Ogilvy Bernie: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8372] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I want to talk about the title of this bill called the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill because it is very a important factor in the future plans for the museum. The future plans for the museum are what the bill is all about. The aspect of the title that attracts the most controversy is that it is a war memorial museum. Although Auckland’s first museum was opened in 1852 in a two-room farm cottage in Grafton Road—one room was used for the collection and one was for the custodian’s accommodation—it was not until 1929 that the Auckland War Memorial Museum was finally completed. The construction coincided with a desperate need to find new accommodation for the museum’s expanding collection and in 1920 it was decided to combine a new museum building with a war memorial. 
However the dual purposes embedded in the title of the museum as a war memorial has not been without its controversies. I remember well that for several years there was a gentleman by the name of Harry Corrin a veteran of World War II who fought to stop plans to build a restaurant on top of the museum claiming that this was indicative of the commercialisation of the institution. So it must be remembered that it was not just another museum. Since it was a very special museum and those who served the country were remembered in it it was called a “war museum”. This means that the major decisions relating to the museum must be handled with a degree of sensitivity—as its name implies to those who also see it as a monument to the fallen. 
Some have noted a reluctance on the part of the marketers to use the museum’s full and significant title in most public references and argue that it limits the institution’s appeal and it could cost it attendances. In my view this is a very regrettable development since as the generations pass it becomes even more important to remember the sacrifice of those who have gone before us. As this bill’s name refers it will enable further expansion of the museum complex and therefore the war memorial itself. 
I ask members to reflect on the title clause of this bill with this sensitivity in mind. To my mind there can be no doubt that the museum was intended to serve a dual purpose as a memorial to those who served in World War I. An architectural competition we know was held to design a new building to honour the New Zealand fallen heroes. Construction was funded by public subscription—raised particularly by women by the way wishing to mourn their loved ones; and returned servicemen on the other hand wishing to honour their fallen comrades. 
Richard Worth 
: What about Prime Minister Coates? What did he have to say about this? 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: Prime Minister Gordon Coates laid the foundation stone—himself a returned serviceman. War memorials are very important to New Zealanders. Almost a third of the men killed in World War II have no known graves and the remainder are buried mostly on the other side of the world. War memorials acted as surrogate tombs to these families and were a way for communities to honour their fallen. The Greek-style neoclassicism of the building represents the heroic valour of the New Zealand soldier and emphasises the classical tragedy of battles such as at Gallipoli. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There is a longstanding tradition in this House and indeed our Standing Orders reflect it that a member may not read his or her speech. A member may refer to notes but this member has studiously read his speech which is taken directly from the website. I would ask that you invite him to sit down because you do have the power to terminate this speech if he does not deliver a speech as part of a debate; but a member may not read a speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the member is just about to finish. 
David Benson-Pope 
: My understanding of the current Standing Orders is that the Standing Order cited by the previous speaker has not been part of the Standing Orders for some time so I ask Mr Shirley to actually quote the Standing Order if he is raising that sort of point and deliberately disrupting the speech of that person. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point; he is absolutely right. 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: In finishing I say that it is a travesty to try to avoid or obscure the fact that this is also a war memorial as the title clause indicates.