Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move, That the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

The bill amends the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994. It is important legislation, as it will implement New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. That annex, which is commonly known as the liability annex, was adopted in 2005 by the 28th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, which was held in Stockholm, Sweden. The annex has not yet entered into force; that will happen once it has been approved by all 28 Antarctic Treaty consultative parties, including our very own country, New Zealand. The passing of the bill will enable New Zealand to formally approve the liability annex.

New Zealand is one of 12 original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed on 1 December 1959 in Washington, DC. The Government was very pleased to participate in the opening of the 32nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Washington in April this year, alongside the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and other Ministers who represented the parties to the treaty. There are now 47 parties to the Antarctic Treaty, and the 50th anniversary of the treaty was celebrated at this year’s meeting.

The Antarctic Treaty has proved itself to be one of the most forward-looking and successful international agreements of all time, and it stands as a model of international cooperation. The first article of the treaty declares, as a full principle, that “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only.” The treaty goes on to, among other things, prohibit the establishment of military bases on Antarctica, the testing of any weapons there, and the dumping of any nuclear waste. It would not be overstating matters to say that at the height of the Cold War the Antarctic Treaty delivered a huge peace dividend, particularly for countries, like New Zealand, that neighbour the Antarctic Treaty area.

In 1991 the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty was concluded by the treaty partners in Madrid, Spain. The protocol provides for a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment as well as dependent and associated ecosystems. Under the protocol Antarctica is designed as a natural reserve that is devoted to peace and science. In the text of article 16 of the protocol the parties made a commitment “to elaborate rules and procedures relating to liability for damage arising from activities taking place in the Antarctic Treaty area.” The liability annex fulfils that longstanding and important obligation. Thus the annex is an important part of the Antarctic environmental protection regime, of which New Zealand is a very strong supporter. The annex provides an incentive for preventing damage to the Antarctic environment as well as compensatory regimes for when damage occurs. New Zealand played a leading role in bringing the liability annex negotiations to a successful conclusion in 2005. Accordingly, approving the annex and implementing it through this legislation is an opportunity to highlight and promote New Zealand’s support for a strong environmental protection regime for Antarctica.

The bill implements the provisions of the annex by creating a regime of liability for environmental emergencies that take place in the Antarctic Treaty area. To that end, new sections 37C and 37D impose certain obligations for responding to an environmental emergency in the Antarctic. In particular, new section 37C requires that “A New Zealand operator whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency, or who discover an environmental emergency, must immediately notify the Ministry”—of Foreign Affairs and Trade—“of the emergency.” New section 37D requires that “A New Zealand operator whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency must take prompt and effective response action.” If an operator fails to take prompt and effective action in response to an environmental emergency, a party to the liability annex may do so.

The annex and the bill provide that a “response action” means “(a) determining the extent of the emergency and its impact; and (b) taking reasonable measures … to avoid, minimise, or contain the impact of the environmental emergency.” Failure to take a prompt and effective response action to an environmental emergency constitutes an offence under the bill and is punishable by imprisonment for up to 2 years, a fine of up to $200,000, or both. Failure to notify the appropriate authorities when an emergency has been caused is also an offence, punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 months, a fine of up to $100,000, or both. In addition, where an operator fails to take prompt and effective action in response to an emergency that has been caused by the operator’s activities, the bill imposes liability for the costs of the action that should have been taken. The costs will be paid either to an annex party, if that party has taken action on the defaulting operator’s behalf, or to an environmental protection fund. That fund will be administered by the Antarctic Treaty’s secretariat.

New section 37G sets out certain situations in which an operator is exempt from liability, as provided by the terms of the annex. In addition, new section 37H imposes a financial limit on liability—again, according to the terms of the annex. An example of where the provisions of the annex might be triggered is an oil spill arising from the grounding or sinking of a tourist vessel in Antarctica. We hope the annex will encourage operators to take greater steps to prevent such incidents from occurring. I add that New Zealand and other treaty parties view the current state of tourist shipping around Antarctica with some concern, following four groundings and a sinking over the past two summers. New Zealand will be hosting an Antarctic Treaty meeting of experts to consider these issues in Wellington in December this year.

This background highlights the fact that the provisions of this bill represent an important development in the Antarctic environmental protection regime. The New Zealand Government strongly supports this legislation. It will pave the way for the approval of the liability annex and it will therefore provide further important protection for the unique Antarctic environment. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū) : It is rare indeed when members of the Opposition rise to support a motion put forward by the Government, but we do so with the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I stand as the Labour Party’s foreign affairs spokesperson to support the Government on the bill.

Listeners to and viewers of Parliament heard Nathan Guy speak on behalf of the Government about the reasons why the bill is important. He very adequately and well described the technical aspects of the bill. Viewers may think the bill does not sound very exciting or important, but it is actually enormously important. Nothing could be more important, for New Zealand especially, than protection of the unique environment of the Antarctic.

I was privileged to serve for 5 years as New Zealand’s Minister of Conservation. The Minister of Conservation has a special relationship to Antarctica because under the Conservation Act the Minister of Conservation is responsible for the biodiversity protection of the unique environment of the Ross Sea, which is part of New Zealand’s claim to Antarctica. I was privileged to visit Antarctica in 2003 and to be able to see for myself that unique environment, which makes up probably the most mysterious continent on the Earth.

Why should New Zealanders—indeed why should people around this planet—care about the protection of the Antarctic? Because the Antarctic is probably the most unspoilt environment on the Earth. It is also incredibly important not just because of its unique biodiversity, which I will talk a little bit more about in a moment, but because of its impact on world climate. The Antarctic has been often described as one of the two lungs of the Earth; the other being the great tropical forests that span the equatorial regions of the Earth.

Earlier today I was thinking about my contribution to this debate, and I looked up the British Antarctic Survey’s latest report on Antarctica. The report heads up the very first paragraph with “Why should we study Antarctic climate?”. It goes on to state: “The Antarctic region is an important regulator of global climate. The Southern Ocean is a significant sink for both heat and carbon dioxide, acting as a buffer against human-induced climate change.”

Sadly, climate change is taking place, and if we do not do something about carbon dioxide emissions then it will get worse, and the natural environment of the Antarctic will be further impacted by this change.

What we are seeing, and what we can regulate, is the increasing human presence on Antarctica, the most mysterious continent on the Earth. More and more tourists are travelling to Antarctica. Energy companies are eyeing the potential resources of the vast frozen continent for oil, gas, and other critical resources for our energy-hungry world. All of that will mean a greater human footprint in this most unique of continents. One of the ways in which we can protect the continent is by this amendment to legislation, to make sure that any tourist operator, any energy company, and any scientist or visitor to Antarctica who causes an environmental impact is held responsible and liable for that damage.

