Wong Pansy: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8380] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I want to share with the public that the members of the Government Administration Committee are all very excited about the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. Not only that; because it is a small bill the members under the chairmanship of Diane Yates applied ourselves to examine in detail every clause and every part of it. 
Even on Part 3 we came up with a unanimous amendment which has led to an amendment from the Hon Judith Tizard. The title of Part 3 was originally “Validation and repeal”; it is now to be “Validation repeal and consequential amendment” because it is a very important consequential amendment. It makes sure that the Auckland Domain Act includes the right reference; instead of the reference to section 6 of the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act 1918 which this bill repeals the right reference to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Empowering Act 2003 is substituted. 
I want to dwell a little on clause 6 “Validation of lease”. This particular clause was mentioned by my colleague Simon Power who feels quite uneasy about retrospective legislation. We on this side of the Chamber particularly share his concern that legislation should always try not to apply in a retrospective manner. We have seen enough grievances caused by this Parliament particularly under the Labour Government rushing through a lot of retrospective legislation. A recent experience involved immigration legislation that lapsed 20000 applications and led to 40000-odd people suddenly having their applications invalidated. In this case as a member of the Government Administration Committee I say we need to make an exception. We think it is very important for the Auckland Museum to have a watertight position that nobody for whatever good intention—particularly lawyers—can challenge. Lawyers have a knack of challenging a clause that might not be watertight. We want to ensure that nobody can challenge any past activities. The fact that the description of the land in the original legislation was incorrect is the reason we have decided to support clause 6 which revalidates the lease. 
Clause 6 reads: “The lease is deemed to be and to have always been as valid and effectual as if all the land that is subject to the lease had not been that land described in the Schedule.” It sounds like a mouthful but I guess it is important to ensure that nobody in future can challenge the redevelopment work or using whatever technicality cast doubt on the intention of this Parliament to revalidate the description of the land that the Auckland Museum is situated on. It is certainly a major redevelopment worth about $40 million - odd. As a member from Auckland I certainly would not like to see that redevelopment project delayed or jeopardised by the lack of a watertight clause. I assure my colleague Simon Power that we certainly do not as a habit introduce or endorse legislation that has a retrospective effect but in this case we are making an exception for this icon in Auckland. 
Clause 7 is almost stating the obvious. It repeals the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act 1918. I guess even reading the title reminds us how far we have come since 1918. I have to say the Auckland Museum has certainly stood the test of time.