The Government is afraid it could undermine efforts to bring back human remains if it explicitly supports repatriation of Maori artefacts from overseas museums.
The definition of koiwi - human remains including dried heads - was deliberately written to exclude burial objects or carved or decorated human bone,the Waitangi Tribunal was told yesterday.
"This definition was specifically designed to allay concerns within the international museum community," Ministry of Culture and Heritage deputy chief executive Jane Kominik said. It was intended to make clear that New Zealand was seeking the return only of koiwi and not other Maori cultural objects, she said.
It was also possible requests could trigger reciprocal requests from overseas to return items held in New Zealand museums and libraries.
Ms Kominik said some world-class collections could be vulnerable, such as one of the world's best collections of books by Alexandre Dumas in an Auckland library.
"The Ministry of Culture and Heritage has not prepared a policy document on repatriation of taonga to New Zealand and there is not one under development," she told the Waitangi Tribunal.
Ms Kominik told Matahuku Mahuika, a lawyer for Ngati Porou, that the priority given to human remains was a response to concerns in the Maori community.
But Mr Mahuika argued that though there were few Ngati Porou heads or other remains in overseas museums, large numbers of iwi taonga were in overseas collections.
The tribunal is hearing the WAI 262 claim, which seeks exclusive and comprehensive rights to indigenous flora and fauna as well as all Maori cultural knowledge, customs and practices.
The 16-year-old Treaty of Waitangi claim was initially brought by six iwi.
