Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill

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 20,000 applications, and led to 40,000-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.

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.

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.

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.

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