Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 Māori as Pukekawa. I am tempted to offer the balance of my comments on the bill in Māori, 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.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions