ means any person or body (whether incorporated or unincorporated) other than a licensed auctioneer a licensed secondhand dealer or a public museum possessing one or more artifacts:”. I would have thought that the words “protected object” would be a more general or more appropriate term than just “taonga tuturu”. I wonder whether the Minister could take a call or get some advice from her officials and explain which one is the more appropriate term. That might help to clarify matters for me. I just thought that people may want to refer to protected objects in general rather than just taonga tuturu. 
Clause 6(3) further amends section 2 of the principal Act by omitting from the definition “found” the word “artifact” in each place where it appears and substituting in each case the words “taonga tuturu”. I wonder again when the principal Act states “found” and the explanation is “in relation to any artifact” and as “artifact” is changed to “taonga tuturu” then one is saying “in relation to any taonga tuturu” instead of protected object. The definition of “found” in section 2 of the principal Act goes on to state: “means discovered or obtained in circumstances which do not indicate with reasonable certainty” etc. Certainly the term “taonga tuturu” is not inappropriate and it does not incorporate the general term “protected object”. I wonder whether that is an oversight or whether it is something I do not understand. 
Clause 6(3) further amends section 2 by omitting from the definition “replica of an artifact” the words “an artifact” and substituting the words “a taonga tuturu;”—yet again. So one could have replicas of other artefacts that are not necessarily taonga tuturu. I wonder whether the words “protected objects” might have been appropriate in that context as well. 
My concerns are about changes to the definitions and the way in which they are being used to amend the principal Act by referring to “taonga tuturu” and not the general term “protected objects” and whether in fact “protected objects” should be a part of that as well. I ask the Minister to please give us an explanation certainly in discussion of Part 1 and clarify that matter so that we know whether “protected objects” should be a part of the definition of “collector” in the principal Act rather than just “taonga tuturu”. The same goes for the definition of “found” where the term “artifact” is changed to “taonga tuturu” and not the words “protected objects”. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an explanation. I note the officials are looking at that. I would be happy to rescind part of my— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: The definitions are all in the bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I know the definitions are in the bill. 
 Clearly the Minister does not want to understand what I am trying to say here. If we look at protected objects are we looking only at taonga tuturu? I would have thought taonga tuturu related only to Maori artefacts not protected objects. Therefore would the Minister not want the definition to encompass all protected objects? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You could look at “protected foreign object” “protected New Zealand object” and “nga taonga tuturu. They are all covered. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: But I am not seeing that in this definition here. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: OK well read it more carefully. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and give us an explanation for that. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: No. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Clearly she is not prepared to do that. That is fine— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Read the bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I did read it but it is not clear. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to raise briefly with the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard something about the return of moko mokai. The reason why they were brought home was to return them to the rightful people so they could be back with their whanau. To this day I think they still languish in Te Papa and there is no mention of a regime whereby they are brought home and the rightful owners found. So I thought I would take a moment just to ask the Minister whether in future there would be some sort of working party that would try to figure out what we should do with the repatriated remains. 
I have thought of one more issue and that is to do with our soldiers buried overseas. Not a day goes by without there being a request from whanau from somewhere throughout the country asking whether they can bring home uncle so and so who may be buried in a Commonwealth grave overseas. I am not sure about this Government but it has always been an issue— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: They are not covered by this bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: They might not be covered by this bill but moko mokai are and it follows that there must be some sort of relationship. I am not asking for the return of our soldiers; I am just asking the Minister to be aware that the issue is out there. There are whanau out there who want to repatriate the remains of our soldiers. So hoi ano. Thank you very much Mr Chairman. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to talk about nga taonga tuturu and the role of the Maori Land Court in establishing ownership and custody of artefacts. One of the first questions I want to ask—and I had a discussion with one of my Maori colleagues from the other side of the House—is about the use of the term “taonga tuturu”. Although I can absolutely appreciate that term I wondered whether any thought had been given to the use of the phrase “nga taonga tuku iho”. On the one hand some might say that “taonga tuturu” imports the same meaning but because it is “taonga tururu” and the other one is “taonga tuku iho” there is a difference. 
