Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T20:43:00.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Protected Objects Act in New Zealand: Too Little, Too Late?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2008

Piers Davies  and
Paul Myburgh
Piers Davies
Affiliation:
Wackrow, Williams & Davies, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]
Paul Myburgh
Affiliation:
The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Protected Objects Amendment Act (POA) was passed by the New Zealand Parliament in 2006, so New Zealand could fulfil its obligations under the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995. This represents a significant delay after the drafting of these two conventions. This article explores why New Zealand has taken so long to give domestic effect to these conventions and examines the manner in which they have been given domestic legal effect in the POA. The article also focuses on issues of Māori cultural property, the practical implementation of the POA, and the cultural heritage climate in New Zealand.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , August 2008 , pp. 321 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baragwanath, David. “New Zealand Māori Council v. Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 687: A Perspective of Counsel.” “In Good Faith” Symposium: 29 June 2007, The University of Otago.Google Scholar
Bassett, Michael. The Mother of All Departments: The History of the Department of Internal Affairs. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Butts, David. “The Antiquities Act Review 1988–1994: Time to Mobilise.” New Zealand Museums Journal 24 (1994): 48–49.Google Scholar
Chase, Eugene P. “Peter Fraser at San Francisco.” Political Science 11 (1959): 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Closing Submissions on Behalf of Hauraki Claimants in the Matter of the Tauranga Moana Inquiry, Wai 215, Wai 100, and Wai 650, November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Closing Submissions on Behalf of Ngati Kahungunu in Wai 262 #S2, April 16, 2007.Google Scholar
Davies, Piers, and Myburgh, Paul. “New Zealand.” In The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, edited by Dromgoole, Sarah, 189–215. Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaghey, Sarah. “‘They Do Things Differently There ….’ Historic Heritage Value and Its Assessment Beyond New Zealand.” Archaeology in New Zealand 50 (2007): 87–98.Google Scholar
Gaimster, David. “Recent UK Measures Against the International Illicit Trade in Cultural Objects: Examining the New Regulatory Framework.” In Who Owns Objects? The Ethics and Politics of Collecting Cultural Artefacts, edited by Robson,, Eleanor et al., 91–103. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2006.Google Scholar
Ingram, Charles, andWheatley, Percy. New Zealand Shipwrecks, 8th ed. Revised by Diggle, Lynton, Diggle, Edith and Gordon, Keith. Auckland, New Zealand: Hodder Moa, 2007.Google Scholar
Kawharu, Sir Hugh. “Appendix.” In Waitangi: Māori and Pākehā Perspectives of the Treaty of Waitangi, edited by Kawharu, I.H., 319–21. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Keate, Jonathan. “A Proposal to Improve the Protection of New Zealand's Movable Cultural Heritage by Means of a Statutory Trust.” Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 23 (1993): 97–124.Google Scholar
Kominik, Jane. “Protecting Our Past for the Future—The Antiquities Act.” Archifacts (1989): 38–39.Google Scholar
Kominik, Jane, and Cooper, Bill. “Letters to the Editor.” Archifacts (1990): 85–89.Google Scholar
Legget, Jane. “Finders Keepers? Yeah Right. Found Objects, Taonga and Ideas about Property Ownership.” (unpublished) 2005.Google Scholar
Legget, Jane. “National Treasures: The Protected Objects Amendment Bill—Almost an Act.” (unpublished) 2006.Google Scholar
“Māori Put More Value on Culture.” New Zealand Herald, October 30, 2007. Available at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10472849 (accessed May 15, 2008).Google Scholar
McGovern-Wilson, Rick. “New Zealand Historic Places Trust National Research Framework: Discussion Paper.” Archaeology in New Zealand 51 (2008): 22–35.Google Scholar
McNeish, James. Dance of the Peacocks. Auckland, New Zealand: Vintage, 2003.Google Scholar
New Zealand Archaeology Professional Development Cell. “Guidelines for Archaeologists in Relation to the Finding of Artefacts.” Archaeology in New Zealand 50 (2007): 239–48.Google Scholar
New Zealand Archaeology Professional Development Cell. “Issues and Problems in Relation to the Finding of Artefacts on Archaeological Sites.” Archaeology in New Zealand 50 (2007): 249–52.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, Patrick J.Commentary on the UNESCO 1970 Convention on Illicit Traffic. Leicester, United Kingdom: Institute of Art and Law, 2000.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, Patrick J. “Mauritius Scheme for the Protection of the Material Cultural Heritage.” International Journal of Cultural Property 3 (1994): 295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Keefe, Patrick J. “Protection of the Material Cultural Heritage: The Commonwealth Scheme.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 44 (1995): 147–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, Robert K. “Protecting Taonga: The Cultural Heritage of the New Zealand Māori.” International Journal of Cultural Property 8 (1999): 108–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prott, Lyndel V.Commentary on the UNIDROIT Convention. Leicester, United Kingdom: Institute of Art and Law, 1997.Google Scholar
Ruru, Jacinta. “Treaty of Waitangi Principles 20 Years On.” New Zealand Law Journal (2007): 87–88.Google Scholar
Siddle, Edward. “The Protected Objects Amendment Bill.” Te Ara—Journal of Museums Aotearoa 31 (2006): 36–38.Google Scholar
“Skulls, and Bones Held at Oxford Coming Home,” New Zealand Herald, 4 (February 2008). Available at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10490396 (accessed May 15, 2008)Google Scholar
Stokes, Jon. “Shutting the Gate After Taonga Have Bolted.” New Zealand Herald, August 8, 2006. Available at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10395074 (accessed May 15, 2008).Google Scholar
Tapsell, Paul. Pukaki: A Comet Returns. Auckland, New Zealand: Reed, 2000.Google Scholar
Te Awekotuku, Ngahuia. Mau Moko: The World of Māori Tattoo. Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin Viking, 2007.Google Scholar
Tunks, Andrea, McRae, Jane, and Wild, Jane. “Protection of Movable Cultural Property Bill Issues Paper—Two Comments.” Archifacts (1990): 50–54.Google Scholar
Williams, David. “Myths, National Origins, Common Law and the Waitangi Tribunal.” Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law 11 (2004). Available at http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n4/williams114.html (accessed May 15, 2008).Google Scholar
Williams, David. “Law and National Identity: Where Does the Treaty Fit In?” British World Conference IV, Broadening the British World. Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland, July 14–16, 2005.Google Scholar