Just a few minutes ago Nathan Guy talked about what would happen if a ship started to sink. In my previous job as Minister of Conservation I had to deal with exactly that issue in Antarctica. The Japanese whaling ship Nissan Maru caught fire in February 2007. One of the crew was killed. The ship was loaded with diesel oil and many other chemicals used for the rendering down of whale carcasses. If that material had leaked into the Ross Sea, we would have faced an environmental catastrophe. That is a very practical example of how this unique natural environment is at risk.

I would like to stray on to the whole issue of Japanese whaling, from which a thousand whales a year are slaughtered by the Japanese in the name of science. I guess in a way that that is an environmental violation of a unique environment, too, but my focus today has to be on the legislation. The bill is about providing a mechanism to deal with the growing human footprint in Antarctica, about protecting the unique biodiversity and natural landscapes of that amazing continent, and about a fine example of international cooperation.

Finally, New Zealand has a unique role in the Antarctic treaty process. Many aspects of Operation Deep Freeze operate out of Christchurch. We have the International Antarctic Centre in Christchurch. We were the port of call for Shackleton and Scott and the other great explorers of the Antarctic. Indeed, New Zealand is responsible for the preservation of the unique historic sites in Antarctica of Scott’s hut and Shackleton’s hut, which I have had the privilege of visiting. We have a special relationship with that continent and with what happens there, so I say on behalf of Labour that we are very pleased to support the bill, and we would be very excited to see its speedy process through this Parliament. Thank you.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) : It is a pleasure to follow on from the Hon Nathan Guy, and indeed from the Hon Chris Carter; we heard from the previous speaker of his experience as a Minister of Conservation. He talked of the need to guard against accidents from tourism operators, and that sort of thing.

I thought it might be useful to viewers and listeners, and indeed to the House, to flesh some of those figures out a little bit. In preparation for this speech, I noted that in 2003 there were some 13,500 visitors to the Antarctic—13,500 visitors in the very fragile infrastructure down there. Some 4,000 people are there on a permanent basis as part of the Antarctic teams. So in 2003 there were 13,500 visitors to the Antarctic, but if we look at the figures for 2007 and 2008 we see that the totals have risen to 46,000, so the numbers are really increasing, in view of the fragile nature of the environment down there. I know of some tourism operators from New Zealand who are very responsible. They will charter vessels that operate only on light diesel, so that if there were an accident the diesel would at least evaporate. That is in contrast to other countries, whose ships go down there using heavy oil, which of course would create a slick and cause untold damage.

I think this is a most timely bill, because the vessels are getting larger, and the rescuing of large vessels from that distance and in that environment is a logistical exercise in itself. Anybody who has been responsible for civil defence will of course be able to imagine the complexities and difficulties that would occur because of those large boats, which often have incorrect superstructure for the Antarctic. That is a concern.

I am pleased to be speaking on the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. The bill, as the previous speakers have detailed, amends the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 by inserting a new Part 5A. It is necessary that we do so, because it is important that the Government implements New Zealand’s international treaty obligations regarding liability for environmental emergencies in Antarctica. This bill will implement New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. This Government takes its international obligations seriously, so it is indeed good to see that this bill enshrines many of those obligations in law.

Let us delve a little bit into the bill’s background and history. New Zealand is one of the 12 original signatories of the Antarctic Treaty—and is proud to be so—which was signed on 1 December 1959 in Washington, DC. New Zealand is also party to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty concluded by the treaty parties in Madrid, Spain, in 1991. Annex VI, commonly known as the Antarctic liability annex, was adopted in 2005 by the 28th Antarctic treaty consultative meeting held in Stockholm, Sweden. Though not yet entered into force, that will happen once it has been approved by all 28 Antarctic treaty consultative parties, including New Zealand.

It is without doubt that New Zealand has strong historic links with Antarctica in exploration, research, and environmental protection, and indeed in proximity. This bill solidifies our links and our excellent relationship. If we look into the details of the bill, it becomes clear that it is a strong and decisive bill that is eminently sensible and will have an effect on the international scene. In new section 37B, an environmental emergency is described as “an accidental event that—(a) results in, or imminently threatens to result in, a significant and harmful impact on the Antarctic environment;”. Again, the fragile nature of that environment makes it vulnerable.

I believe that another feature of New Zealand vessels taking tourists there is that they are particularly careful with any food scraps, because goodness knows what could happen to the avian life if disease were introduced from food refuse thrown overboard.

This bill requires New Zealand operators whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency to notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and it makes it an offence not to do so. It also requires New Zealand operators to take prompt and effective response action to such an emergency. The bill provides that if a New Zealand operator whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency fails to take a prompt and effective response action, then that operator is liable to pay the cost incurred by the annex party that does take responsive action.

I am delighted with this bill, especially as the punishment for these crimes is not in any way lenient but, instead, reflects the seriousness with which we take the issue. Failing to take prompt and effective response action to an environmental emergency constitutes an offence for which the punishment is a healthy period of imprisonment for up to 2 years, or a fine of up to $200,000, or both. In addition, failing to notify the appropriate authorities when an emergency has been caused is also an offence punishable by imprisonment of up to 12 months, a fine of up to $100,000, or both.

This bill is not simply a matter of fulfilling our international obligations. It also recognises and gives effect to the importance of protecting Antarctica’s unique environment. The annex will encourage good environmental practice and ensure international cooperation and action on environmental emergencies in the Antarctic region. I am talking about such things as oil spills, the disposal of waste, and the impacts of tourism. I think the Antarctic is particularly vulnerable to those impacts if they are not controlled.

The annex will help protect the natural and unique resources and wildlife in Antarctica. The protocol provides for a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment as well as dependent and associated ecosystems. Under the protocol Antarctica is designated as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. Indeed, Antarctica is a crucial area for environmental research, including research into climate, and it is an outstanding example of cooperation between scientists from around the world.

Parties have been working on the liability annex required by the protocol since 1991. I have heard progress on this issue described as glacial, and every permutation of approach and philosophy has been tried. It has been a slow but thorough negotiating process for all parties, but the general consensus on the protocol as it stands, focused mainly on the emergency response action, is that it will be effective. In the text of article 16 of the protocol the parties made a commitment to elaborate rules and procedures relating to damage arising from the activities taking place in the Antarctic Treaty area.

