Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill

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 Māori New Zealanders, Pākehā 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.

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.

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.

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