Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8358] 
Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill be now read a second time 
. I am very grateful to the Business Committee of this Parliament that it has agreed to take this bill through all its stages today. Members have agreed that it is an important bill and that it is necessary for the Auckland War Memorial Museum to start its major renovation project which it hopes to start in the next month or so. As MP for Auckland Central I have been asked— 
Rodney Hide 
: Is that right? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes. Did the member not try to stand there once? As MP for Auckland Central I have been asked by the Auckland Museum Trust Board to promote this bill. I take particular interest in this bill also as the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. This bill will repeal the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act of 1918 and replace it with new legislation allowing the lease of land within the Auckland Domain for the purposes of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and for extensions to the museum. It also corrects some mistakes that were made in that earlier legislation to describe accurately the present site of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. 
The museum is architecturally and spiritually significant to everyone in Auckland and indeed to all New Zealanders as well as to visitors to New Zealand. It is a major and respected repository of Maori taonga artefacts and information. It is trusted by the people of Auckland and the greater Auckland region to keep those treasures as well as being Auckland’s major war memorial. It is respected for its research and its educational role and it is the keeper of many of our treasures. It is a vital part of our cultural tourism circuit and therefore a major contributor to the economic well-being of New Zealand as well as being a vital link to New Zealand’s growing information network. The bill will enable the Auckland War Memorial Museum to expand and redevelop to meet the needs of the people of Auckland and of all New Zealanders and also meet the needs of the 250000 or so international visitors to the museum each year. 
I want to thank the Government Administration Committee for reporting this bill back to the House so promptly so that it can be passed to enable the museum’s redevelopment and expansion project to start on time. I particularly thank the chair of that committee Dianne Yates who conducted the examination thoroughly but in an extremely constructive way; as did all members of that committee. 
When completed the museum will house a much-needed and improved collection and visitor amenities befitting its role as one of New Zealand’s most important cultural institutions and Auckland’s major war memorial. Facilities will include new collection storage areas on site for the first time—indeed the whole collection will be on site for the first time. There will also be an enhanced learning centre a grand atrium and a new underground car-park. The car-park will start to address the parking problems associated with the popularity of the museum and indeed the domain almost any day of the week all weekend summer and winter. There will also be a new special exhibition hall an auditorium and improved refreshment and public facilities. 
The Government is making a contribution of $26.5 million over 5 years from the regional museums fund towards this redevelopment. That fund was set up to recognise the importance of Te Papa as New Zealand’s national museum and the vital national and internationally significant collections that are held around the country. Auckland and Canterbury museums have both had major contributions promised to them as have museums like Puke Ariki in New Plymouth Aratoi in Masterton and the Eastern Southland Gallery in Gore. The contribution towards the Auckland War Memorial Museum is the biggest and the total cost of that project will be double that $26.5 million raised by the museum board and the people of Auckland. The expansion project is scheduled if this legislation passes to commence on 1 October this year. 
As a Government we are making this contribution to the Auckland War Memorial Museum because we believe that this investment is required given the huge national and international significance of the museum’s collection and its programmes. The museum’s collection and in particular its Maori and Pacific collections are second to none in the world. They are part of New Zealand’s heritage and need to be conserved and protected for all new Zealanders to enjoy. The redevelopment project will enable the museum to house that collection much better to display it much better and to make it available to visitors to the museum as well as to scholars. 
Once completed the redeveloped Auckland War Memorial Museum will not only have world-class collections but it will have world-class facilities. It will be a tremendous asset to the people of Auckland and for New Zealand as a whole as well as engaging all those visitors. The passage of this bill is the final step to enable this project to proceed. 
Again I thank the Business Committee of the House for agreeing that this bill should go through all its stages today. I thank the Government Administration Committee all parties in the House that have agreed to facilitate the passage of this bill the Auckland Museum Trust Board and everybody who has been involved in the museum redevelopment and this bill. The Auckland War Memorial Museum is a key component in our country’s cultural framework and this bill will enable it to carry out its role for future generations. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 The National Party is very pleased to support this bill sponsored by the Auckland Museum Trust Board. We have also agreed to support the express passage of this bill to enable the redevelopment work to start. I must say I was somewhat surprised at that rather quick reading and flat tone used by the member for Auckland Central who is also the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. I thought she would feel a lot more excitement to see an icon in Auckland get a very much-needed redevelopment and facelift after 70 years. 
The Government Administration Committee had the opportunity to hold its hearing at the Auckland War Memorial Museum. I think all the members who were there would agree with me that it was a very worthwhile exercise. The redevelopment project will cost $49.5 million and will make improvements on two fronts. First of all personally I was very impressed and moved by the staff at the museum who have to work in such outdated outmoded and very cramped working spaces particularly in the workshops and so on. It was almost sad to see people having to put up with working in such cramped spaces for so long. For the sake of the staff I am really pleased that they will have improved workshops where they do such innovative work in preserving one of the most prestigious collections of Maori artefacts etc. We had a conducted tour and saw that some workshops are actually in the courtyard of the existing Auckland War Memorial Museum. For the first time I had the opportunity to contrast the experience of a visitor to the museum which is a magnificent site and then be taken to the back room and see the types of conditions that the staff have had to put up with for so long. I am sure they will be pleased to see that their working environment will be hugely improved. 
 The other redevelopment phase concentrated on the new seven-level atrium where the museum will be able to showcase musical sessions and hold seminars so the public can appreciate even more the collections of the museum and the exchange of ideas relating to collections and other valuables kept in the museum. The trust board and executive enabled us to see a very impressive demonstration of the utilisation of modern technology and also the New Zealand culture which will be showcased separately in public areas in educational sites and in unique types of display. When the work is finished I think the public will be very impressed with that Auckland icon. 
I think most people will agree with me that car-parking has always been a problem whenever special events have been held at the Auckland War Memorial Museum. Now we will have a covered car-park which is another major improvement. People will be sheltered which is really important for a site that exists in open space. I am sure that improvement will increase the patronage of the museum which Aucklanders take such immense pride in. 
We learnt something quite interesting during the select committee hearing. We were told that the legal description of the museum site is slightly different from the original legislation of 1918. So we need this bill to correct that matter and also to address the concern of some people that the museum is located on top of a volcano and whether activities need to be restricted. So this bill includes clauses to ensure that activities on the Auckland War Memorial Museum site will not be curtailed because of that concern. 
The National Party is very very pleased to support this bill and wants to see the redevelopment work proceed quickly. On a personal note I want to make two further points. The first is that in recent years as someone who now lives in central Auckland I have had the privilege of attending Anzac Day memorial services in the Auckland War Memorial Museum. The dawn service and the open day at the museum later on have always made it a very special day. That particular site and the collection in the museum make the Anzac service a particularly moving experience for those who attend. The war memorial museum setting is very befitting and it is pleasing to see the increasing number of people attending the dawn service particularly the young people of New Zealand. I am sure that is a sign of us wanting to celebrate our shared history and shared losses and the spirit of unity as a nation in remembering the people who have paid a high price so there can be peace in the world. 
Secondly there is a certain sense of sadness for me. When I visited the Auckland War Memorial Museum at the beginning of the year to look at the redevelopment plan I raised the point that nowadays in Auckland one in five people are of Asian ethnic origin. The discussion was quite positive at the beginning of maybe having a corridor or space in the museum for a dedicated Asian display area. However I was saddened to learn that the museum board eventually turned down that idea. I hope that in the not too distant future the decision can be revisited because Auckland and New Zealand are becoming increasingly multicultural. The museum is where people see our history and our past being celebrated and displayed. I would like communities from all backgrounds to have a special place in the museum—our place—to celebrate their culture. I hope to work with the Auckland Museum Trust Board in the future to redress that issue. Certainly there is a special place for our Maori history for the Pacific Island community and for European history and it is a very proud part of our history. I want to see other communities also being allocated some special place in the museum. But despite that it is a very special place—it is our place. Today we are very happy to support the reporting back of this bill. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I speak to the report back of this bill. As Pansy Wong has said this bill was unanimously and enthusiastically supported by the Government Administration Committee and I thank all members involved. When I say “enthusiastic” I mean that it was really good for us to meet at the museum to look at the plans and to be excited about them. I just wish that more members of the House could see those plans. If members want I have the DVD that shows how the whole atrium area—the seven storeys—will be developed which will expand the display areas the education areas the café areas and the theatre areas. Members from Auckland will be absolutely able to boast about this new facility that will be built. 
As someone who comes from south of the Bombay Hills I have looked upon the Auckland War Memorial Museum as an icon of New Zealand not just of Auckland but I have always thought when there that it is a bit shabby around the back. As Pansy Wong has mentioned the yard is a yard which as was explained to us is the size of nine tennis courts. It is that yard that will be turned into the grand atrium which will come up in the middle of the circular part of the museum. An exciting development is planned and as part of the Government I am pleased we are contributing to that new development. 
During the select committee process we had to look at things that perhaps were a little bit boring: is the land appropriate and has the land been measured appropriately? We found that there had been a little miscalculation of some of the figures about that land and we have cleared that issue up. As Pansy Wong has already mentioned an underground car-park is planned and we had to ensure that facilities were there for that. There is the matter of roadway access and that had to be clarified in terms of the description of the land. Then as Pansy Wong has also mentioned we had to make sure that everything was tightly and legally secure in terms of whether the museum was being built on a volcano and whether it fitted in with other legislation in that regard. So I thank the advisers to the committee who were also very careful to make sure that we got it right this time—that we had all the measurements right that the description of the land was right and that the development could go ahead. 
As Pansy Wong has mentioned the committee was quite shocked at some of the standards of the work facilities already there. The people who are doing tremendous restoration work on some of the exhibits and so on have very cramped workshops. The facilities for the library and so on were very very cramped. We were assured that not only will the new design be beautiful but it will also be utilitarian. It will allow for a development that will I am sure not only increase the pride of New Zealanders in that war memorial but also increase the number of tourists who will go through it as well as increase its educational facilities for young people. 
All in all it was a pleasure to work on this bill. I thank the committee and all those involved with the bill—Pansy Wong Judith Collins Steve Chadwick and David Cunliffe—for the work they put in. I also particularly thank the officials and the Auckland Museum Trust Board for hosting us so ably and for conveying to us their enthusiasm for the project. I am sure with such people behind it and with the Minister behind it with such enthusiasm it can only be a success. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 As we know the Auckland War Memorial Museum stands on a commanding site and has stood there for 70 years. It is a very worthy memorial to those who died in the service of our country. It is therefore fitting that at this stage some 40 or so years after the last work was done this bill comes to the House. On behalf of New Zealand First I am very pleased to offer our support for the expeditious passage of the bill. 
In so doing I recognise that we are correcting errors of the past. We have recently had retrospective legislation in the House and this is one such piece of legislation as well. It is perhaps an oversight but we all agree with it. This House recently considered an Act retrospectively and this is another such bill that when passed will correct the mistakes in a lease lasting over 70 years. 
The Auckland War Memorial Museum has always been an educational place. It is quite fitting therefore to pay tribute to the past directors and staff. From the time that I had a brief teaching acquaintance with the museum right through to the present time there has always been a lack of space. Staff were always in the back rooms trying to put collections together. But for those of us involved in education the final effort—the actual work seen by the students who went through the museum and the collection boxes that were sent out—were first rate and gave many country children their first insight into the work of a museum. 
One of the things I found very hard to understand in the past was the lack of Government support for the Auckland War Memorial Museum. It makes quite a contrast to the taxpayer gift to the city of Wellington on the waterfront which incurred huge costs. Therefore it is quite fitting the Government has recognised that in the dollar for dollar funding contribution that has been set up. 
The fact that the museum had an educational impact is important because those of us in rural districts—and I mentioned this in the earlier debate—saw the Auckland War Memorial Museum as part of the former Auckland province. That is recognised in the names of those up there on the higher floor and of those who have passed on. It is recognised in some ways by some of the former county councils and borough councils that made financial contributions pre-war and up until after the war. But I said to the director when I met him recently that in recent years that overall response from the Auckland region which goes from Taupo north has not always been seen in the understanding that people in Auckland have of their museum. 
It was an Auckland provincial museum and that is particularly important for Maori who gave willingly to the collection that was put together in terms of their objectives. So it is probably quite pertinent to look very quickly at the role of the Auckland War Memorial Museum—namely the recording and presentation of the history and the environment of the Auckland region of New Zealand the South Pacific and in more general terms the rest of the world. In particular the collections for Maori and the South Pacific are first rate world class and unlike collections in any other museum in the world. In that way the museum is a world first and a world best as well. 
I turn now to heritage issues. Educational work in recent times has concentrated upon the heritage aspects of the museum being represented in a modern way and in a modern dress. The promotion of scientific and cultural scholarships is one of the issues for a museum in order to portray the past in a vital way and show that the technology of the past was important to people’s lives—to people living day by day 20 30 50 or 100 years ago. That is the sort of historical promotion that museums can do very very well. 
Hopefully museums can also promote themselves with prudent financial management but that has not always been one of the issues for them. If we look worldwide the prudent management of international museums of note in New York Boston London and so on is quite an issue at the present time. It is very difficult to maintain the overall services that a museum wishes to provide not only for those who are near but for those who are far and come to visit and to do that in a way that is efficient in a funding and financial sense. 
It is difficult most of all to give to the wider community something of our past in a way that I have to say as a teacher many of our young people just do not understand. They do not understand—as we did in our day because we had a limited range of resources—just how important historical records are and how important the visible record is in the museum. That record is one thing the Auckland Museum has always had. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I am very pleased to endorse the support that other parties have passed on. As I said earlier the prime role of this museum was to be a war memorial and that is still the hallmark of the place. Pansy Wong mentioned the Anzac Day services. Our family in our time in Auckland were there each year. The Maori Battalion made the annual Anzac parade one of its features of the year particularly for Maori. Unfortunately as my friend Bill Gudgeon knows those service people have passed on. Again we give our support for the bill and our support for its quick passage through the evening’s debate. May the board prosper in its endeavours. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It was my pleasure to be a member of the Government Administration Committee for this bill. I have to state that I love the Auckland War Memorial Museum. It is what a museum should be. It looks like a museum; it acts like a museum; it is a museum. It is also a war memorial and that is so important today 3 September which from my calculation is the 64th anniversary of the declaration of World War II when New Zealand was the first country as I understand it to declare war. It is very important. It is also one day off being the anniversary of the death of my father who was a veteran of World War II so I am particularly pleased to be able to speak in support of this bill. 
I fully support the war memorial museum. I take my son there frequently and I love to go there. When the select committee went there to have a meeting and to have a look at the plans and the site I was thrilled to find out that after all my years of going to the war memorial museum and even as a little girl being brought up from the Waikato— 
Rodney Hide 
: Still a little girl. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I say “thank you” to Mr Hide. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I was advising the House before the dinner break that when I was a little girl from the Waikato I was brought by my father and mother in the back of a car with no seat belts—we did not have them in those days; I am that old—to Auckland occasionally to visit the extended family and we would go to the Auckland War Memorial Museum. We would go to the floor where the war memorial is with the names of the soldiers—including my great-uncle Norman Fraei—from the Auckland province who died in World War I. In those days the Auckland province extended all the way down the top half of the North Island. After paying homage looking around the museum and looking again at the magnificent waka and the many treasures and taonga in the museum we would then trot off to the Auckland Zoo. I have to say it is still a wonderful zoo and is supremely better than it used to be in my days as a child. It is another of those Auckland icons that I have to say is a world leader. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I think so too. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I thank the Minister Judith Tizard very much for her support. When the Government Administration Committee went to visit the Auckland War Memorial Museum I was amazed to find a public library there. I thought I knew a lot about that museum and I thought that I had been everywhere in it. However I did not realise that the museum has a public library open to people to go and have a look at some of the magnificent books kept there. It is a huge research facility that I did not know about. So after all those years of going to the museum and feeling that it was utterly part of my New Zealand culture—part of who I am as a New Zealander and part of where my family has been and are—I felt that I had learnt something stunningly new. One thing I shall do during the next adjournment is go and have another good look in that library. 
A lot of people have said to me they are concerned about the extension to the museum. Everybody who goes to that museum looks at the site and the building and says that they hope no one will add any little bits on its side. But this will be the second major redevelopment of the museum. The first was back in 1960 when the back part of the museum—the round part which makes it a bit like half a cake tin at the back—was added on by an architect called Mr Draffin. He was involved in all sorts of buildings at the time such as the Bledisloe building in Wellesley Street and some that were not quite as well known as the War Memorial Museum. As someone who is interested in buildings I was interested to find that he was the architect of that extension. That is why the back part of the museum is much plainer in many ways than the front part. The front part was built in the 1920s specifically for what it is—a war memorial—but the back part had really more to do with the housing of the staff and collections in the museum and that is why it has different things on it. It is also the part of the museum that holds of course the war memorial for World War II veterans which is at the southern side of the museum. As has been explained by my colleague Pansy Wong that part houses a lot of the collections not on public display. 
The War Memorial Museum holds not only many Maori taonga but also a tremendous amount of Pacific treasures. Having been many times to Samoa the birthplace of my husband and also a part of my family I know that there are just not the facilities in the Pacific Islands to hold the sorts of treasures held by the museum on behalf of the Pasifika people. That is one of the other main attributes of that particular museum. All New Zealanders can be proud of this museum and certainly Aucklanders can be in particular. 
I will discuss again the extensions to the museum. People worry about them. They do not want extensions to be coming out the side with anything glitzy or dare I say Auckland-like. As an Aucklander of course I can say that. What will be built there will be inside the inner part of the extension from the 1960s in the vacant area with just a couple of ramshackle buildings including a smoking room for the staff. That will have to go if the Government gets its way! That area is the size of about seven tennis courts and is unused apart from those ramshackle buildings. The only other thing of note is that the area holds a piece of One Tree Hill’s pine which was cut down by the activist Mike Smith. That is really all it holds. One great thing is that the very extensive extensions to be made will not impede or in any way compromise the look of the museum and that is so important. After all it is a war memorial and a sacred part of New Zealand. 
What is also great about the extensions is that the underground car-park will be just that—underground. It will be at the back of the museum in the southern part— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Unusual for an underground park to be underground. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Benson-Pope might think that is terribly funny but it is a culturally sacred site and he should have a little bit of common sense and sensitivity to those of us who feel we have a cultural New Zealand even if he does not. Unfortunately he is a bad product of a very bad education system— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: In particular that car-park has been designed so that it is not visually offensive to the grass area at all. We found that the part underneath the ground is part of the reservoir so that means there is an ability at some stage to extend out. It is just marvellous that that is being done in such a way that the integrity of the property and of that cultural icon—that absolute monument to those people who gave their lives so that people could come to this House and have democracy despite some of the behaviour that occurs occasionally—will be— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Running round telling porkies. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It will be kept and that is absolutely amazing. 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think it is all right for a member of this House to accuse another member of dishonesty. David Benson-Pope just accused me of telling porkies to the electorate. 
David Benson-Pope 
: No I did not. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member says that he did not. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The work that has been done by the trust board of the museum is just wonderful. The people we met during the committee hearing were absolutely great and I congratulate them very much. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to support the second reading of the bill. The bill allows the Auckland War Memorial Museum to lease the land in the domain as well as including the planned extension to build a new underground car-park. It also ensures that the lease granted to the Auckland Museum Trust Board by the Auckland City Council in 1920 extends to the land included in the schedule and will be treated as if this had always been the case. 
I would like to take this opportunity to speak about how these plans will be affected by the work of the Government Administration Committee in scrutinising this bill. I certainly put on record my gratitude to the members of that committee for doing such a thorough job on the bill. I am an Auckland-based MP so I have a really keen interest in how the bill proceeds. 
The purpose of this bill is to validate the lease of land in the Auckland Domain to the Auckland Museum Trust Board for the Auckland War Memorial Museum and to increase the land area subject to that lease so that redevelopment plans for the museum can proceed. In doing so the bill repeals the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act of 1918. A sensible recommendation was made by the committee to clarify that the lease includes both the existing area and the proposed leased area. The difficulty with the bill as it stood was that it was unclear whether the description referred to the existing leased area the proposed leased area or both. I think the Surveyor-General pointed out this potential confusion and advised that it was more accurate to describe the original area as the lease by referring to the plan that defined it rather than to the latest plan outlined in the schedule of the bill because this shows the original area only as an abuttal. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to ensure that it referred to both the existing and the proposed leased area and this seems to me to be an eminently sensible suggestion. 
It should be noted that this bill also has a retrospective effect because it corrects anomalies between the existing location of the museum building and the legal description of the site leased to the board back in 1918 through the 1918 Act. In general I am not in favour of making retrospective law on principle. But in this case I can see that this would serve to correct an error and that act would not conceivably cause harm to anyone. Thus the bill validates the lease granted in 1920 by the Auckland City Council to the enactment of this bill. 
I think it is right for the Auckland Museum Trust Board to seek a new bill to tidy this up once and for all rather than deciding as was an option to amend or repeal the 1918 Act. That also shows in the council’s support for the bill during the submission process as it also supports the redevelopment of the museum. The land described in the schedule of the bill is also deemed to have been always covered by that lease. 
I was fascinated to learn that the discrepancy between the leased area in the 1918 Act and the actual location of the museum building was discovered only when the proposed car-park which will be a part of the redevelopment was surveyed. I guess that is what progress is all about—we find out little things like this. Given that the museum has been there for 70 years I see no reason that now when redevelopment is about to begin this legislation should not have retrospective effect. 
The other thing to remember is that the council already considers that the total lease area in the bill is largely within the area set out by the district plan for “museum purposes” within of course the Auckland Domain. It should be pointed out that any development in the Auckland Domain is also subject to extensive controls according to the district plan. The council has already issued a resource consent for the redevelopment and it should be noted that this has been supported by the Historic Places Trust. The council has also made it very clear that any development in the Auckland Domain will always be subject to wide public and expert scrutiny. This also applies to a rather curious element that applies most specifically to development in the Auckland area. 
Because the museum is situated on a volcanic cone it is included under a very old Act namely section 5 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act of 1915 which restricts quarrying excavations terraces or cutting on the side or slope of volcanic cones or hills bounded by or abutting a public reserve. Because the museum site for the proposed car-park sits on top of the volcanic cone not on its side or on a slope then the 1915 Act on the face of it in any case does not apply to this very case. Indeed the 1915 Act was not an issue when the museum was extended on two occasions both in 1929 and 1960. Even so I think it was wise for the committee to have put this issue beyond any doubt and to have recommended an amendment that would exempt the lease from the requirement of the 1915 Act. 
Because the proposed lease area has been expanded from the original it does include existing and proposed roadways immediately adjacent to the museum buildings. I have found out that all roadways in the Auckland Domain fall under the provisions of the Auckland Domain Act which effectively means that all roadways within the domain remain in the ownership of the council with consequent responsibility for their upkeep and maintenance. I commend the select committee’s decision to amend this bill to make absolutely sure that all the roadways on the proposed lease area are subject to the Auckland Domain Act and therefore remain under the council’s responsibility. I note also that this has already been agreed to between the council and the board. Similarly the move to strike out reference to the 1918 Act—the very Act that will be repealed by this bill—means that a consequential amendment will be required to the Auckland Domain Act. This will exchange reference to the 1918 Act with reference to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Act of 2003 particularly for the purposes of determining responsibility for the care and upkeep of the domain roadways. Once again I believe that this was a sensible recommendation by the select committee. 