We are fulfilling our obligations, and that is important not just for our relationships with other countries. We are also being true to ourselves and to the commitment of New Zealanders who have gone down to the Antarctic and who have done so much to make it known to the world. This bill will achieve what it sets out to do, and the National-led Government strongly supports it.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) : Tēnā tātou katoa, e te Kaihautū o te Whare, tēnei ahiahi. Greetings on this Thursday afternoon. I stand to take a short call, and like my senior colleague I find myself in the rather unusual, but nevertheless tolerable, position—only because it is fleeting—of agreeing with the Government. Labour supports the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. Can any of us forget where we were or what we thought when we heard about the tragic event on Mount Erebus? It opened an avenue for us, despite the tragedy, to understand how fragile, how distant, and how unforgiving the landscape of Antarctica is. Our rights there have to be balanced by obligations and duties, and that is what this legislation enables our small nation State to do. We are proud of the feats of New Zealanders in Antarctica and of the cultural, social, and adventurous heritage of New Zealand that is rooted in that part of the world. So the notion that we should stand and be prepared to meet the financial challenges that, Lord forbid, would come about if a tragedy or an accident should take place there, is something that ought to be celebrated, and certainly debated and agreed upon, in the highest court of the land.

For the record I want to identify four of five key things. Those with a more exhaustive contribution to make than mine have more than likely already spoken; one or three may still follow. I say there is a treaty system in Antarctica, and it behoves all of us to remain vigilant and to observe the duties that it imposes on us. In order to give effect to a duty, one has to exercise the role of being very active in one’s need or want to protect one’s interests there.

As Mr Carter has said, the more we learn about climate change, the greater our appreciation is of the critical importance of Antarctica not only to the health of the oceans but, indeed, to our long-term survival. So this is no small matter. Although Antarctica does not intrude on a regular basis into the daily grind of the lives of Kiwis, I can assure members that more and more of our mokopuna—the younger members of our New Zealand families—are learning and appreciating what that place represents in terms of their own long-term interests.

I like it that this bill is very clear on liability. There is nothing like the chilly winds of a liability action to effect a change in conduct.

Chris Auchinvole: The flutter of a cheque book.

Hon SHANE JONES: The member is quite right—both “check” and “cheque”. The adoption of the liability annex will fulfil a longstanding obligation on countries, and it will be enforceable. Let us hope the situation never comes to that; one would imagine that international citizenship in such an area as Antarctica would immediately cause people to step up to the plate. But the liability annex actually represents an incentive, so that those of our citizens, our firms, and other interests who go down there, and who either are not alert or do not feel it is in their area of responsibility to be vigilant, will pay for it. It is good that we highlight these things in this House. It is so good to talk about something positive, given the very wretched set of events that have taken place this afternoon on matters related to another treaty.

However, coming back to this bill, I say we should be proud of the role that Aotearoa has played in the negotiations. Of course, all parliamentarians have their differences with the Governments of the day, but I have no doubt that Mr McCully or his proxy will be a suitable representative. I just hope that the member who spoke yesterday on climate change is not that proxy, or if he is, that he changes both his apparel and his verbal presentation skills. But Mr McCully, or whoever the person is, can go forward in the knowledge that all parliamentarians will back the stance that our representative takes in relation to improving the liability annex in an international context. So I give full marks to the Government and to all of us as parliamentarians for showing that we value both our heritage in Antarctica and the critical role that the continent plays in the sustainability of the lives of the world’s citizens. Kia ora tātou katoa.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : There has been a great deal of talk today—well, actually, I have been talking a great deal today—about the injustice created through the impact of institutional racism. So I have looked through the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill, considering the effects of institutional racism upon agencies represented on the Officials’ Antarctic Committee as played out in this draft legislation. If we recall, institutional racism is a bias in our social and administrative institutions that automatically benefits the dominant race or culture, while penalising minority and subordinate groups. My review did not start off too well. Seventeen agencies were included in the consultation process for parties interested in treaty action in Antarctica. Missing from the list were Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, and the Office of Ethnic Affairs.

So then I turned to the actual text of the bill and the circumstances described. Obviously, I thought, there would be acknowledgment of the fact that Māori tradition tells us that a tupuna by the name of Huiterangiora was the first person to discover Antarctica. He is said to have encountered the icebergs of Antarctica in AD 650 during a voyage south of New Zealand. Huiterangiora was, in fact, an explorer of such import that in my electorate, in the whare tupuna at Te Āwhina Marae in Motueka, the tekoteko at the top of the meeting house is Huiterangiora looking out—looking for land. His achievements are also honoured in the island opposite the Rīwaka wharf, known to us as Hui Te Rangiora or Outer Island. Well, there is no mention of Huiterangiora or of the importance of cultural sites of significance in this bill.

Perhaps, then, there might be mention of Ngāpuhi man Tuati, who had been part of the United States Exploring Expedition that explored the Southern Ocean between 1838 and 1842. In fact, Tuati Peak, at the head of the Mount Mitchell glacier, is named after him. While we are looking at the lie of the land, we might also wonder whence Pōtaka Inlet, at the north side of Thurston Island—the third-largest island off Antarctica—derives its name. It is traced back to Louis Hauiti Pōtaka, the fifth Māori medical graduate in New Zealand, who served as a doctor in the Antarctic in 1934.

Well, without further prolonging the House, it has become rapidly evident that the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act is completely silent on matters of Antarctica’s own cultural heritage and the unique relationship between that land and the tangata whenua of Aotearoa. This is, of course, a great disappointment for a nation in which, as senior National MP Tau Henare put it so eloquently, such representation is supported across many levels, including as an expression of justice, democracy, economic value, cultural identity, political diversity, and even the potential for successful prototypes. Instead we have a bill that seeks to implement a number of New Zealand’s obligations under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty without any acknowledgment at all of another treaty, Te Tiriti o Waitangi—strange but true. We are not talking about a 1 percent population; we are talking about tangata whenua—the indigenous peoples of this land; the first peoples of this nation—who, in 1840, signed a treaty with the Queen of England to create the foundation for the future advancement of this land.

The Māori Party’s greatest desire is that Māori representation be valued and acknowledged in every debate and in every bill. I want to make it quite clear that our support for this bill is driven firmly and unequivocally on the basis of our kaupapa to promote sustainable environmental management. The Māori Party is committed to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone, and for future generations. By this, we mean that our respect for Papatūānuku extends past the mere geographic boundaries of these shores.

