Dyson Ruth: Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 03 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4279. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin my contribution in support of this bill by acknowledging the member who has just resumed his seat Scott Simpson and thank him for the manner in which he chaired the select committee that considered this bill the Local Government and Environment Committee and particularly for taking the trouble—and it is quite a lot of trouble—to pack everything up and come to Christchurch. It is a local bill but it means a lot to us Mr Simpson that you took that effort and that leadership so I acknowledge that. I want to also acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner member of Parliament for Christchurch Central for her role in shepherding this bill through to this stage. I guess for the National Government that this is a bit of a bright light in a sea of disasters post-Budget so it is nice to be part of the good feeling around what I think is going to be unanimous support of this legislation. That is a pretty unusual thing for this Parliament so we should celebrate that.As Scott Simpson noted in his speech it is not just Cantabrians who are proud of this beautiful collection of buildings but also people who have been part of the life of the Arts Centre in one way or another over its long life so having the opportunity which this legislation accords to ensure that the passion we all have for the Arts Centre is translated into a very robust governance structure that will ensure the continuance and protection of this building is a very good thing for us all. It is a sharp juxtaposition when we look at the loss of so many beautiful heritage and historic buildings in Canterbury over the last 4½ years many of which could have been restored could have been repaired and could have remained part of our landscape if it was the desire of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to offer some leadership in that area or indeed if the property owners themselves had had full insurance. Some buildings were demolished despite their having very good insurance because the owners decided it just was not worth the bother and that they would rather put their money somewhere else. I think that is a tragic lack of support for the beauty and the part in our culture and our understanding of ourselves that heritage and historic buildings play.Other buildings of course have been demolished by what I strongly consider is inappropriate use of the extraordinary powers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Minister. A beautiful theatre was demolished because Manchester Street was not wide enough to meet the Minister’s desire for a new part of the city and a different landscape there and that was a big loss. But in this bill we are celebrating not a loss but a restoration and a preservation and our Parliament’s desire to make sure that the governance structure is robust and supports that.A lot has been said through the various stages of this legislation and I do not think there is much more to add. There were some parts of the bill originally that were not clear enough. I think the select committee has done an excellent job in ensuring that we are clear about the mandate of the legislation and what it covers so that the concerns of people who were registered right in the very early stages have been put to rest and I certainly hope that is the case. I think it has been a jolly good job done by the select committee and it is great to see the bill progressing in its final stage through the House.