I think at this point it is timely to remind members of what the statutory role of the Auckland War Memorial Museum is as defined by the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act of 1996 because we have to look at what this bill attempts in that context. The board is entrusted with the recording and presentation of the history and environment of the Auckland region New Zealand the South Pacific and in more general terms the rest of the world. It has responsibility for the institution itself involving conservation of the heritage of the museum and of global resources. Something that should definitely not be forgotten is the role of the museum as a war memorial which is something that I would like to talk about during the later stages of this bill. 
The museum celebrates the rich cultural diversity of the Auckland region and its peoples. It provides education that involves and entertains people to enrich their lives. It promotes the well-being of society and advances and promotes cultural and scientific scholarship and research. And not to be forgotten the museum is now committed to greater financial self-sufficiency through the prudent operation of compatible revenue-producing and fundraising activities that supplement public funding. The goal is to provide maximum community benefit from the resources available and that should be the watchword for the museum as it prepares to embark on a major redevelopment at a very significant cost. This bill facilitates that process and I hope that the goals I have mentioned remain uppermost in the mind of the board as it proceeds with its plans. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure on behalf of New Zealand First to join other members in supporting the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. I have had the pleasure and the privilege of living in Auckland for 43 years. One of the major sites in Auckland—a site that makes one feel one is an Aucklander—is the domain and the museum located on it. 
I believe that we now have a wonderful array of attractions in the Auckland area so much so that I think many Aucklanders should perhaps consider in their summer holidays taking a visit to Auckland for a change as I did one year. One of the first places they should go to is the Auckland War Memorial Museum. 
 Too often people dash up north to Paihia or to Russell those who can afford it go down to Pauanui and others go to Hawaii or to Surfers but I think consideration should be given by Aucklanders to visiting Auckland. They should consider visiting the museum taking a trip across the harbour to Rangitoto walking up the volcanic cone and enjoying the view of the Waitemata Harbour and the Hauraki Gulf from the top of Rangitoto. It is quite an amazing sight to see the Hauraki Gulf from that viewpoint. There is also the Museum of Transport and Technology. 
There is another development on land. When we go down Meola Road—and those of us who lived in the Grey Lynn and Point Chevalier areas as I did in 1960 and thereabouts remember Meola Road as a tip site—we see how wonderfully that has been developed in recent years. Again there is the Second World War influence especially on Meola Road when we take the shortcut to go from the North Shore to visit people who live in the Point Chevalier and Mount Albert areas. Then of course the other thing people should do when they visit Auckland as an Aucklander is walk the harbour bridge. That is a wonderful walk as well. There is quite a nice package there for Aucklanders to have a look around Auckland itself starting as I said with the Auckland War Memorial Museum. 
I take Dianne Yates’ point. It is very exciting to think that this museum is embarking on a $46.5 million redevelopment in October 2003. It is such a wonderful museum already. I take Pansy Wong’s point about the history of New Zealand and there not being enough of an Asian theme to it. On reflection I cannot recall anything in the museum about say the gold-mining days and the influence that the Chinese people had on the Otago gold mines at the time. 
Judith Collins 
: It was Otago? 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes it was Otago but it was a New Zealand concept. If we look at the main legislation the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act of 1996 which created the museum we see that section 11(a) states that the objectives include the recording and presentation of the history and environment of the Auckland region New Zealand the South Pacific etc. 
Another aspect is the Middle Eastern viewpoint. Many people do not seem to realise the remarkable contribution that Lebanese people made to New Zealand in the middle of the 19th century. Dunedin used to be very wealthy and it was the Lebanese who made a significant contribution. There are still Lebanese families around the area. Perhaps their contribution is not as great as it used to be but they are in the background still. One thinks of perhaps the Corban family as in a more obvious way coming from Lebanon but that was in about 1901. But in the early days in the Otago area and such like the Lebanese made a significant contribution to New Zealand. So there is that thought as well—that the new museum could have an area set aside for the contributions made by people who have been virtually forgotten over time. We have taken where we are for granted. I recommend to the trustees that this development should take those early developments into account. 
I have been in New Zealand for 43 years. I came to Auckland in 1960. My first visit to the Auckland War Memorial Museum was in the 1960s. It was quite an eye-opener to see all the canoes and the various things from the Polynesian area and from Micronesia as well. I remember when I did History 1 in 1961 at Auckland University. I was asked to do an essay on the Maori Wars. I got an F for that because I could not find any information on wars in New Zealand for a start—nothing that really amounted to a war. So that was hard. Then finding information on Maori wars which I thought would have been fought amongst Maori was also a failure. Keith Sinclair wanted me to write an essay based on his thesis which was on the Maori Wars. That was fine. University lecturers always ask their students questions that relate to a book they have written. So finding anything on the Maori Wars was impossible for me at that stage. I ended up with an F but I had the great advantage of going into a tutorial with Mr Stone who was given all the duffers to handle—the ones who were totally ignorant on the subject. Professor Stone as he now is has written the book on Auckland. I always feel that I was quite lucky to take the view that I did and of course it seems that I am right now. People say that the Maori Wars were actually in the 1820s and 1830s and what we had in the 1850s and 1860s were the Land Wars. So I might get a better mark for that essay today on the New Zealand wars just to show how history can work. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Barnett can disagree with me but I suspect that I know a lot more about New Zealand history than that even more recent immigrant would know about New Zealand. 
The Auckland War Memorial Museum was very helpful to someone like myself in the 1960s. I think there might be quite a few people who did what I did. When a man first meets a young woman he fancies he thinks of what he is going to do and how he is going to pass the time away. Of course that excludes some people all together. My then fiancée and I spent some pleasant times at the museum because I lived in Birdwood Crescent just around the corner. One did live in Parnell if one was a university student in those days and the Auckland War Memorial Museum was in the middle of our respective addresses. So I walked past the Auckland War Memorial Museum at about 4 and 5 o’clock in the morning quite frequently. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes quite frequently. It was very safe to do that in those days. People cannot do that today—not with this Government. However that is another matter. 
The Auckland War Memorial Museum has played quite a significant part in my life. Members may also remember the Parnell Lawn Tennis Club. Those who played lawn tennis and I emphasise the words “lawn tennis” might remember that it was just on the museum site as well. It is extraordinary when I look back on it how the museum could play a part in one’s life without one fully realising it. 
My colleague Judith Collins reminded me that today was the date of the beginning of the Second World War when New Zealand declared war on Hitler half an hour before anybody else. There is a lovely piece of  
Hansard 
 to read if members bother to read it. There was a short debate members sang “God Save the King” and in the space of half a page of  
Hansard 
 we had declared war on Hitler before Britain did. That was the way we used to do things in those days. 
One of the best sections of the Auckland War Memorial Museum from my point of view is the Palestine section. Not many people appreciate the role played by New Zealand in liberating Palestine from the Turks and the Germans. I refer especially to the role of the Australian Light Horse Brigade which was really infantry on horseback. They would ride their horses to a certain point and get off and do a lot of fighting. It was a funny way of doing it. The Australian Light Horse Brigade and the New Zealand soldiers with the British force under General Allenby liberated Palestine in 1917. That section of the museum is the only place where I have seen something on the liberation of Palestine—something I had read about in those jingoistic very youthful books as a young person. 