The bill requires New Zealand operators—those organising expeditions to Antarctica—to immediately notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade should their activities give rise to an environmental emergency or should they discover an environmental emergency. It goes one step further and notes that operators must take prompt and effective response action. To fail to do so is an offence, and, if convicted, a New Zealand operator is liable for up to 2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $200,000. We absolutely endorse the bill’s intention to legislate a requirement for responsive action to an environmental emergency in Antarctica, as this is consistent with Māori Party policy. We concur with the liability annex, in that imposing legal liability to clean up or pay the costs of response action where damage does occur will act as an incentive for operators to minimise damage to the environment. In other words, supporting a healthy and sustainable environment is valued, and a failure to provide the appropriate protection will come at a cost to the operator.

Finally, the Māori Party is proud to support the Antarctic Treaty as a very important mechanism by which to regulate international relations in respect of Antarctica. The treaty has 14 articles, which establish Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science, providing for freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation, and prohibiting military activity. I remind the House that Aotearoa was one of the original 12 countries that first signed up to the treaty in 1961. This bill sends a very strong signal to all parties involved in scientific research programmes, tourism, and all other governmental and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area about the intentions in relation to environmental emergencies in the Antarctic Treaty area.

In keeping with our responsibilities and obligations as a good global citizen, we are happy to support this bill. We welcome the introduction of the annex to the environmental protocol setting out legal liability for damage to the Antarctic environment, and we look forward to further debate on this bill. We do so, finally, in the hope that, when this bill next comes before the House, at least the word “Māori” may grace its pages. Kia ora.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I am very pleased to rise to support the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. As has been noted in the House already, this is an important bill. It is designed to protect Antarctica, that magnificent frozen continent, and its very fragile ecosystem from environmental emergencies.

It is very pleasing that New Zealand is leading the way with this legislation, highlighting our strong support for environmental protection in Antarctica. New Zealand has always played an important role in Antarctica, and Christchurch, my home town, is the official gateway city to Antarctica activities.

It was interesting to hear from Rahui Katene that Māori were the first people to discover Antarctica. In terms of Europeans, Captain James Cook reached Antarctic pack ice in the Resolution on his second voyage to New Zealand in 1774. By 1832 whaling ships from many different countries, including America, Norway, France, and Germany were operating out of the Banks Peninsula bays and were whaling in Antarctic waters as far south as the Ross Sea.

In 1901 and 1910 Robert Falcon Scott sailed from Lyttelton to lead expeditions to the South Pole. Tragically, Scott and his four companions, including Oates, died on their return voyage from the South Pole in 1913. Other explorers, including Roald Amundsen, the great Norwegian explorer, who was the first to reach the South Pole, and Ernest Shackleton, whose unsuccessful expedition has become a legend in human endurance and survival, were linked to Christchurch and New Zealand.

Further Antarctic expeditions were led by Admiral Richard Byrd, who made seven visits to Antarctica and regarded Christchurch as his second home. In 1958 the Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition, led by Vivian Fuchs and including Sir Edmund Hillary, achieved Shackleton’s goal of crossing the entire Antarctic continent successfully.

New Zealand was one of the original four signatories to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. New Zealand was part of the environmental protocol that entered into force in 1998, and New Zealand chaired negotiations for annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection in the Antarctic Treaty on Liability Arising from Environmental Emergencies, known as the liability annex, in Stockholm, Sweden. The liability annex was adopted in 2005, and this bill is the outcome for New Zealand.

Therefore, it is enormously satisfying to be one of the first of 28 Antarctic Treaty consultative parties to pass legislation to implement New Zealand’s obligations for environmental protection in Antarctica, and to do it just before the 50th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty signing, which happens in December this year. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : It has been fantastic to hear the debate in the House on a non-controversial treaty amendment bill, the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I found it very interesting to hear the Māori Party’s contribution, because the bill is not about tangata whenua; it is about countries internationally agreeing about the protection of the Antarctic. Although I acknowledge what the Māori Party was saying about the role of tangata whenua in New Zealand waters, we are talking here today about Antarctica and the protection of its environment.

The story has unfolded over many years, as we have heard from the previous speakers. It began 48 years ago—a long time ago. My figure says 48 years ago; the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, quoted 2 years earlier—1959—but it is neither here nor there. It has been a long journey. As Chris Auchinvole said, it has been glacial. It is becoming more imperative today as we face climate change, which we all acknowledge as real, that we make sure we do all we can to ensure there is no further degradation, or no increased speed of degradation, of the Antarctic.

New Zealand has a lead role. I am very proud of our role. I have never been down there. I envied hearing Chris Carter say that he went down there when he was the Minister of Conservation. I never got that far when I was the Minister of Conservation. I did not even make the Subantarctic Islands. It is a place on everybody’s to-do list. It is one of those places about which people say on their return they have been profoundly changed by the impact of the environment, by the sheer scope of the subantarctic region—the ocean and the land mass. According to one observation, there does not appear to be a lot of snow on the land mass.

I have had something of a role in the Antarctic, with my brother being an artist in residence down there. He painted the Shackleton hut. It is great to have another bit of artistic preservation of the Antarctic. Those old huts are wonderful, and when one sees those paintings, photographs, and historical records one realises how those early explorers lived on such a remote and vast continent.

The treaty has gone on for a long time. It is still not entered into by 28 parties, but I think New Zealand will be leading the way. When we start the negotiations we will be one of the first countries to approve the liability annex. Only Sweden, Peru, Poland, and Spain have signed the annex. The bill today is another step on New Zealand’s journey. I am really proud we all agree that the bill is absolutely important.

Chris Auchinvole’s great overview of the activities that go on down in that part of the country was interesting. The New Zealand Air Force flies C130J Hercules and P3K Orions down to the Antarctic from Christchurch, as Nicky Wagner will know. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research undertakes significant scientific research down there, which is really valuable for New Zealand in informing us of the rate of sea warming and climate change. I am amazed at the level of activity of huge cruise ships, which go down there for 3 weeks at a time. The number of visits, increasing in just a decade from 13,000 to 46,000, shows that if we do not do something now with this annex and get it signed, we will have to deal with some amazing risks in the future.

When I was the Minister of Conservation we were always very involved in the issue of whale fishing. New Zealand proudly said no to the hunting of whales in the Antarctic. We were very worried about activities at sea during the whaling season. There was a fire, and we were also worried about oil spillage. The environmental protection will be of great benefit to the non-governmental organisations that watch the level of activity there. They get down into those territorial waters every year during the whaling season. We were very worried about safety at sea. When there is a lot of clutter down in the Ross Sea—so far away from New Zealand—the only way to mitigate any harm or risk is through the air force. It takes days for ships to get down there, even if National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research scientific vessels are in the Antarctic.

The bill is a great bill. I think it has a carrot and stick approach. The financial liability limits that are included in the annex—US$1.5 million for events caused by a shipping vessel in those waters—are a great incentive for people to have a risk management plan and a mitigation of risk plan. If there are other environmental emergencies down there, the penalty of US$4.5 million sends a very strong message that we value the subantarctic and the Antarctic. All of us around the world have a part to play in making sure that the Antarctic Treaty strongly supports the objectives of environmental protection.

All that the bill does is insert a new Part 5A, which is about the environmental protection annex. Once it is signed we will have very clear legal liability for damage in an environment that everybody knows is very precious to the world. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I stand in support of the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill in the name of Minister McCully. The bill implements many of New Zealand’s international treaty obligations regarding a liability for environmental emergencies in Antarctica. As the previous speaker, Steve Chadwick, said, the bill will implement New Zealand’s obligations under annex VI to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. I will touch on three key issues. The first is around the significance of Antarctica, tourism to the region, and its impact. I will also talk about penguins.

Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent and has 10 percent of the earth’s land area. It is 14 million square kilometres, and interestingly enough it is the windiest place on earth. It is also the driest place on earth. Antarctica is the continent that has the least information known about it. That is why it is critical not only to protect this pristine environment but also to learn more about it. Antarctica is the world’s finest laboratory. Scientists from all over the world, and a significant number from New Zealand, go there to study a whole range of things, including the organisms that live in that unspoilt ecosystem. Some things that are important are the consequences of climate change and the clues to the origins of the universe. It is very timely that just yesterday members of the Education and Science Committee visited GNS Science and were able to get very close to some of the polar ice that our New Zealand scientists are studying in a whole range of mechanisms. We were fortunate enough to stand in the chilly bin of minus 35 degrees, and only a few moments in that chilly bin gave us a small taste of what it is like for the scientists who work in Antarctica for months on end.

The second thing I want to touch on is tourism. We obviously have a lot of scientists who travel to Antarctica to do very significant national Antarctic programmes, but they are less than 10 percent of the people who visit Antarctica each year. Depending on which analysis one looks at, one finds the figures are 46,000 to 48,000 tourist visitors to Antarctica per year—and they are having an impact. I think of 46,000 and that is twice the population of Taupō visiting Antarctica on an annual basis. That is a huge number of people. Of course, they visit for a short time, but their impact on the environment is high. One example we have heard about today, which my colleague Mr Auchinvole talked about, was that of people getting there in large and small ships, and if any of those ships get grounded—a high risk—the consequence is devastating for the environment with oil spills.

The other thing I want to touch on is penguins. Who can think of Antarctica without thinking about penguins? No, I am not talking about the enclosed ones in Auckland at Kelly Tarlton’s Antarctic Encounter and Underwater World, I am specifically talking about the Adélie penguins. They are the longest-studied Antarctic organism around, and also the most abundant population of penguins; there are over 10 million of them. The significance of those Adélie penguins is that by studying penguin populations, we are able to get early indicators of the impact of global climate change. The significance of the penguins is the ability for scientists to look at what is happening with global climate change.

Let us look for a moment at annex VI, which is what this bill is about; the bill enables New Zealand to formally approve that annex. I want to look at some of the releases that came out following the 2005 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Sweden, where the annex was passed. One of the issues dealt with that took up a lot of time was, as I have mentioned, the ability to better manage the flow of tourists to Antarctica. At that stage, in 2005, the number was 30,000. In 2009 we are already talking 46,000 to 48,000, so there has been a significant increase in a short period of time. That is why it is so vital that New Zealand signs up to formally adopt this annex. One of the quotes from the Swedish Minister for the Environment said: “We need a strategy for how we can secure the environmentally sustainable management of Antarctica. The strategy will deal with how we can manage future environmental challenges in Antarctica both in the short and in the long term.” That is where a lot of the work has carried on.

Some other things that the bill focuses on are around environmental emergencies. The definition of an environmental emergency is very broad, so it is very important that this bill is passed. I am proud to stand and commend this bill to the House.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am very pleased, particularly as a Christchurch member of Parliament, to support the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. Antarctica is not completely untouched, but it is certainly the least altered large land mass in the world, with many unique ecosystems, animals, and landscapes. It gives the last opportunity we have to preserve and protect a whole continent in as natural a condition as possible.

In the past Antarctica has been used with little regard to the consequences for the environment. Whales were hunted almost to extinction in the 1800s and early 1900s. On the continent itself, where only 2 percent of the land is ice-free, scientific bases, runways, and dumps have competed with penguins, seals, and moss fields for space. Even in the 1970s it was a common perception that there was so much empty space in Antarctica that human activities would have no impact. Since then, I think we as a people have realised that Antarctica is not isolated from the rest of the world, and that it has an impact on ocean currents, weather patterns, and migratory animals that extends well beyond the Antarctic Circle. Similarly, we have discovered that the ozone hole that occurs above Antarctica each spring has links with chlorofluorocarbons. We know that global warming, which has its origins in nations such as ours and in many other countries, will have major consequences for Antarctica and, therefore, for everyone on the planet.

The protection of the Antarctic environment has its foundations in the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. That was not very long after Sir Edmund Hillary’s trek by tractor across the continent. I think that Sir Edmund loved Antarctica almost as much as he loved the Himalayas. From what I know from those who went with him on his last trip to Antarctica, he treasured that place and they treasured that time with him. I think he would be very proud to see this bill before Parliament today.

The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 also aimed to avoid international disputes, particularly over things such as mineral resources. It was very pleasing to note, therefore, that in 1975 the then Labour Government, the Rowling Labour Government, suggested that Antarctica be declared a world park. Unfortunately, many other countries considered that mineral exploration in Antarctica was inevitable and wanted to establish guidelines for mining. There was a development of a convention to so do. Mercifully, public and world opinion at the time was going in the opposite direction, so instead of that, in fact, we got the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, also known as the Madrid Protocol. That introduced an indefinite ban on mining activities in Antarctica, and designated Antarctica as a natural space reserved for and devoted to peace and science.

The protocol emphasised responsible environmental management. Like the liability annex we are now discussing as a House, the environmental protocol did not come into force until all 26 Antarctic Treaty consultative parties had ratified it. This was finally achieved in January 1998. By ratifying that protocol, New Zealand signalled its commitment to ensuring that activities in Antarctica complied with the standards of the protocol.

