Jones Dail: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8375] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 A couple of aspects of Part 1 need greater clarification. Clause 2 is the commencement clause which says “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I would like members to bear that in mind. Then clause 3(b) talks about a provision: “to empower the leasing of land in the Domain to the Board and to extend the area of the Domain subject to the lease;”. In clause 4 we have a definition: “lease means the lease granted by the Corporation to the Board dated 31 March 1920”. I am concerned about just what is being leased in this legislation. I take into account the Auckland City and Auckland Museum Empowering Act of 1924 section 12 which is headed up—and I think this becomes quite controversial now—“Contribution to foreshore road”. So I am concerned that this bill has something to do with the foreshore and I ask what Government members have to say about that. 
The provision from that other Act related to the leasing of the land provision that is in this bill states: “The Corporation and any other local authority or public body may out of their general funds respectively contribute such sum or sums of money as may from time to time be agreed upon for or towards the cost of the construction improvement or maintenance of a road or street proposed to be formed along the foreshore of the Waitemata Harbour alongside or as part of the embankment proposed to be made for the railway along the said foreshore as shown on a plan of such railway deposited in the Survey Office at Auckland as Number 21189 or in such other position on the said foreshore as may be determined by the local bodies contributing to the costs thereof.” 
That is part of the Auckland City and Museum Empowering Act of 1924 so we are looking here at something that is being leased which seems to be linked to the foreshore of the Waitemata Harbour. If we remember back we know that in the old days a lot of reclamation was done in Auckland. It went up as far as Shortland Street on the Queen Street side and it seems—as far as the domain is concerned when looking at Parnell—as if the foreshore is linked to this bill. 
I want to know from the Minister whether any inquires have been made or claims lodged with regard to that land and what effect this lease has. We have a lease here that is being repealed so I ask what the existing lease states and whether the members of the select committee bothered to have a look at the existing lease granted by the corporation to the board on 31 March 1920. Did the members of the select committee get any legal advice on that lease and what action is being taken? 
A provision talks of power to lease land in the domain in the next part which obviously I cannot talk about yet but I foreshadow that I will be taking up that issue. But I would like to know the story about the existing lease how it links to the foreshore as shown in the previous legislation and what future consequences there will be with regard to any foreshore claims and foreshore debates in respect of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. Has the Minister given any thought to that issue? No one has mentioned it in the debate until now but in New Zealand First we are very sensitive to it as is everybody today and we want to make sure that all people’s rights and suchlike are clearly considered. 
If it transpires that there are some rights to this foreshore what thought has the Minister given to compensation for any possible claims that may arise? Members will notice that in the bill as it stands we have a plan No. SO70808—“SO” means “Survey Office”; and another plan No. SO21189 is referred to in section 12 of that other Act. Did the members of the select committee have a look at that? What consideration did they give to that plan in relation to this plan? What changes have been made to it and what are the consequences of the cancellation of that existing lease? Can the Minister assure us that the rights that are being given up are not in some way reduced? 
I have read the explanatory note of the bill which is interesting. As we have all said we are very excited by this development being taken up in Auckland and in the commentary there is a description of land subject to the lease but I am concerned just exactly where it goes.