Taonga tuku iho has the sense of the obligation to pass things down to succeeding generations. I know that that is certainly one of the underlying sentiments that can be gleaned from the bill but I wondered whether the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard might like to take a call and indicate whether the use of “nga taonga tuku iho” was considered and how it was that “nga taonga tuturu” is the sentiment that is expressed. I am sure other Maori members who are far more fluent than I am might have a contribution on this particular issue and I think their contribution if they feel so minded to make one would be interesting. 
Nga tuturu of course is about the essence of something. That in itself is very very important. So I certainly support the change from “artefact” to “nga taonga tuturu”. But I would have thought that maybe “nga taonga tuku iho” gave that important component of the obligation of current generations to make sure that taonga pass on to succeeding generations. If that indeed is the sentiment that is in the bill—and I am sure the Minister will say it is there anyway—then we understand very very clearly why this bill is so important because if we do not take steps to make sure that these taonga these treasures are properly looked after and cared for and that they remain here in Aotearoa then current generations are failing in their obligation to make sure that they are passed on to our successors. So that is an issue around the definition. 
Then there is the issue of the role of the Maori Land Court in determining ownership. Before I come to that I want to say to the Minister that it is very proper that Maori phraseology has been inserted into the bill especially in these times when we as New Zealanders are all so much more aware of the need to protect our treasures and of the importance of protecting taonga Maori Maori treasures. These things belong to all of us as New Zealanders and they help to underpin our identity and our feeling of nationhood one with the other. 
Coming to the role of the Maori Land Court—and I was not on the select committee—I note that one submitter noted that section 11 of the principal Act provides for the Maori Land Court to take an active role in the authentication of artefacts found since 1976. Apparently a suggestion was made that museums already perform the role that the Act reserves to the Maori Land Court but the response to that was that the role played by museums is different. Determination of ownership of course is the preserve of the Maori Land Court—that is ownership in a customary sense. So it does make sense for the role of the Maori Land Court to be confirmed and it does make sense for museums to do the work they do which is to record details relating to newly found artefacts and authenticate them. That is a proper role for museums—that is their role. It is good as well as different to the role of ownership of artefacts and it is proper that the Maori Land Court does that. 
I have to say—and I am not sure whether any thought was given to this; maybe the Minister might also think it is worth making a comment on—that these days so much more work is being given to the Maori Land Court. Although provision has apparently been made for the appointment of more judges will proper provision be made for appropriate resourcing for the Maori Land Court to do all of the work it has traditionally done and also should there be an increase in activity in this area—and there may well be—for it to take upon itself such activity? Has thinking been given to the fact that resourcing is all-important to all our courts not least of which is the Maori Land Court to make sure that they can perform their role properly? Otherwise of course giving more responsibility to a court without proper resourcing is just a waste of time. If we are serious about authentication and making sure that ownership is established properly then I would like to think that the officials and those who were responsible for putting this bill together have thought about that. 
Coming back to the general thrust of the part I say that it is very important and proper and we in National are very pleased to see it. I am very pleased as a Maori that we as a nation now see the importance of incorporating some of these descriptions in a way that gives proper recognition to the fact that they are part of tikanga Maori and that it is proper to use the terms that more appropriately capture the essence of these treasures—these things—that are important. 
I just want to refer briefly to the pare the carved piece that comes from the meeting house Hinemihi in Te Arawa—I am Te Arawa as well as Tuwharetoa. Although that meeting house found its way legitimately—I guess—overseas and probably does not fall into the category being dealt with here the fact that that pare the carved piece above the doorway of that revered meeting house is now on sale internationally at figures of $1.9 million to $2 million again underpins I think just how important this bill is and how important taonga tuturu are. In fact tuturu I suppose very well encompasses the symbolic component of Hinemihi. That is a taonga—that meeting house not to mention the pare above the doorway. If we are talking about tuturu that should be here in New Zealand. That is tuturu. That object—that meeting house—is home on the land where it belongs. That is the meaning of tuturu as well. 
So as I say if we had known to do these things earlier we might have but it is not a minute too soon that this Committee gets a chance to debate these matters. As I say I am looking forward to hearing from one or two of the other Maori members—in addition to my colleague Tau Henare who is raring to go again and that is great—who might have a chance to say something as well. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I too want to broach the subject of nga taonga tuturu. Clause 15(1) states: “The heading to section 11 is amended by omitting the word ‘artifacts’ and substituting the words ‘nga taonga tuturu’.” Does that mean that the word “artifacts” goes completely? If it does I am not that happy about it because I believe that one should have both. “Artifacts” means exactly what it means; it is an artefact. But I think we would be better off leaving both of the words in there so it is quite clear rather than to say that “nga taonga tuturu” is a translation of “artifacts”—because that is what it means to remove the word “artifacts” and put in the words “nga taonga tuturu”. I am not a fan of removing one and replacing it with the other. I think there is every reason to actually have both Maori and English in the provision rather than trying to translate and interpret what one Maori concept is as opposed to an English concept; one has them both there so there will not be any hassle down the road. So if the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard could enlighten the Committee that would be a miracle. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is Part 2. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: There is also the issue of why it should be the Maori Land Court—[ 
Interruption 
] I was on Part 2. 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is there some issue about me not being on Part 2? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No just at the beginning. Yes the member is right. You are into Part 2 now; you are quite right. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: But I was speaking about nga taonga tuturu and the word “artifact”. That comes in Part 2 does it not? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: No “artifact” does not. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh it does not? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Yes it does. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well why does the heading state: “Part 2 “Nga taonga tuturu ownership and Maori Land Court”? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Because it is in the interpretation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Could the member please move on. He is on Part 2 now. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh for goodness’ sake! They will try anything in this Committee to break the flow of a really well-thought-out korero. I did not come down here just to waste the Committee’s time. For goodness’ sake! 
Sandra Goudie 
: Here is a definition of “artifact”. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I thank my learned colleague very much for the definition of “artifact”: “ ‘Artifact’ means any chattel carving object or thing which relates to the history art culture traditions or economy of the Maori or other pre-European inhabitants of New Zealand”—well there were no pre-European inhabitants other than Maori—“and which was or appears to have been manufactured or modified in New Zealand by any such inhabitant”. I am basically saying that those two should actually go together—“artifact” and “nga taonga tuturu”. There is nothing wrong with having them together. There is absolutely nothing wrong with actually putting it out there and saying “Here we are this is what it’s all about.” 
But I digress. One issue that I do want to raise with the Minister is why it is the Maori Land Court. Why should the Maori Land Court be the one to determine the ownership? Why are we not saying that actually ownership of artefacts or ownership of nga taonga tuturu is such a big thing why not put it up to the top court? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Because it costs money. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well of course it costs money. So is my colleague saying that we are better off putting it in the Maori Land Court because it is cheaper to get into the Maori Land Court? If that is the case then there is something wrong with our justice system—there is absolutely something wrong with our justice system. Who is to determine the ownership? Is it the Chief Judge on his own or is it the district courts—the lower-level courts system? It is not that clear. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: It is the registrar. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: So it is the registrar of the Maori Land Court who determines the ownership of nga taonga tuturu. Well I think that is a bit of a mess. I know a few of the registrars around town. They are all good people but if one is going to determine ownership in a court system— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: It is where the ownership is agreed. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: So who determines ownership when it is not agreed? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Well then it would have to go through a court process. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: And which court would that be? Is it the Maori Land Court or is it through the High Court system or— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Through the Maori Land Court. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is good that that has been sorted out. 
I am grateful for the—[ 
Interruption 
] Sorry? The member is having a conniption over there. I am grateful to the officials who have sorted out that matter because ownership when there is a dispute—especially when we are dealing with a Maori artefact—is sometimes mind-boggling. I refer back to the issue I raised earlier about moko mokai. Because they could be so ancient nobody particularly knows when those taonga may have come from. There may be an indication through ta moko where they may have come from geographically but nobody particularly knows unless a DNA test is done and God forbid that. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: It depends on whether you know who your father was. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I know who my father was absolutely. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Have you had a DNA test? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I know who my father was and I find that insinuation absolutely shocking. I find it shocking that in this day and age when some of our youngsters out there are crying out for their fathers and mothers I have an accusation from Judith Tizard asking whether I know my father. Damn right I know who my father is and he is a brilliant man. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The issue was raised by the Minister not me Mr Chairman. I was in full flight talking about nga taonga tuturu. I was talking about artefacts. I am appalled. 
Tim Groser 
: We’ll get you counselling afterwards all right? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Victim support. 
I think it is a serious matter in terms of some of the issues that have been raised tonight especially about ownership. I would not like Parliament to get it wrong because if we do especially on an issue like this there will be repercussions down the line. There will be Waitangi Tribunal claims about ownership. Claims about ownership issues are already before the tribunal. Hopefully this part will go some way towards sorting that out. 
I do congratulate the Minister. I was only taking the proverbial about this and I understand that she was only joking as well. 
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. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora e te Heamana kia ora tatou te Komiti. Ehara i te mea ki a matou o te Pati Maori nga korero katoa. Kei te Kawanatanga te mana mo nga taonga tuturu nei. I hangaia te Kawanatanga i tetahi atu ropu Maori ara ko te Kaunihera Maori o Aotearoa. He aha te take e kore ratou e whakaae kia tuku tenei mana ki te kaunihera? 
He take ano e tautoko ana a au i te korero a Tau Henare. E rereke ana te taonga tuturu ki nga taonga a tauiwi. Nga taonga tuturu nga taonga i tuku iho mai i te ao Maori. Ko nga taonga a tauiwi na ratou ano te mana. E kohikohi i nga taonga rere ke nei ki roto i te pouaka kotahi. Tuku atu nga taonga a tauiwi ki nga koti a tauiwi tuku atu nga taonga tuturu ki te Koti Whenua Maori. 
Hei korero whakatika e he ana te korero a Tau Henare mo te hokinga mai o nga koiwi. E rereke atu tera kaupapa ki nga tikanga o tenei pire. E tautoko ana matou hoki i te kaupapa ma te Koti Whenua Maori te mana tirohanga ki te nga taonga tuturu nei me te tautoko ano hoki i te inoi a Georgina te Heuheu kia tuku putea atu ki te Koti Whenua Maori hei kawe tika 
i taua mahi. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the Committee.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Chairman and to us in Committee. It is not as if we in the Maori Party have a monopoly on what is to be said. The Government has jurisdiction over these native treasures. The Government created another Maori organisation: namely the Maori Council of New Zealand. What is the reason for its not agreeing to this mandate going to the council? 
Regarding another matter I support what Tau Henare said. Native treasures are different from foreign ones. Native treasures are those handed down from the Maori world. Foreign treasures have their own integrity and we must not put these separate treasures in the one compartment. Foreign treasures should go to foreign courts and native treasures to the Maori Land Court. 
I want to correct what Tau Henare said about the returning of skeletal remains. That matter is quite different from what is in this bill. We also support the policy that the Maori Land Court should have jurisdiction over these native treasures and as well we endorse Georgina te Heuheu’s plea that the Maori Land Court should be funded to enable it to carry out its functions properly. Greetings to us all 
.] 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 48 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 12 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Actually I thought we were on Part 3 but if we are on the title then that is fine. The title Protected Objects Amendment Bill is I would suggest a bit of a misnomer because the bill is really more about taonga tuturu as opposed to protected objects. I challenge the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard to take a call and answer the question of how people are going to know when they find taonga tuturu that they will be subject to a fine of $10000 to $20000 if they do not identify those objects to the appropriate authority. What sort of education will be provided to the public about their responsibilities in regard to taonga tuturu? 
I put it to the Minister that I doubt whether any consideration has been given to any sort of public awareness campaign so that the public—and landowners—will know that they now have some responsibilities following the discovery of taonga tuturu. Nothing has been talked about in terms of how the Government is going to educate the public so that people will know if they find any of these protected objects—which are taonga tuturu—they will be fined $10000 to $20000 if they do not then front up to the proper authority and declare those objects. I put it to the Minister that barely a landowner in this country knows that he or she will have those sorts of responsibilities and will be subject to that sort of a fine. Perhaps this time the Minister may like to take a call and explain to me what the Government is going to do in terms of a publicity campaign in that regard. In the principal Act the fine was absolutely miniscule. It has gone up from something like $500 to $10000 to $20000 which is absolutely extraordinary. That is a huge leap and a huge onus of cost on people who in all innocence are unaware of the provisions of this legislation. They can be pinged by people who will not give them any due consideration and will find them guilty regardless of their absolute innocence and unawareness or lack of knowledge of this situation. 
If one finds any taonga tuturu that is OK; one has to go and notify the general authority. But if one finds a protected object or a European artefact—if one could call it an artefact because the word “artifact” is used in the bill only in relation to Maori objects—nobody cares. It is a case of finders keepers—people can destroy the object or do whatever they like with it. But if the object happens to be a taonga tuturu well hey one has to go and notify the appropriate authority or one could be fined $10000 to $20000. Yes if it is a Maori taonga tuturu if it belongs to Maori then there is that fine to make sure that the finder does what he or she is told to do: go and see the appropriate authority or lose $10000 to $20000. But hey if the object is a European artefact it does not matter. That is a situation of finders keepers. The finder may burn a European artefact or throw it away; it does not matter. 
That is one of the concerns that I have about this bill. It throws out the principle of finders keepers in terms of taonga tuturu but we still have finders keepers in terms of anything that is a European object or is not classed as taonga tuturu according to the definition in this bill. That concerns me and it concerns me particularly when such a massive fine is being imposed on unsuspecting landowners who may actually happen to find a taonga tuturu that will now come under the definition of an artefact in the context of this new legislation. Although we are happy to support the protection of taonga tuturu and protected objects we just wonder how far this bill goes. We wonder what the Minister intends to do about educating the public and about the potential for massive fines for any landowner in this country—fines landowners can ill afford—who may actually happen to find one of those objects. I do not believe anybody in this country other than those of us in Parliament is aware of the significance of this legislation. 
I would just like to reacquaint the Committee with the matter that I brought to the Minister before in relation to the term “artifact” now being changed to “taonga tuturu”. On looking at the definitions in the principal Act one sees that those definitions are now to be changed. Instead of the definition of “artifact” we will now have only the words “taonga tuturu” and not the words “protected New Zealand object”. That quite clearly shows that only taonga tuturu which are Maori protected objects and not New Zealand protected objects are protected in this instance. In the context of the bill protected New Zealand objects in the wider sense do not seem to matter as much as taonga tuturu. The elevation of Maori taonga tuturu is huge in comparison with other protected objects. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I really wish honourable members would read the bill that is before the Committee. This legislation will become known as the Protected Objects Amendment Act 2006. It covers protected New Zealand objects which are defined in clause 6—as we have already debated—as “… part of the movable cultural heritage of New Zealand that—(a) is of importance to New Zealand or to a part of New Zealand for aesthetic archaeological architectural artistic cultural historical literary scientific social spiritual technological or traditional reasons; …”. It also includes stolen protected foreign objects. As the previous speaker mentioned taonga tuturu are a new introduction. 
The point of the bill we are in the process of passing which has been considered in great detail over many years by the House is that we are recognising a range of protected objects—Pakeha Maori introduced foreign objects—and we will have to set out to explain to New Zealanders this reasonably modest change to the law. The Government has set aside $185000 in the 2005-06 Budget for implementation of which $100000 is one-off funding for initial implementation costs with an additional $85000 appropriated for out-years on an ongoing basis to cover the expected increased administration costs of the Protected Objects Act. The extra $100000 in the first year is to be spent developing a communications strategy with information reprints publicity and website development; training New Zealand Customs Service staff about the new regulations and establishing a national register of protected objects; and identifying and engaging expert examiners. 
We recognise that this measure is slightly new but I have to say that most New Zealanders take a very responsible attitude when they find objects that are obviously of value. Most people take them to their local museum. That is a very good thing for people to do and they should continue to do that because that is the place where most New Zealanders—who do not have a venal view of our collected heritage regardless of whether it is Maori or Pakeha—go to view those objects. 
The legislation also means that New Zealanders and foreigners will not be able to collect up New Zealand objects and export them. This is an exciting new development. As my friend and colleague Harry Duynhoven has pointed out this will mean for example that vintage tractors and vintage sports cars will not be able to be exported in the rather casual way they have been. They are important parts of New Zealand’s technological heritage. 
I am very satisfied with the bill and I look forward to working with members across the Chamber to make sure that people across New Zealand have good information about this exciting legislation. The bill of course is also joining New Zealand up to two major international covenants which will mean that when New Zealand cultural objects are exported illegally we can have them returned to New Zealand. That is a very exciting thing. It means that we also have similar obligations to other countries. 
Sandra Goudie 
: How will the Minister educate the public? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I do appreciate the energy of members opposite and suggest that they put some of that energy into reading the bill that is before us. 
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. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the title and commencement. I hope a number of New Zealanders are listening to this debate—this might be one debate they are interested in. I know from comments I get from outside in real New Zealand land that in terms of a lot of the debates that go on in here a lot of our fellow citizens have no idea some of the time what we are going on about. But I think each and every New Zealander has a stake in the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. The things we seek to protect and to forbid the illegal export of and the penalties we make sure we have for people who deal with our things of value in ways that are not amenable to the protection of our heritage are I am sure of importance to each and every New Zealander. It might be for a change that those listening will appreciate what we are doing this evening. 
The bill will become the Protected Objects Amendment Act which will replace the Antiquities Act 1975. I guess when we think about it the word “antiquities” is in itself a bit of an antiquity. As long as we have made sure that nothing that was protected in the original Act has been left out by our changes in the current bill then hopefully we will do ourselves as New Zealanders and our fellow countrymen and women a favour. So it will be good when this legislation finally comes into force. 
As I have already said I commend the Government for bringing this bill forward. Our heritage culture identity and sense of nationhood are all tied into the underlying principles of this legislation. I made the comment in an earlier speech that in a time of globalisation when we are all suddenly becoming as one—but thank goodness we are not—those things that we consider unique to ourselves as New Zealanders become all the more important and it becomes all the more important that we take proper steps to protect them. 
I look at schedule 4. The Minister in the chair Judith Tizard made some mention of it in giving some level of comfort to my colleague Sandra Goudie who expressed concerns. I may not get this right but she seemed to think that all things Maori were protected and she asked about all things other. As a person who descends from both heritages—my mother’s father was English—I feel proud and privileged to be the inheritor not only of the Maori tradition but also the great tradition of the British. Some people may think since most of my speeches to this bill have concerned Maori custom and taonga Maori that I am worried only about taonga Maori but that is not the case. I was at the opening of the Constable exhibition as well. It is such a splendid exhibition. I urge those colleagues who are able to go and see it during the time it is at Te Papa to do so. I consider that exhibition to be part of my heritage and my culture vis-à-vis the good fortune of having had a Pakeha—English—grandfather. If that collection belonged to us I would be as equally concerned that it be protected under this bill as I would be about any of the taonga Maori that I am also fortunate to be a part of through my Maori heritage. 
Schedule 4 “Categories of protected New Zealand objects” refers to archaeological ethnographic and historical objects of non - New Zealand origin that relate to New Zealand and to art objects including fine decorative and popular art. Those are all included and protected in this legislation. I say that just so that my colleague Sandra Goudie feels a measure of comfort. The schedule also refers to documentary heritage objects and nga taonga tuturu which latter have been the subject of a lot of the discussion tonight. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: And incunabula—they are in schedule 3. I want Sandra to be sure of all of them. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes that is in schedule 3 as well. Sorry I have gone straight to schedule 4. Absolutely schedule 3 and schedule 4 set out very very clearly that all those things we—or presumably most of us in this Chamber—inherit are to be protected. It is so difficult at first when members are just brought in as cling-ons to make speeches and have not actually sat in select committees—I did not sit in this committee either although fortunately National had some very good representatives on it. Members do tend to get a little bit muddled when they are called down to the Chamber to make speeches. They think: “Hang on!”. They may well have thumbed through the pages of this bill thinking: “Well I cannot see the protection …”. 
 So I think that Sandra was absolutely right to raise the issues she did but I am satisfied—as a person of English origin as well—that those things of importance to Pakeha New Zealanders are as well protected as those taonga tuturu that come from the Maori culture. She is still saying no but that is OK. 
National supports the bill anyway. It is right it is proper and by supporting it we then align ourselves with the two treaties: the UNIDROIT—my esteemed colleague Tim Groser just did not even want to try to pronounce it so who am I to think that I could—and Unesco conventions to which we will become party. Again that measure would seem like it is long overdue. Those two conventions obviously make sure that not only do we have the necessary protections here in New Zealand but also we have the protections to follow or to retrieve taonga artefacts and things of great value to us as New Zealanders wherever they are. 
This bill is to commence—when is this legislation to commence? As soon as possible I guess. Perhaps the Minister will just— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: 1 November. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: OK—so that is only 2 or 3 months away and it is very important that it does commence. 
I did have a question about the commencement of new section 13 which is provided for in clause 2. That section will come into force on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. I would ask the Minister what does that mean? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: That means— 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: When will that be though? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: 1 November. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: So it will be the same date as the commencement of the Act. Well that is good. It is all great. This is about our identity and our sense of nationhood which is so important in a time of globalisation. We could easily lose those things as the global village comes closing in on us. In terms of our culture and our heritage both Maori and English—and I inherit both; lucky me—both streams will be protected. National supports this bill. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I do not want to disagree with other honourable members especially with my learned friend who has just spoken and for whom I have enormous respect and affection but I thought that the Constable exhibition was pretty boring and chocolate boxy myself. But there we are; I have to admit I am a philistine. 
As Mr Groser has said National supports this bill. It amends and improves the Antiquities Act which provides for a system of domestic control over only the export of cultural heritage objects but as the Minister has indicated does not provide the means to recover objects that have been illegally exported. That is why as Mr Groser said the Unesco convention provides specific structures for international cooperation in the cross-border recovery of items that are significant in terms of New Zealand’s cultural heritage. That is also why the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) convention complements the Unesco convention and allows for a person to sue in a foreign court for the return of stolen cultural objects. 
This is a very interesting issue which I am pleased the New Zealand legislature has finally addressed. In previous speeches I have referred honourable members to decisions of the English Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in a very interesting case called  
Attorney-General for New Zealand 
 v  
Ortiz 
. In that case the then Attorney-General—I think it was Jim McLay—sought possession of a Maori carving and an order for delivery up of that carving. It had been sold to an Englishman and was found to be for sale in London. 
But the Court of Appeal in England held that forfeiture to the Crown under the relevant section of the New Zealand Historic Articles Act which was the precursor of the Antiquities Act 1975 was not automatic and the act had not happened here. Secondly the English Court of Appeal stated that the section was in any event unenforceable in England. The House of Lords stated that no seizure had taken place by the New Zealand Customs Service or the New Zealand Police and therefore the Crown was neither the owner of the object nor entitled to possession of the article in question—although the House of Lords declined to embark upon the difficult discussion of whether the Historic Articles Act was a public law that could not be enforced in England because it was an Act done in the exercise of sovereign authority that would not be enforced outside New Zealand. 
It was interesting to observe that almost 30 years ago Lord Denning in the English Court of Appeal concluded his judgment by stating: “The retrieval of such works of art must be achieved by diplomatic means. Best of all there should be an international convention on the matter where individual countries can agree and pass the necessary legislation. It is a matter of such importance that I hope steps can be taken to this end.” 
Actually Lord Denning’s comments on the issue were themselves the subject of comment by the former President of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in the famous “Spycatcher” case which was heard in New Zealand in early 1988 and I must say that I have always preferred Sir Robin Cooke’s approach. In that case Sir Robin stated that the MI6 agent Mr Peter Wright owed allegiance to the Crown in right of the United Kingdom that New Zealand has the same sovereign as the United Kingdom and that the Queen’s courts should protect their interests wherever they originate. If that approach to the law had been taken then that would have been very welcome in this area especially as between England Australia Canada and New Zealand. But unfortunately that is not the way that New Zealand law—and English law—has developed. Hence we have the need for international conventions incorporating not only Commonwealth countries but other countries as well. So that is the rationale behind why we have needed an international convention—because otherwise international law would get in the way. 
My concluding comments deal with clause 2 of the bill which deals with the commencement provisions. Subclause (1) provides: “Section 13 comes into force on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” Of course that is the part that implements the two international conventions. The rest of the legislation comes into force on a specified date. We have just heard from the Minister that that date will be in November although we do not know when the Order in Council will be signed by the Governor-General. 
Members should note also that the new regime has no retrospective effect—and that point was made by Mr Mark the other night. It takes effect only from the date appointed by the Governor-General. Presumably that is the way it will also be enacted in reciprocating States which means that many valuable objects are already lost to New Zealand and will not be recovered. But from what I can see—and I am sure that the Minister will agree with this—there is no way around that problem. One can only hope that this legislation and the structure it implements will in the future prevent a repeat of the very unfortunate facts that gave rise to the Ortiz litigation. 
As I said National supports this legislation and the sooner it is in force the better it will be. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 48 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.