This bill introduces the liability annex to that protocol. The need for it is underlined, I think, by a period of just 3 months. A couple of years ago in the waters off Antarctica, in the space of a 12-week period there were two accidents involving cruise ships. One cruise ship had 154 people on board and also many thousands of litres of fuel, but the people were rescued. Three months later, there was another incident where a cruise ship spilled nearly 700 litres of diesel into the waters off Antarctica. Of course, it is not just cruise liners that present the environmental challenges that the annex of this bill attempts to deal with. Our own Defence Force regularly sends Hercules aircraft to Antarctica; our Orions oversee the waters above Antarctica. We all hope and pray that nothing ever happens to any of our aircraft, but there are liabilities ensuing if such an incident were to happen. That is what this House is attempting to address with the legislation in front of us today.

I think we would all accept that Antarctica and its environments are essential to all of our futures. Although this bill deals with liability aspects, I think it also bodes well for the House that we are acknowledging the wider importance of the Antarctic environment. With this piece of legislation we are upholding the “polluter pays” concept. I think we need to note that, remote though it is, Antarctica is essential to the lives of every person on this planet. If we lost Antarctica through ice melt, we, as peoples in this nation, would all be seeking high-country tenure review. This bill recognises the unique, fragile, and important nature of Antarctica’s environment. It deserves our consideration as a House.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am delighted to support the Antarctica (Environmental Protection: Liability Annex) Amendment Bill. I start by acknowledging the strong and historic links our country has had over a long period of time with Antarctica. These links are extensive. They cover areas like exploration, research, and, of course, environmental protection. We have had a close relationship with Antarctica, not only because it is near to us geographically but also because since 1923 we have maintained our right of sovereignty over the Ross Dependency.

At 14 million square kilometres, Antarctica is the fifth-largest continent in area. About 98 percent of Antarctica is covered by ice, which averages at least 1.6 kilometres in thickness. In terms of human activity, although there are no permanent human residents there, between 1,000 and 5,000 people, as Ms Upston has already mentioned, reside throughout the year at the research stations scattered across the continent. I acknowledge the work of these individuals and the tremendous contribution that they are making to science and our environment. I also acknowledge what Ms Upston mentioned regarding the penguins. Over 10 million penguins reside in Antarctica, and that is one of the reasons why this bill is so important. We all acknowledge the amazing environment that exists there, and the rich sea life, including blue whales, orcas, colossal squid, and fur seals, but also the penguins. Antarctica is also the coldest place on earth. Louise Upston mentioned that it is the windiest and driest place, but the coldest natural temperature ever recorded on earth was minus 89.2 degrees Celsius at the Russian Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983.

I think it is also important to acknowledge that the New Zealand Government has developed procedures for tourists and non-governmental visitors wishing to visit Antarctica, based on the requirements of the protocol on environmental protection. Currently for any proposed activity in Antarctica an environmental impact assessment must be submitted to the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That is why I am very pleased to stand here and support the next step that is taken in this bill. The bill is not only consistent with our environmental policy but also consistent with our foreign policy.

I want to talk about how the legislation came about. Many speakers have mentioned that New Zealand first became a party to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty signed by the treaty parties in Madrid, Spain, in 1991. This protocol provides for a comprehensive regime for the protection of the Antarctic environment, as well as of dependent and associated ecosystems. Under the protocol, Antarctica is designated as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. In the text of article 16 of the protocol the parties made a key commitment to elaborate rules and procedures relating to liability for damage arising from activities taking place in the Antarctic Treaty area. The Antarctic liability annex fulfils this longstanding obligation.

National supports not only the fulfilment of our international obligations set out under the protocol but also the protection of Antarctica’s unique environment. The annex is an important part of the Antarctic environmental protection regime, of which our country is a strong supporter. The annex will encourage good environmental practice and ensure international cooperation and action on environmental emergencies in the Antarctic region, such as oil spills, the disposal of waste, and the impacts of tourism. I think another important point to make is that Antarctica will be a crucial area for environmental research, including climate research, which Ms Chadwick has also outlined.

The key purpose of this bill is to implement many of New Zealand’s international treaty obligations regarding the liability of environmental agencies in Antarctica. Although the annex has not yet entered into force, this will happen once it has been approved by all 28 Antarctic Treaty consultative parties, including New Zealand. New Zealand is one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed on 1 December 1959 in Washington, DC. A key aspect of this bill is that it requires New Zealand operators whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency to notify the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and it makes it an offence not to do so. It also requires New Zealand operators to make a prompt and effective response to that emergency. What is an environmental emergency? An environmental emergency is described as “an accidental event that … results in, or imminently threatens to result in, a significant and harmful impact on the Antarctic environment”.

This bill provides that if a New Zealander whose activities give rise to an environmental emergency fails to take a prompt and effective response action, then the operator is liable to pay the costs incurred by any annex party that does take a response action. The punishment is significant; it shows the value we place on the environment. Failing to take a prompt and effective response action to an environmental emergency constitutes an offence, for which the punishment is imprisonment for up to 2 years, a fine of up to $200,000, or both. Failing to notify the appropriate authorities when an emergency has been caused is also an offence, punishable by imprisonment for up to 12 months.

In conclusion, I say I support this bill because it demonstrates, as many speakers have mentioned, that New Zealand is leading the way in good environmental practice, and because it ensures there will be international cooperation and action on environmental emergencies in the Antarctic region. This bill is an excellent bill. Not only will it help the rich sea life of Antarctica but also it shows New Zealand is leading the way in terms of good environmental practice, and we are doing it for the benefit of the penguins.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

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.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū) : I am not sure whether to laugh or what after those final comments from the previous speaker, the Hon Chris Finlayson. What I am pleased to say is that the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill, which, of course, was a Labour Government bill, is being continued and supported by the National-led Government through the legislative process.

Our former colleague the Hon Judith Tizard introduced the bill in her role as Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. She was, as was the previous Labour Government and particularly the previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark, passionate about the preservation of culture and the protection of culture.

Members of the House will remember that Helen Clark took the unusual step, when she became Prime Minister in 1999, of taking the portfolio of arts, culture and heritage. As she said at the time—and it is very pertinent to the debate around this bill—there is nothing more important to a country and a society than its culture. It is one of the ways in which we define our unique identity as New Zealanders, and the protection of culture is something this bill seeks to ensure in an armed conflict situation.

Is there a need for the bill? Well, history has shown very much that there is. I can think of numerous examples from history where in conflict, invasion, and revolution there has been enormous loss of treasures. Often the bulk of the treasures that have defined and been the product of unique cultures are lost. One can think of the invasion of Mexico by Hernando Cortés or of Francisco Pizarro’s invasion of Peru, the destruction of the Aztec and Inca empires, and the loss of the incredible cultural heritage of those regions through armed conflict between cultures. I think of the Allied invasion of the Summer Palace in Beijing in 1899. Much of China’s unique cultural heritage was either destroyed or stolen and transported to the museums of Europe and Japan by the invading armies.