There are these odd sections of the museum that are to be commended to people. If people including Aucklanders take a holiday in Auckland over Christmas that is one of the places they should visit. I really look forward with excitement to the way in which this seven-storey building is to be erected and the things that are likely to be going into it. I also look forward to more opportunities in the future to display the areas of the museum that are not fully shown today. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 As an Auckland MP I am very happy to contribute to the second reading debate on this bill. It is a bill that is certainly overdue in relation to the money that needs to be put into significant improvements to the Auckland War Memorial Museum and I congratulate the Minister with Responsibility for Auckland Issues the Hon Judith Tizard on sponsoring it. 
It is interesting that we found through the select committee process that there are discrepancies and previous speakers have aptly pointed to the discrepancies that need to be validated by this new piece of legislation. It is quite amazing that we have found that some of the decisions made long ago are now quite out of kilter in relation to the lease arrangements for the land and needed to be validated also in relation to the 1918 Act. It has been determined that the museum site is on the cone of the volcano instead of the slope and therefore the bill makes it clear that the site should be exempted from section 5 of the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915. One only hopes that we do not have an eruption of that volcano in the short or long-term future. Obviously if that occurs some of the valuable artefacts the heritage and history that we have in the museum may be lost. 
I want to congratulate the Government Administration Committee on its work. The improvement that we hope to see developed next month in October is a significant one and it is most apt that this legislation is going through the House tonight. The sum of $46.5 million has been dedicated to the redevelopment of the site which will mean a 60 percent extension to the facility’s interior space plus a new underground car park which will improve the facility—certainly from the point of view of visitors. The Auckland War Memorial Museum is still one of the most visited attractions in Auckland. It is very important in terms of various aspects—not only in terms of what museums represent and what is stored in them from an educational and heritage point of view but also in terms of the Pacific region. 
As some of my colleagues have mentioned the museum houses artefacts from the South Pacific that are very important and valuable for the region. I take up and support the points that have been made by my colleague Judith Collins in relation to some of the Pacific treasures and taonga that are in the Auckland War Memorial Museum. They are valuable not just for Polynesia and its history but also for Melanesia and Micronesia as my colleagues have mentioned. I am sure that the Pacific leaders who came to the Pacific Islands Forum recently would have been quite surprised at the treasures from the Pacific that are in the Auckland museum if some of them had visited the museum during their short stay in New Zealand. 
I commend the work done by the select committee on the bill. It is a bill that has the cross-party support of all parties and all members of the House. I believe that it is a very good bill and I congratulate the Minister who is sponsoring the bill and those who have worked to improve the legislation. We have a worthy bill that will inject a significant amount of money into improving the Auckland War Memorial Museum which is not just a museum but is also a tribute and memorial to those who have fallen in battle and paid the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom that we enjoy today. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (NZ Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
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. 
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. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is with a sense of privilege that I looked to the Order Paper and found that this bill was listed on it. Without involving you in the comments that I seek to make Madam Chair I just say that in the context of your being a past Mayor of North Shore City you would also be aware of the debate that has raged about the appropriateness of the title for the Auckland Museum. There are those who have led a march to say that this should be called the “Auckland Museum Bill” and there are those who in my view have led a stronger march to say that it should be called the “Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill” which is the title I support. 
Looking across the Chamber and hearing the previous speaker I have been very heartened to see a politician seated beside him whom I hold in the highest regard who in the course of the speech made by his close friend saw it as his duty—and I think properly so—to read the newspaper. We have good speeches bad speeches and hopeless speeches in this Chamber and in the comments made by the previous speaker I think we have been hugely privileged to hear one of those speeches that did not really hit any of those thresholds—even the lowest one. The Hon Judith Tizard has laboured long and hard to see this bill passed through the House tonight and as a committed Aucklander I have worked determinedly with her; thus I speak in support of this bill. 
I am not for a moment put off by the comments of the MP for Dunedin North or Dunedin South—whichever it is. He is a newly arrived player in politics who in my view is yet to prove either his mettle or his worth and he is wise to remain silent as he generally does because the contributions he makes to this Parliament are unhelpful unwise and in many cases lacking in merit. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to stick to the title. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: In dealing with the title—and I am very conscious of the fact that this is a very confined debate and I plan to speak in that light—I would like to pick up some of the themes raised by the previous speaker on the history of the founding and building of the museum. I will start by saying that the Auckland War Memorial Museum is situated on the hill known by Maori as Pukekawa. I am tempted to offer the balance of my comments on the bill in Maori but I will not do that—even though I see that the interpreter is here—because I think that those who are listening will get a better flavour of the sorts of issues I am talking about if I do so in the English language which is what I plan to do. 
It was as far back as 1852 that Auckland’s first museum opened in a two-room farm cottage in Grafton Road—and what a long time ago that was. There was one room for the collection and one room for the custodian’s accommodation. We then saw a significant change when the museum moved first into the provincial council building in 1867 and then again in 1870 to the old post office building in Princess Street. There were a series of strategic moves that positioned the museum for the pre-eminent role that it now plays in Auckland City. The museum moved into its first custom-built premises in Princess Street in 1876. 
I am conscious of the comments of the previous speaker; I am not going to repeat them but I will say that war memorials are very important to New Zealanders. Almost a third of the men who were killed in World War I have no known graves and the remainder are mostly buried on the other side of the world. If we look around this debating chamber we see a very fitting memorial to them on two levels. On the upper Chamber surround the particular theatres of war in which people served are depicted within emblazoned circles. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 Part 1 consists of the commencement date the purposes of the Act and interpretation. An interesting point was raised by the Hon Ken Shirley when he said there is a convention in Parliament not to read a speech and I just remembered that that is what the Hon Judith Tizard does every time she makes a speech. This bill will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. I reinforce the fact that the National Party is very pleased to facilitate the express passage of this fine legislation. We have agreed to cooperate so that the report back the Committee stage and the third reading of this bill can be fast tracked through Parliament. It is important to achieve that to enable the museum board to commence work on this exciting redevelopment project for this Auckland icon. 
Clause 3(a) states that the purpose of this bill is to “repeal the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act 1918;”. It is interesting to note that we retained the word “empowering” which was part of the 1918 Act. Like my colleague Judith Collins I am pleased to see that the words “war memorial” are added to this current bill because as I mentioned at the reporting back stage the Anzac Day dawn service and afternoon parade were very moving indeed. 
Jill Pettis 
: Let’s get moving. 
PANSY WONG 
: Why does Ms Jill Pettis not just stand up and take a call and say whatever is on her mind? I wonder why Labour members are not proud of this bill. On this side of the Chamber we are just so proud of the bill that we cannot contain ourselves from sharing with the public. The Labour Party just keeps wanting to shut down the debate. It is amazing how small-minded some members are. Anyway the other purpose of this bill is to empower the leasing of the land in the Auckland Domain to the board which of course is— 
Jill Pettis 
: Every day you delay it’s $300 extra in building costs. 
PANSY WONG 
: Oh I see. Is it $300? 
Jill Pettis 
: Over and above. 
PANSY WONG 
: It is $300 over and above the building costs. Is this member continuing to try to downplay the icon of Auckland City—our Auckland Museum? What is—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh I want the public to share in and see what the Labour Party has stooped to—even to bringing my family and my deceased father into this debate! I ask how low Parliament has sunk to. If there is a convention in Parliament I would expect Madam Chair to take it up with members so that our families are not brought into the debate. It happens to be a very serious issue and it is very personal to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member should withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Jill Pettis 
: I will withdraw and apologise of course. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. She has not done that. 
Jill Pettis 
: I most certainly will. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise just to clarify matters. 
Jill Pettis 
: I did most certainly—without hesitation. I withdraw and apologise. 
Opposition Members  
: She has not said it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No no. She did. 
PANSY WONG 
: Madam Chair I will take your word that the member has apologised and withdrawn her statement. Let me reiterate that despite those interjections members on this side of the Chamber are still very proud of being able to assist the passage of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. But I also believe that the public want to know—apart from the title—what the purpose is of this bill. We mention first of all that it repeals a 1918 Act and also empowers the leasing of land. 
