Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill

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.

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.

Oh, I see. Is it $300?

💬 Jill Pettis: Over and above.

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.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Power to lease land in Domain