So it has happened in history. Can it happen today? Indeed, it can. We need only think of a short time ago in history when the American-led invasion of Iraq saw all Iraq’s museums—all of them—looted. It is estimated that some 15,000 objects were taken from Iraq—the land of the two rivers, the home of ancient Mesopotamia where agriculture began. Many of the unique treasures—Interruption] Did I hear someone from the Government say “Good job!”? I have to say that stealing a country’s cultural heritage, which this bill seeks to protect, is not something that is funny or should be made a joke about.

Some of the objects stolen from the Iraqi museums are over 9,000 years old. They date back to the end of the Ice Age and the beginning of agriculture, which set human beings on the progress to civilisation. Those treasures have been looted in a war situation. That is what we seek to prevent.

Another contemporary example is the looting of art treasures that occurred during World War II, first by the Nazis in occupied Europe and then by the liberating Red Army as it conquered most of Eastern Europe. The art treasures, particularly artworks, were taken from Berlin and other German cities, and then later, of course, transported east into the cities of the Soviet Union.

Those examples are very practical and contemporary and show why we need legislation like this to protect a nation’s cultural heritage. Another example occurred in Bamian, where our provincial reconstruction team is doing such an excellent job—which is soon to be ended by a decision of the National Government. Two great statues of Buddha that had stood in Bamian for thousands for years were blown up by the Taliban in their mad desire to create a fundamentalist Islamic state in Afghanistan.

The Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill is a Labour bill that is supported by the new National Government. We are very pleased about that. It is an important bill, as the previous Government speaker said. It ties us into the work Unesco is doing, and that is very important. This bill has the wholehearted support of the Labour Party. How could it not? It was our bill.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : I take great pleasure in rising to speak to the second reading of the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill, which languished for many years under the previous Labour Government, but has been brought to the House again by the Hon Chris Finlayson, the most excellent Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. He really does put his mark on culture in New Zealand with his commitment to legislation such as this. This National-led Government truly understands the importance of the protection of cultural objects. We do not just talk about it and then let the bill lie around for a while. We have brought this legislation to the Chamber, and I am very pleased to be speaking at its second reading.

I am really grateful for the good work in the Government Administration Committee, chaired by David Parker. There were a number of excellent members from the National side of the House, and Labour, of course. I acknowledge my colleagues and the collegial way in which we worked through quite a technical bill. To highlight that, I make note of the diagram on page 3 of the commentary. It was a hard-fought inclusion in the commentary on the bill —though it was not an internal fight—in order to aid clarity and understanding. There are a number of complex and technical issues contained in this bill, pertaining to who shall be liable and with whom the responsibility lies, whether they are New Zealanders, and whether they are in the armed forces. Due to the number of provisions in the bill, we felt in the select committee that a diagram would aid understanding of the bill—so there it lies in the commentary. I think it is the best diagram I have seen in a piece of legislation, and I hope it aids understanding.

The purpose of the bill, most important and as acknowledged by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Chris Finlayson, is that it will enable New Zealand to accede to the first and second protocols of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. We are all well aware of, and very concerned about, the destruction of cultural property. We noted that a lot of destruction was undertaken through the course of World War II; in fact, there was widespread destruction of culturally significant artefacts and property.

The first protocol is concerned with the export trade in cultural objects from warring States. The second protocol aims to provide additional protection to the most important cultural objects in the world, and it would be fair to say that some of those are pretty readily identifiable. This bill creates a number of criminal offences, including the removal of cultural property from an occupied territory. An example would be where somebody in the armed forces souvenirs a piece of cultural property, a marvellous piece of culture from that country. A further offence relates to dealing in such property. Obviously, cultural property can have a significant value, which is often one of the reasons why it is removed. The bill also covers various acts against cultural property in situations of armed conflict. It will also make it a criminal offence to use the symbol of the Hague convention without authorisation.

In a lighter moment in the committee, there was much interest around what the Hague convention symbol would look like. I imagined something quite grand, but, no, it is just an “H”, or something quite plain. However, in this bill it is a criminal offence to use the symbol without authorisation. That is probably a good thing, because we are dealing with significant items of cultural heritage of other peoples’ countries, and we should respect that.

There is also a category called enhanced protection property, which relates to property under a special protection regime set out in this bill. This category is for property of particular significance. It will be an offence under this legislation to do the following to a protected piece of cultural property or enhanced protection property, or to encourage another person to do one of these acts. This means someone cannot just sit in the back telling another person to nick it because it will not matter—it covers that as well. It will be an offence to make cultural property the subject of attack. That means one cannot fire rockets knowingly at cultural property. One could, but then it would be an offence under this legislation. I hope it would not happen that cultural property would be the subject of attack. It will be an offence to use cultural property in military action. We discussed whether that meant using a significant building as a shield. The extensive destruction of cultural property will be an offence, or stealing or vandalising cultural property. That is probably the pertinent part of it, because it is the stealing and vandalising that is most offensive. That is captured in this bill.

Under this bill, penalties are spelt out, including fines and prison sentences. It also makes it an offence to remove cultural property from a country or to assist somebody else in doing so. That is an offence not only for the person who would be removing, pinching, or nicking that item of cultural property but also for somebody who assists someone else in doing that. Again, that is an important feature of this legislation. In this call, I have outlined perhaps the most pertinent part of this legislation, which is the high value that we in New Zealand place on cultural property and the respect we give to such property, not only in our country but also in other countries. It is a proud moment for this House in acceding to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. I recommend this bill.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I join with Jacqui Dean in saying what a pleasure it was to work through the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill in the Government Administration Committee under the able leadership of David Parker. I concur that we worked in a collegial manner. We even inserted a diagram into the commentary—one of the highlights of the time the select committee spent on the bill! I will not traverse the detail of the bill because I think Jacqui Dean has done that very well, but I take a brief call on what the bill is about: criminalising actions such as stealing or destroying important cultural property in times of war, prohibiting trade in cultural property removed from an occupied territory, and preventing unauthorised use of the convention emblem, as Miss Dean just talked about.

It is important to give examples of what cultural property means in terms of this bill. Within the protocols and the convention we can see terms, as listed under clause 4, like “monuments of architecture”, “archaeological sites”, “groups of buildings”, “works of art”, “manuscripts, books, and other objects of artistic, historical, or archaeological interest”, “scientific collections”, and “collections of books or archives”, and then in turn the places where those things are stored: “museums”, “large libraries”, and “depositories of archives”. It is important for people to understand that that is what we are talking about. There is limited scope within this bill. It is not about every single thing—it is not about a fork, a plate, or a spoon that is taken out of a house; it is about items that are of historical and cultural importance.

