Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Museum bill rejected

Parliamentary reporter i: |i Parliament as rejected a 1 bill seeking to set up a I Maori and colonial museum at Okains Bay under its own i empowering act. ; The bill, petitioned by the i Thacker family, of Okains Bay. was introduced at the beginning of the year. It .< sought to create a museum I to which the family intended i to give artefacts and exhib- i its worth SI million. I Reporting the bill back to i the House yesterday, the chairman of the Bills Com- ■ rnittee (Mr .J F. Luxton) recommended that it not proceed. The recommendation sould not be taken to ] imply any criticism of the ] petitioners, he said. Indeed, the committee had been im-i pressed by the sincerity and generosity of the Thacker family. But the committee had thought the objects of the bill could be met other than by new legislation. A compelling reason was necessary, to support the passage of a private bill if some other means already existed to achieve the same aims, Mr Luxton said. The aims of the Okains! Bay Maori and Colonial Mu-‘:

isuem Bill could be met under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1957, he said. “We acknowledge that counsel for the petitioners] argued against this view’. He argued that the Charitable Trusts Act made no adesuate provisions for the election of trustees. Tha is true, but the act recognises trustees appointed under a trust deed. Such a deed has been executed in the present case, and w r e are satisfied that the deed provides adesuately for the appointment of trustees,” said Mr Luxton. Counsel also had argued that the Charitable Trusts Act contained insufficient safeguards to ensure the preservation of the museum’s acquisitions in the future. . The committee acknowledged that the act contained provisions that in some circumstances might enable the sale of assets of the museum. Such a disposition would require the consent of th e Supreme Court and the committee b'lieved the Supreme Court was a suitable guardian in the present case,” isaid Mr Luxton.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19791011.2.180

Bibliographic details

Press, 11 October 1979, Page 32

Word Count
345

Museum bill rejected Press, 11 October 1979, Page 32

Museum bill rejected Press, 11 October 1979, Page 32

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert