Hon Christopher Finlayson

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I move, That the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill be now read a second time. New Zealand ratified the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict on 24 July last year. The convention was established in response to the widespread destruction of cultural property during the Second World War. It provides for the protection of things like movable property, such as works of art, manuscripts, books, scientific collections, and archives; monuments and archaeological sites; museums and libraries; and centres containing a large amount of cultural property.

The bill will enable New Zealand to accede to the first and second protocols of the convention. The first protocol is concerned with the export trade in cultural objects from warring States, and the second protocol aims to provide additional protection to the most important cultural objects in the world. The two protocols require the creation of a number of criminal offences relating to the removal of cultural property from occupied territory, dealing in such property, and various acts against cultural property in situations of armed conflict. Currently 123 States are party to the Hague convention, 100 to the first protocol, and 52 to the second protocol. The United States ratified the convention in March this year, and the United Kingdom is currently working towards accession to the convention and to both protocols.

Let me briefly go through the key elements of the bill. There are three main parts. Part 2 criminalises serious violations of the second protocol. The second protocol requires that States make a number of acts criminal offences when committed intentionally during an armed conflict. These acts include making property subject to enhanced protection under the second protocol the object of attack, the extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property, and stealing, appropriating, or vandalising cultural property. Provision is also made for appropriate penalties for these offences, for the prosecution of New Zealanders if the offences take place overseas, and for various related elements such as extradition, aiding and abetting offences, and prosecuting perpetrators who happen to be present in New Zealand.

Part 3 provides that it will be an offence to import property taken from occupied territory into New Zealand and then to onsell, receive, or re-export such property. The Customs Service and the Police will have the powers to seize such objects, and good-faith purchasers of cultural property that has to be returned can seek compensation, most likely to be paid by the State seeking the return, not by New Zealand.

Although the convention has been ratified, the opportunity is taken in Part 4 to make unauthorised uses of the convention emblem an offence.

The bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee, and it received two written submissions on the draft bill. I acknowledge the comments of those who made submissions and the recommendations of the select committee. The amendments are mainly concerned with the important issue of the jurisdiction that New Zealand will take over alleged offenders.

New clause 9A will ensure that universal jurisdiction would not be created over the grave violation offences set out in the bill. Universal jurisdiction is a special, very rare type of jurisdiction, and it appropriately applies only to the most serious international crimes, such as piracy, slavery, and genocide. This clause will allow New Zealand to prosecute persons from non-party States for offences. If a person commits an offence in the territory of a second protocol party’s State and then comes to New Zealand, this amendment will allow New Zealand to prosecute the offender.

The change to the jurisdiction provisions also reinforces that the person must be “found in New Zealand”. The provisions in the extradition clause, clause 13, reinforce this, making it clear that such people would not be brought to New Zealand to face charges, but would have to come here of their own volition, or be found in New Zealand, before they could be charged.

Other, technical amendments are required to align the bill with other legislation that has been passed since the bill was introduced.

With this bill and with the subsequent accession to the protocols, New Zealand reinforces its commitment to other international agreements to prevent the illegal export or import of important cultural artefacts. An example of such an international agreement is the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Accession to the first and second protocols will reinforce the excellent reputation of New Zealand’s armed forces serving overseas. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage will be working with the New Zealand Defence Force to ensure its training and operational manuals meet the requirements of the convention. Accession will also reinforce New Zealand’s participation in international efforts to lessen the consequences of armed conflict for cultural heritage.

I appreciate the support of other parties in the House to expedite the passage of this bill, as New Zealand will then be able to meet its obligations as a State party both to the convention and to its protocols.

Hon Chris Carter: Show that appreciation.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: What was that?

Hon Darren Hughes: Say once more with meaning that you appreciate the other parties.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I really appreciate the support that has been given by the other parties on this issue.

Hon Darren Hughes: He’s human after all!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am human. It is only on rare occasions that I have to scold Labour, like when it waxed lyrical about the urgent need to pass laws on provocation, although it did nothing when it was in Government because it was too busy passing the Electoral Finance Act. Generosity goes both ways, but it is very rare to have any kind of generous comment from Mr Hughes. But we will leave it at that, because we must move on. This is not a debate about personalities; it is a debate about issues. So let us go forward together.