Barnett Tim: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Barnett Tim: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3584] 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill be now read a first time. 
 I introduce this bill as the member of Parliament for the Christchurch Central electorate. My electorate includes both the headquarters of the Christchurch City Council which is promoting this local bill and the location that this bill is all about. It deals with the Robert McDougall Art Gallery and the land on which it stands. For those members not familiar with Christchurch I will describe the gallery’s location. It is at the back of the Canterbury Museum it faces out on to the Botanic Gardens and it is one of the most glorious locations I would suggest of any building in this country. 
The art gallery was opened in June 1932. It was Christchurch City’s first dedicated art gallery for the city’s permanent art collections. The gallery has now been emptied and the collection that it held for the last three-quarters of a century—albeit only about 2 percent of the collection could be shown—is being recreated for the new Christchurch Art Gallery. Those members who have been in Christchurch recently will have seen this glorious building emerging on the corner of Montreal Street and Gloucester Street—one of the most stunning new buildings I have ever seen. It opens on 10 May. 
The issue with which that leaves the city is how to secure the best public use of that building and the land commensurate with the intention for which it was gifted. Fortunately an obvious solution is at hand. The Canterbury Museum already the second-most-visited museum in the country is about to undergo a fundamental internal redesign and expansion. The location of the Robert McDougall Art Gallery makes it a natural and integral part of those plans. In order to progress those pretty uncontroversial proposals the council needs this Parliament to amend the current law. 
There are a number of questions that Parliament reasonably needs to ask about these proposals. Question one is whether this bill is compatible with the original gifting of the land which led to the 1925 enactment by Parliament of section 54 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act and the Public Bodies Empowering Act which authorised the construction of the art gallery. I believe that it is compatible. 
Question two is whether the bill will protect the innate value of the art gallery building. The building has a category 1 listing under the Historic Places Act meaning that it is a place of special or outstanding historic or cultural significance or value. It is also listed as a group 1 heritage item in the Christchurch City district plan. I believe that the bill does protect those innate heritage values. 
Question three is whether the Christchurch community is onside with these proposals. Those members who know Christchurch will realise that every 10 years or so there is a significant public debate about the future of an existing building or the design of a new one. I have to say the debate on this building has not been as intense or emotive as those previous ones but last year the city council did initiate an extensive public consultation process to seek the views of the community on the future use of the building. There were 2 days of public hearings in May last year and this bill is a direct result of those hearings. Deliberations of the council subcommittee after that consultation decided that the bill was the appropriate way to proceed. 
So the purpose of the bill is to update and modernise the legislation by which the council holds the land and also to update the council’s powers to lease out the building which it is unable to do under the existing 1925 legislation. The only safe method of carrying out that modernisation of law is through the promotion of this local bill. 
The fourth question is whether the bill will secure appropriate use of—and absolutely secure that appropriate use—this highly sensitive site. The bill makes it clear that the land on which the art gallery is situated is vested in the council as a local purpose reserve under the Reserves Act and also makes it clear that the council is prohibited from selling the land. As a result of those public hearings and other consultation by the council the bill limits the purpose for which the building may be leased to the “display of art and decorative arts and crafts and ancillary purposes”—obviously use by the Canterbury Museum is appropriate. The bill also ensures that any lease of the land and the building cannot be for a term of longer than 50 years. 
An issue that arose during the public hearings was what should happen to the land and the building once they were no longer suitable for leasing out by the council. It was suggested by many of the public that the land and the building should return to the Christchurch Botanic Gardens which it is situated next to. In the council’s view that is a matter that should be decided by future councils; this Parliament and the current composition of the Christchurch City Council should not make decisions for a future community and a future Parliament. So a future Parliament would have to enact any change to the legislation to enable a more fundamental change of use. 
The council believes that as this land is situated on its own certificate of title it would also not be feasible to have it automatically included in the title of the Christchurch Botanic Gardens which is itself subject to another Act of Parliament the Christchurch City (Reserves) Empowering Act. And of course the Canterbury Museum is subject to a third Act of Parliament. 
These four questions are all important and I as the local member have already been lobbied by local people with views on these issues who are keen to submit and to appear before the select committee dealing with the bill. I am also aware there is a real need for the issue to be resolved quickly so that the museum redevelopment can commence. 
I would like to commend the bill to the House. I would like to thank parliamentary and city council staff for their work on the bill to date. I also note that the Standing Orders ensure that the bill will be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.