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. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I am not resident in Auckland I have a few comments to make on this bill. It is not my intention to take the full 5 minutes. I am aware of the fact that the Committee wants to shift this matter along and that it is important to the construction programme and various time-frames that have no doubt been laid down. I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague Judith Collins about the significance of the site as a memorial. Many of us will know that Anzac Day is one of the very few days in New Zealand when politicians put aside their partisan views on matters of policy and gather at various sites throughout New Zealand to pay their respects to those who went before us and died to give us the right to stand in this Parliament and make comments and policy and to speak freely about issues that concern us. I think we are in danger if we do not treat this bill with a bit of the respect it deserves on that point of making the whole process into one that perhaps does not accord sufficient significance to the site and to what it represents. 
I have a couple of comments following on from my colleague Dail Jones who made some interesting remarks concerning the area to be leased. I notice in Part 1 that one of the purposes of the bill—I am referring to clause 3(c)—is to set out the correct legal description. I always think that that is a bit of a plus. I always think it is helpful if the correct legal description is included in bills such as this. I found that the Government Administration Committee’s commentary on the issue of description of land subject to lease—and I will be interested in the comments that my colleague Judith Collins may make on this issue as she was on the committee—seems to be going slightly around in a circle in the sense that what we have to say is that there is an area of land that was occupied; there is an area of land that we want to be included in the lease; this legislation is a pretty blunt instrument to take care of that discrepancy. Really that is probably all the commentary needed to say—or words to that effect—once as my colleague Dail Jones points out those areas had been defined clearly and quickly. 
 I have to pass one further comment and that is on the retrospective effect of this bill. Whilst I understand the significance of the retrospectivity in this case it is becoming an unhappy habit of this Government to legislate in a way that is retrospective. I have to say that I am not altogether in favour of that. The committee rightly points out in the commentary in a very blunt way that the bill will have a retrospective effect. I am not that keen on legislation that is backward looking. I understand the reason for it in this case in the sense that as it states in the commentary the discrepancy between the lease area and the 1918 Act and the actual location of the museum building may have remained undetected but for a survey done latterly. In fact it became apparent when that survey was done that the museum occupies a site that differs from that one that was defined in 1918. There are other instruments available to deal with these types of discrepancies. Judith Collins and Richard Worth will know of these avenues far better than I. They practised law for a lot longer than I did. But to legislate for this type of thing although entirely appropriate in this case is not something that as a Parliament we want to encourage. 
Legislation of this sort is an extremely blunt instrument and it is an instrument that should be used sparingly. This is one of the few times that I would stand in this Chamber and be happy to support such a blunt use of statute on such an important issue as that that relates to a site that many of us consider to be extremely important to remembering those who have gone before us and those in particular who have allowed us to be in this Parliament making statements of the nature that we have heard over the course of the last 20 to 30 minutes. I encourage Mr Bernie Ogilvy to take another call on Part 1 or Part 2 only because I would like to hear him do it without the notes from the website. I would like him to give us a bit of view as to what he believes are the rights and wrongs of this bill and why his party United Future supports it. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Power to lease land in Domain 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I was refreshing my memory by rereading the bill just a moment ago. I am slightly concerned that we might have made an error and even more so that I might have made an error when we were looking at this bill at the select committee. Given the fact that I am a very passionate supporter of the recognition of the museum site as a war memorial I was slightly concerned to read in clause 5(2) that the land described in the schedule must be used exclusively as a site for the museum. But nowhere in that part does it state that it must be used as a site for the museum and the war memorial. The museum is in fact a war memorial and in front of the museum is the cenotaph. I was particularly concerned to check to make sure that our select committee had not made an error because if we had this would be the time to get it fixed. I know that all parties in the Committee wish the museum trust board well and want it to be able to get its work started and completed in a timely fashion. 
I had the assistance of my colleague Mr Dail Jones who happened to have a copy of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996. It is an Act that was popped through when National was last in Government. In particular I note that the museum trust board people told me that they particularly liked that Act because it worked. I had a look through it and I am now satisfied that the war memorial part is so much an integral part of the Act that it will be fine and I should not be worrying so much about it. But I do take this very seriously and I find it very hurtful in the Committee tonight that some members in the Labour Party—and fortunately not all of them—have been very disrespectful over this bill. I would like to exclude from that comment Taito Phillip Field who has been extremely helpful and considerate. I send him greetings and say malo. I very much understand that he feels as I do that this bill and the site itself are incredibly important not only to Maori New Zealanders Pakeha New Zealanders Pasifika people but also to all people who wish to be called New Zealanders. It is a huge building with massive amounts of taonga and treasures and it is something that should not be taken lightly. I am concerned that some people feel that because some of us feel deeply about this and wish to speak on it in some way this has been frivolous. It is not. This is a very important bill for people like myself who believe deeply in the culture of New Zealand and in the need for us as New Zealanders to respect that. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 As I said during the debate on Part 1 I am concerned about the lease provisions in this legislation. Part 2 quite clearly refers to a power to lease land in the Auckland Domain. One wonders whether this is perhaps meant to be a public domain an example of a public domain is that owned by the Auckland City Council—so it is a domain that is public and owned by someone. All I can say is that anyone trying to use the word “domain” to signify non-ownership of something will have some problems. However this part talks about the power to lease the land in the Auckland Domain and refers to the Auckland Domain Act and the council—meaning the Auckland City Council—having the power to grant a lease to the board in respect of the area of land described in the schedule. It is pleasing to note that the annual rent is only $2 per year. One wonders why one has to go to the problem of having a lease for $2 per year when the actual— 
Richard Worth 
: It’s a peppercorn rent. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is a peppercorn rent—exactly. I am sure everyone in the Committee knows what a peppercorn rent is but I will leave that for Mr Worth when he takes a call. He knows a bit about peppercorn rents although I am sure that a peppercorn rent or charge is not something that would be familiar to his law firm. But I will leave that to Mr Worth to explain to the Committee. 
I ask the Minister what the timing of this is going to be. We note that this legislation will come into effect on the date it receives the royal assent. So what type of lease will this new lease be and what did the select committee do when it looked at this new lease to make sure that it complied with all the various legislation that exists around leases? One looks at say the Reserves Act which is a very important piece of legislation with regard to reserves. One would expect that the overall domain is well and truly regarded as a reserve of Auckland. When will the existing lease come to an end and be annulled? When will the new lease begin? Has the revocation of the old lease been prepared? Has the new lease been prepared and has it been signed? When will it be signed? 
 We would not want to have a situation where the old lease is cancelled and there is no lease taking its place and we have a vacuum and a period when there is no lease whatsoever. So I think the Minister should indicate that to us to let us know what physical mechanisms are taking place to make sure that the will of Parliament is properly carried out by those people who are given the authority to act in terms of this legislation. 
I note that clause 5(3) has been inserted by the Government Administration Committee and I think one has to be very critical of the way in which it has been drafted. It is always poor in my view to start off a clause with: “To avoid doubt” then say “(a) section 5 ... ” and “(b) section 5 ...”. It suggests that the legislation has been rushed through. New Zealand First is of course cooperating with this legislation going through this Chamber very quickly but whenever one says “To avoid doubt” one can be sure that a lawyer will look at it and say: “Now I think there’s a loophole here. We may have some means of overturning this legislation.” I am sure that would never happen in this case because no one would ever have the ill will to try to upset the Auckland War Memorial Museum which is such a wonderful building as I have already said and we are looking forward with such excitement to the development of $45.5 million of the site. I think the select committee could have perhaps worded that better. 
