Collins Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8370] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I would like to speak in relation to clause 1 “Title” of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. It was with some trepidation that I first looked at this bill because I was concerned that given the political correctness that seems to follow us around like a dark cloud this bill would have been named the “Auckland Museum Site Empowering Bill”. I was particularly concerned to make sure that under no circumstances was the “War Memorial” part of the title deleted removed or in any other way amended. 
In particular my concerns related to the fact that the museum is now marketed not as the Auckland War Memorial Museum but as the Auckland Museum. I know that the people who run the museum—who do a tremendous job—probably do not feel that they are doing any particular harm in marketing it in that way. But to me and to many New Zealanders who feel deeply about the war memorial that above all the museum is it is extremely offensive that the war memorial museum should have its name shortened simply so that the name is less difficult to say and more convenient. The soldiers gave up their lives so that we could live in a democracy today and the fact that we are speaking in this Chamber—which is itself a war memorial—tonight reminds us that we do that. They were not able to avoid going off to war because of the inconvenience. They were not able to say that they would not give up their youth as my father did or their lives as my great-uncle did because it was inconvenient to do so and I make that point whenever I get the opportunity to speak with the management and director of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. At no stage should we ever forget that that site is sacred. It is sacred in many ways and its full name must be used which is why I was particularly pleased to see that included in the title of this bill. 
Another possible title for the bill may be the “Auckland War Memorial Museum (Because It Is a Victim of Its Own Success) Bill because that museum is if nothing else a victim of its own success. It is so good and so powerful that 70 years after it began it is going into its third major renovation. When we spoke with the director Dr Rodney Wilson a man who has given a tremendous amount to the museum to Auckland and to the arts generally I could tell that he was thinking about the next extension and how that will have to be designed. He is a man who is so passionate about and committed to his work that it was a pleasure for us as part of the Government Administration Committee to be able to go there. That museum as I said is a victim of its own success. 
It is great to be able to say tonight that the Auckland War Memorial Museum will not have its name adulterated by Parliament. I will be extremely pleased when the day comes that I can convince the museum trust board not to market it as the “Auckland Museum”. That sounds awful. It sounds as though the museum is not the special and wonderful place—the sacred site—that it is which we can all go to and say that we are blown away by because it is an amazing site. Having now attended I think 23 dawn parade services there in a row until this year—[ 
Interruption 
] I thank Mr Worth—when as the MP for Clevedon I went to Papakura I love that site. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am sorry to interrupt the member for Clevedon. I am sure she will take another call and have the opportunity to pursue her views. She made a very good point when she talked about the way in which the bill should be named. If one looks around at the amount of legislation that exists at the moment that includes “Auckland” and “museum” one will see that it becomes quite confusing. To clear that up in some members’ minds initially we are repealing the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act of 1918. That goes by the board. We still seem to have the Auckland City and Auckland Museum Empowering Act of 1924 and that might cause some confusion; and we also have the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act of 1996. The time should be coming when consideration should be given to putting all this legislation together into one piece of legislation—an omnibus bill or one bill that could be called the “War Memorial Museum Bill” or the “War Memorial Museum Act” at the end of the day. It does seem to me that there is room for improvement in the way in which this bill could be named. I am sure all members remember that this is a memorial essentially to the First World War but it does contain items from the Second World War as well. 
I was intrigued by the comments of the member for Clevedon about her great-uncle who was killed in the First World War. My grand-uncle—I am a little bit older than the member for Clevedon obviously—Clement Urban Leahy was in the Seaforth Highlanders having joined at about 16 in July or August 1914 and he was gone by November at one of the battles of Neuve Chapelle at the age of 16. He posthumously received the DCM for his trouble and is recorded in the Seaforths war diary for the battle that took place on 5 or 6 November. I was able to obtain this from the records which are now kept by the Queen’s Own Highlanders. We all have a link I would say in this Parliament with the First World War and one cannot help but recall the trials and tribulations of that time. I feel—and I would like the Minister to comment on this proliferation of legislation that we have— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I find the member’s speech particularly interesting and I apologise for interrupting him but there is an absolute gaggle of conversation over here on the Government benches. I certainly was struggling to hear the fine words that Mr Dail Jones was giving to us in this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct. It is hard when conversation is across like that and the member is sitting where he is. 
DAIL JONES 
: I appreciate Mr Shirley’s comments and the consideration that he is giving to this very important monument to the past and monument for the future of those who took part in the First World War and the Second World War. There is quite a lot of Second World War memorabilia in the museum as well. The ultimate name of the bill is the “Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill” and it seems that the Act will be called the “Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Act”. I wonder why we need the word “empowering”. It surely— 
Dianne Yates 
: It is about development which you haven’t even mentioned in your speech yet. 
DAIL JONES 
: But why have the word “empowering”? What does “empowering” mean? It is just to give someone the power. Why not call it the “Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Act”? That is what it should be because this bill is all about the site. The fact that there was a slight problem with the dimensions of the site and the fact that when they reconsidered the site—and I see there is a diagram attached to the bill marked “SO”—survey order I suppose—70808 showing us the site; and it seems to me that the name will be so clumsy in the future for someone trying to get to this legislation and having to say the name and we have been saying it in this Parliament: the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Act. The suggestion by the member for Clevedon that it should be the “War Memorial Museum Site Bill” or the “War Museum Site Bill” might perhaps be another version of it. This business of saying “empowering” is such an ancient view. It is the sort of thing one gets in an early 19th century – late 18th century piece of legislation to say that something was “empowering”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I would just remind members that the debate is on the title.