Why should we do something like this? It is important for New Zealand to be able to follow through on its obligations, and on the conventions and the protocols we sign up to. To be honest, something the select committee grappled with was how we make real the conventions and protocols that we sign up to. We need to be upfront. When we negotiate these things internationally, New Zealand is part of a wider group. We want to be able to show that we are committed to preserving, in this case, cultural and historical items of significance. But when we have to turn that into real law, it does sometimes present some difficulties to make it meaningful. In the commentary on the bill we see the ways in which we amended the bill to try to make it more real and meaningful, and Jacqui Dean has already talked about that. In particular, we ensured that we inserted the words “(whether in or outside New Zealand)” in clause 7(1)(a) to make it clear that a person could be charged regardless of where the alleged offence was committed. That slightly broadened things out. We did not want it to become so broad and so over the top as to be regarded as somehow ridiculous, so we ensured that universal jurisdiction would not be created over the grave violation offences that are set out in the bill, and new clause 9A does that.

As the commentary on the bill says, we were also concerned that the bill did not take into account the issue “if a person committed an offence in a Second Protocol Party state and then came to New Zealand, New Zealand would not be able to prosecute the offender, where he or she was a national of a state that is not a Second Protocol Party.” We have clarified that and there is a diagram explaining how that will happen.

I think that the select committee has done its job here. It has improved the bill so that it can be implemented in New Zealand law and so that it is meaningful in New Zealand law. I thoroughly recommend it to the House.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party is strongly supportive of the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill. It is my experience that the destruction of significant cultural property of a people has a huge effect, often on the whole national psyche.

I think the problem goes even beyond what is in this bill. We can see the concern the Greek people have about the Elgin Marbles, and the fact that some of them have been taken to the British Museum. We can talk to Sri Lankan Tamil people, who feel they lost a huge cultural icon when the Jaffna Library was burnt down in the 1980s. We can look at the conflict in China involving the Uighur people, Muslim people in the west of China who have recently been in some contention with both the Chinese Government and Chinese migrants in the area. One of the deep hurts that the Uighur people feel—and it motivates them today—is what happened during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. Young fanatical Maoists came in and destroyed much of the cultural property and Islamic icons in that area. The Tibetan people experienced the same thing with the destruction of some of the monasteries during the Cultural Revolution. It was deeply hurtful and is still felt today.

Chris Carter mentioned the example of Iraq, and I have wondered how Iraq might fit under this bill in the sense of culpability. In the mayhem following the US-led invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, US military camps were located in places like Babylon. Some camps were located on very important archaeological sites and destroyed them a bit. One could say that that destruction was part of armed conflict, but a lot of the damage was done by Iraqis who wanted to make a bit of money by coming in and grabbing stuff that had previously been protected. I suppose that under the clause about being an accessory after the fact any armed force there would be responsible. US commanders who allowed that to happen could possibly be deemed to be accessories after the fact under this bill.

Chris Carter also raised the example of Bamian. I am not sure how it would be covered under this bill, because, at the time, the war was over. The Taliban were ruling with an iron hand over the Hazara people and were very hostile to Buddhism. As part of the Taliban’s hostility towards anything that was not Islamic—or not their particular variety of Sunni Islam—they destroyed the Buddhas, which was a historic crime. I think that we all felt it, too, because those big Buddhas were such a cultural icon. But it was not done in the middle of armed conflict; it was done post - armed conflict, so I am not quite sure how it fits under the bill.

Although this bill is very good, it does not necessarily cover the complete range of offences against the cultural heritage of peoples around the world.

I think it is good that clause 9A has been put in, so that people who destroy major features of cultural heritage can be prosecuted for the horrendous thing they have done. If, for instance, the Bamian incident did fit under the bill, and if someone responsible for that offence against the Afghan people happened to be in New Zealand, that person could be prosecuted.

The Green Party is very supportive of this bill. It is a very progressive bill and we hope the whole Parliament will support it. Thank you.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : As a member of the Government Administration Committee I have great pleasure in seeing the Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Bill finally progress through the House. After all, it is 55 years since the Hague convention was originally progressed in 1954.

I can remember that when I first came to Parliament I was on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee under the wonderful chairmanship of one Dianne Yates. The reason that the bill went nowhere was due simply to her chairmanship, which was incompetent, at best. I commend the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Chris Finlayson, for his initiative in bringing the issue forward and progressing it, and I am very glad that the people of New Zealand changed the Government so that we can allow the bill to move forward.

As various people have talked in laborious fashion about the various parts of the bill, I do not particularly want to revisit the issue. But I would like to say to my colleague from the Green Party Keith Locke—and I am pleased he supports the great work we have done—that none of the instances he offered are relevant in the context of the bill, because we will not be applying it retrospectively.

The other thing that is most important to understand is that the bill can begin to operate only if a territory has been occupied. So the wonderful collection put together by the de Beers that is in Dunedin’s museum—bits and pieces from all over the world that are available for all and sundry to see—is not at risk, and I am very pleased about that.

I think the example of the Bamian Buddhas being blown up and shot out of existence is more relevant. Whether Afghanistan was occupied by the Taliban is a moot question, because the damage may well have been done by Afghani factions. Mr Locke also talked about the Sri Lankan example. Before he spoke I had been reflecting on how wonderful it was that the Buddhas in Sri Lanka, or Buddha’s tooth in Kandy, or the relics in Anuradhapura were left absolutely untouched by the war. I think it is a reflection of the respect of all the parties involved in that conflict that those religious icons, and also the frescos in Sigiriya, which are hugely important to Sri Lankan culture, were left untouched. For that I am very grateful. I do not think we should involve ourselves in a partisan debate about whether a library was burnt down on purpose by the Sinhalese, because it may well not have been.

I think this bill will be really important in the context of future postings of the New Zealand military, because under it they will now be held accountable. It has taken the better part of 55 years to progress, and that is probably because a number of us would have had relatives at Monte Cassino and other theatres of war who removed artefacts under the guise of souveniring. That would now be prohibited under this arrangement. I also think our troops are far better educated now than they were at that time.

At this stage on a Thursday afternoon I do not want to unnecessarily continue, except to say that I am very, very strongly supportive of the bill, and I commend it totally to the House. I am sure it will be passed unanimously. Thank you.

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.