I wonder also what the provisions of section 5 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915 were to be because here we have an Act of Parliament repealing something that was passed in 1918 and which on the face of it might still have had something from a 1915 Act of Parliament applied to it—also we ask now to remove the effect of section 5 of the Auckland Domain Act 1987. I think the Minister owes the Committee an explanation as to what all that means so that we are much better informed as we pass this bill through the Chamber and as we discuss it with various people in the Auckland area—nit-picking lawyers for example—who might want some ideas about it. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to talk about Part 2. This is an unusual bill and it is very short. In fact Part 2 has only one clause which is clause 5. So I do want to talk about the power to lease the land in the domain. And in that context I want to identify four people who in my view have been responsible for the passage of this legislation. The first is the MP for Auckland Central the second is myself the third is Rodney Wilson who is the director of the museum and the fourth person whom I want to dwell on for a moment is a man called Bill Laxon. 
Bill Laxon is a lawyer in a major Auckland City law firm called Brookfields. Brookfields has a very proud history. It has gone through a number of name changes as have many of these conglomerate firms. It used to be called Reed Bailey Towle and Cooper. It became Towle and Cooper then Brandon Brookfields which became Brookfields. In that firm is a man called Bill Laxon. He is one of those people who has been synonymous with local government in Auckland. He has acted for a number of local authorities. He is probably known to you Madam Chairperson in the context of your local government experience. He has given huge service to a number of elements of the Auckland community and he has given huge service to aspects touching the maritime industry. But he has also I think been president of the Auckland Institute and the Auckland Museum Trust Board but I stand to be corrected on this by the Hon Judith Tizard. It was his role as lawyer for the museum to draft this particular legislation that has come before the Committee tonight. I think that in a rare gesture of consensus and unanimity we will see we hope this legislation pass through all stages tonight which would not normally be the case. I would say of Bill Laxon who is not well at the moment and in the context of all the contributions he has made to Auckland City and elements associated with the city that he might rightly feel that the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill is part of his intellectual property. 
It is in Part 2 that we see the power to lease land in the domain. As the previous speaker has commented there are some aspects of interest relating to the leasing terms not the least of which would be the lease rental at an annual rent of not more than $2 per year. It is quite unusual I think to find in statutes these days certainly reference to peppercorn rentals of that amount. There is obviously a statement there of a relationship between the Auckland City Council and the Auckland War Memorial Museum that has seen it as appropriate that a council in the context of its obligation to fund public facilities has decided that a commercial rent should not be set. Instead the rent should be no more than $2 a year. 
But there is another aspect of this short clause that I think is worthy of comment. It is tucked away in clause 5(3)(a). The drafter records: “To avoid doubt—(a) section 5 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1915 does not apply and is deemed never to have applied to the land described in the Schedule;”. This is the statutory quirk that for a number of years lay hidden from the view of many. It is a particular protective provision that touched the volcanic landscape of Auckland—the City of Volcanoes it is called. Section 5 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act is concerned with protecting those volcanic cones. For those of us who follow the writings of Bill Rudman in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this has been one of his issues and an issue that I think burdened the Prime Minister for a short period in any event in the context of what was going on in respect of a motorway that was to be constructed through her particular voting district. 
I would like to say in commending the bill to the Committee that clause 5 is a well-drafted clause. I would also like to offer as a testimony a statement in support of Bill Laxon and all he has done for the museum and all he has done in connection with this bill. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Validation and repeal 
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. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to clarify clause 6 “Validation of lease”. It states: “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 been that land described in the Schedule.” I wonder whether Judith Tizard could confirm—New Zealand First did not have a member on the select committee as I recall— 
Dianne Yates 
: That’s obvious. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is obvious; it is my job to clarify these things The lease that is referred to I presume is the old lease as shown in the interpretation clause: “lease means the lease granted by the Corporation to the Board dated 31 March 1920”. That is the lease being referred to rather than the new lease which is referred to in clause 5. I presume that clause 6 is there to correct any problems that may have arisen because the original lease did not cover the amount of land that as it transpired it should have covered. That is the point I wish to have clarified by the Minister. I cannot see any other purpose for the clause. 
I am sure that Mr Bill Laxon from Towle and Cooper whom I also know through my practice in Auckland would have made sure it was absolutely right and I am reassured to hear that he was involved in the drafting of the original bill. I congratulate him and thank him for his time and trouble in preparing the bill. It is greatly appreciated. It shows in many respects the work that lawyers do around the community in so many different ways not just for sports clubs golf clubs and places like that but also for places such as museums. 
Jill Pettis 
: Play it again Sam. 
DAIL JONES 
: The member for Whanganui is making me lose track of what I was going to say. It shows the remarkable amount of work that lawyers do generally around the place for so many different types of bodies. He is to be congratulated; I think the legal profession ought to be congratulated on its public spiritedness. 
I would just like to make sure that clause 6 is as I suspect talking about the lease mentioned in the interpretation clause. Part 2 seems to stand on its own and clause 5 talks about the absolutely new lease and what can be contained in it. There is obviously no need to validate the new lease because there is not anything to validate as yet. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Auckland Central) 
: 
 I rise just to answer the questions that members have asked. I thank members for their interest. 
Mr Jones asked about the mention of the foreshore in the 1924 Act. That was a local Act that covered various matters relating to rating in the Auckland area particularly local body works that empowered the Auckland City Council to contribute to the cost of a road along the foreshore of Auckland harbour and also empowered the city to subsidise the building of the museum and its maintenance. In fact the whole of that Act was repealed in 1928 and replaced by subsequent legislation. 
I assure the Committee that there are no claims of any sort over this land. In fact I think probably the area of Pukekawa and the museum which make up the Auckland Domain is probably the only uncontested area in Auckland. I am assured by the Government Administration Committee that it examined the lease carefully and the lease is indeed to be negotiated between the Auckland City Council and Auckland War Memorial Museum board. The committee is satisfied in all aspects and has reported accordingly. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the heading to Part 3 and substitute the following heading: 
Validation repeal and consequential amendment 
. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the schedule to the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. Members might be interested to note that the Government Administration Committee had to strike out the legal description in the schedule of the property being leased because it omitted approximately half the land covered by the museum. If it had remained it would have been slightly embarrassing for us given all the work that had been done. But it is an indication that the bill came into the House on 12 June 2003 had its first reading and referral to the Government Administration Committee on 25 June 2003 and here we are today 3 September 2003 about to finish it off; that mistake is what happens when things are rushed. 
My having said that it would have been most interesting if we had got rid of the old lease as my colleague Mr Jones has just said and had given the trust board a lease for the tar-sealed part outside the actual museum building which is currently used as a roadway and car-park but no lease for the building! It was one of those interesting little bits that lawyers find most amusing as Mr Jones has just indicated. It just goes to show that when we are drafting these things no matter how carefully they are done by the most skilled people with the most interest in them accidents do happen. 
 This was an accident that fortunately was found out before it was committed to an Act of Parliament which would have been hugely embarrassing not only for all the people involved the trust board and the Department of Internal Affairs but also for the select committee and this House. That is all I wish to say on that particular matter other than that accidents do happen and fortunately one did not happen in this case. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank the House for the expeditious way that it has dealt with this legislation and for recognising the enormous amount of work the Government Administration Committee did in a very short time. This bill will repeal the Auckland Institute and Museum Site Empowering Act 1918 and will replace it with new legislation allowing the leasing of land within the Auckland Domain for the purposes of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and for extensions to the museum. 
The Auckland War Memorial Museum is an exceptional place. It is a resource of enormous value and of enormous sentimental attachment by all Aucklanders and all New Zealanders. It has one of the biggest museum collections in New Zealand. It has spiritual historical cultural military architectural economic and educational significance for us all. 
The museum is about to undertake a significant redevelopment and extension project that will ensure its collections are conserved and protected for all New Zealanders to enjoy now and in the future. As the debate in the House has demonstrated the museum is widely supported and this has been further demonstrated by the very strong community backing for the redevelopment project with 80 percent of the nearly $53 million for the project already committed. The Government is committing $26.5 million over 5 years from the Regional Museums Fund toward the development of world-class facilities at the museum. When completed the museum will be a tremendous asset to New Zealand as well as to every Aucklander. The passage of this bill is the final step to enable that project to proceed. 
Again I thank the select committee for its prompt and thorough work on the bill which included a visit to the museum. I thank those who made submissions on the bill and the many people who have worked on the museum since 1918 when the idea of a museum on this site as a war memorial for all Aucklanders was first raised. In particular I mention Bruce Anderson who is at present the chair of the Auckland War Memorial board. There are many other board members too numerous to mention but we heard in the Committee stage particular mention of Mr Bill Laxon who is also as a consultant with Brookfields responsible for the drafting and presentation of the bill we are dealing with at present. But I particularly want to mention Barry Turley who was the chair before Bruce Anderson and who did an enormous amount of work on the development of the plans for the extension and other board members such as Lorraine Wilson Garry Law and many others who have contributed enormously over the many years that the Auckland War Memorial Museum has been a vital part of Auckland’s cultural and heritage landscape. 
I also want to express my thanks to the House. I acknowledge the work that Richard Worth has done as an Auckland MP and indeed before that as an adviser to the Auckland City Council on this matter when he was practising law in Auckland. But when I think of the Auckland War Memorial Museum I think of the contribution made by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt over many many years. He shares his passion for history and for the culture of Auckland with many people at the Auckland War Memorial Museum and his encouragement was a crucial part of the development of these plans. I also think of Sandra Lee my predecessor as MP for Auckland Central who took an active and enthusiastic interest in the legislation. And I think particularly of the Rt Hon Douglas Graham who as the MP for Remuera was the member for the area covered by this bill when he as the Minister of Cultural Affairs was able to persuade the last National Government to make a significant contribution towards stabilising the fabric of the building. 
So my congratulations go to the House the Government Administration Committee the Auckland War Memorial Museum trust board Dr Rodney Wilson who has been a source of inspiration and passion for this project all his staff and everybody involved in the museum redevelopment project. Their passion and commitment towards one of New Zealand’s most significant cultural icons is encouraging. Projects like this do bring us together as a nation. I look forward to the completion of this project which has been made possible because the Rt Hon Helen Clark as the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage agreed to it. It is expected to open to the public in late 2005. I believe that it will make New Zealand a better place. I commend this bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Following on from the comments of the Hon Judith Tizard I must say that it was a great experience to be part of the Government Administration Committee in relation to the bill. I take the opportunity to thank the chair of the committee Dianne Yates for the great job she did. I thank my colleague Pansy Wong who was as enthusiastic as myself in relation to this matter and David Cunliffe was also there. 
Some members might wonder why we are taking so long this evening to work through the bill. I note that the member for Whanganui Jill Pettis does not share the same passion for the bill and the work of the museum as those of us who have spoken this evening—I forgot to mention the passion that the Hon Judith Tizard clearly feels for this particular site. The reason we are not rushing this bill through tonight with a quick yes/no vote is that this is an important bill for an important site. Not only is this museum an icon but it is a war memorial. I have already said it but I will say it again: it is a war memorial and therefore it is extremely important that we give it its due. This is the anniversary of the start of World War II and as the museum is a war memorial to the fallen from the Auckland region in World War II it is even more important this evening that we pay our respects to those people—to those men and women who served our country so that we can enjoy democracy to the extent we do today. To give it anything less than its due would be disrespectful and that is important. 
I have so enjoyed the contributions from the speakers tonight. In particular Judith Tizard Dianne Yates Pansy Wong Richard Worth Simon Power Dail Jones Bernie Ogilvy and also Taito Phillip Field have contributed well and given sterling performances. That is what this museum deserves because it is a wonderful icon. It is something we can show respect for forgetting all our political differences across the House. We can be absolutely proud that this bill is going through the House with the support of all the parties. That is wonderful and it is a moment to be proud of. I particularly commend this bill to the House and to the membership. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As chair of the select committee I too want to thank all those who were involved in the preparation of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill particularly the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who ensured that the funding was adequate. It is the Labour Government that has to be praised for providing the funding to build this new facility. It will be a facility of which not only Aucklanders but also all New Zealanders will be truly proud. 
I wish to thank the House once again. It is not often that we have the House unanimously and constructively behind such a project and we look forward to when the building is finished so that we can all enjoy this facility. Once again thank you to all those involved and for the cooperation we had at the select committee. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is very pleased to be supporting this bill. It is a wonderful example of how the people of Auckland for a start can get together and support a project. Auckland is so often criticised as not being able to put up a united front on a project or present such a united front in particular to Wellington but this is one of those occasions when Aucklanders have got together. When I say Aucklanders I mean those with a connection to this bill—the Rodney District Council which has one appointee to the electoral college; North Shore City Council which has two appointees; Waitakere City Council two appointees; Auckland City Council three appointees; Manukau City Council three appointees; Papakura District Council one appointee and Franklin District Council one appointee. 
One should also remember work done in the past—from Taupo right up to Cape Reinga I understand—in supporting the original concept of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. I think it was a little bit churlish of the two Government members who spoke in the third reading to suggest that it could only have happened because we have a Labour Government. Labour Party people do know how to spoil a good occasion. The money for this building is coming from the New Zealand taxpayer. It is not coming from the Labour Government. The New Zealand taxpayer is paying for this project and for that we give as much thanks to the member for Whanganui the member for Rotorua the member for Hamilton East and such like as to anybody else. This money is coming from the New Zealand taxpayer and that is the thing that the Labour Party obviously does not understand. Labour members have no grasp of where the money comes from to run this country. Trust them to be churlish and spoil this debate! 
New Zealand First is delighted to support this legislation and wide and far all New Zealand First members will support it. I am sure that wide and far all members of this House will support it and I will not comment any more on that other matter. I hope that people from the rest of the country will come up to Auckland—or come down to Auckland as the case might be—and see just where their taxpaying dollar is being spent and the wonderful way in which this project has developed. 
This project is not just for the people of Auckland but as the objectives of the original bill show for the people of New Zealand as a whole as a proper war memorial to all New Zealand’s efforts in its many endeavours overseas. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I join other members in expressing what a pleasure it is tonight to take part in the third reading of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. The passage of this bill advantages New Zealanders but the redeveloped Auckland War Memorial Museum will be even more of a showcase to international visitors to New Zealand and especially to Auckland. As the National Party spokesperson on tourism I can say that we appreciate that international visitors always visit museums in the various countries they visit to gain a sense of the history and culture of that particular country. 
 The Government Administration Committee met and received submissions at the site of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and the excitement the enthusiasm and the very creative ways of the board and its team convinced us that when the work has been carried out it will indeed do New Zealand proud and showcase the new site and the content of that site to our international visitors. 
It is indeed rare to see all political parties assisting the passage of legislation in unison so I hope the Labour Government takes note that given reasonable consultation Opposition parties will cooperate. I know this matter has been raised with the Business Committee and we have no hesitation in supporting initiatives that are constructive and important. 
Like all the other members I am looking forward to the completion of the redevelopment work. People will be able to visit a museum with sheltered car parks and other additional facilities. Above all I am very pleased for the Auckland museum staff who deservedly will be able to work in a facility that has space for their dedication. One cannot but have admiration for the type of creative work that has been carried out by the dedicated staff at the Auckland museum given the inadequate work space they currently have to put up with. 
On behalf of the members of the public who appreciate the wonderful presentation of the treasures we have in the Auckland War Memorial Museum I want to say that a better environment for the team will lead to added attractions. The team will be able to show even more of its creative powers and visitors will have more treasures to enjoy. It is a great pleasure to be associated with the passage of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill. 
Bill read a third time.