Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chairperson Williams—I'm sitting behind you so thank you for noticing me here. Picking up where my colleagues left off last night which is around the examination of Parts 1 and 2 of this bill the Hon Nicky Wagner has gone through and talked about the Cathedral Working Group's recommendation and the desire for that document and that hard work to be acknowledged and recognised within the legislation which is what we have put in. The elements that emerged I suppose through the select committee process was when the Christchurch City Council people came up and wanted to be more involved than they have been—they had read in the media about some of the aspects of this. As we know yesterday morning the Christchurch City Council formally ratified the $10 million of their contribution which is a great relief to everybody. I think that given the amount of skin in the game that they have put in there was a discussion—I'd like to hear the Minister's view on this—as to whether the city council should be represented at any stage. Whether it is in the expert panel or whether it—and that may not be the right place for it because it is very much a skills-based group. But when it comes to perhaps acknowledging some of the heritage values or some of the wider concerns of the importance of this symbol of Christchurch—this extraordinary cathedral—to the people of Christchurch the Minister might be interested to explore how the Christchurch City Council can really make a very meaningful contribution to whatever happens in the future. So the reinstatement review panel has been covered and the skill sets and we discussed this quite widely at the select committee and following on from the procedures. Some of the other aspects around the application of the legislation and particularly some of the anachronisms really that have been sitting in the law for a period of time around the restrictions and conditions relating to cathedral land we were able to cancel as a result of examining them. The Minister will be aware that the Cathedral Square Ordinance 1872 law around the erection of buildings on part of the land formally held was not helpful to the restoration process and so that particular piece of legislation—and section 8 of the Mining Act 1971 which also posed another restriction—was something that we talked about and felt was not going to be helpful for the ongoing work. But one of the questions I would like the Minister to address if she would is the length of time that this Act will be in existence. As with many Acts that have been before this Parliament over the last two years some of them have a sunset clause. They have a termination time attached to them. This one has around 15 years to run and some of the regulations that underpin the law also have 15 years. So that is spelt out carefully and I acknowledge the work of the officials in ensuring that it is appropriately recognised within the various clauses of the bill. But I wonder if the Minister has formed a view at this stage early on in the piece whether the 15 years is going to be—if the goals that have been set through this restoration project or reinstatement project are coming close to being achieved I wonder whether any thought would be given to stopping this legislation at that time. I mean when the cathedral is rebuilt—and it will be rebuilt. Perhaps when the money is raised and the spire is also erected there may well be a time that it's finished—quite quickly we would hope—and at that time the Minister or subsequent Ministers may feel that the Act could finish at that stage or with the repeal of the Act just carry on for the 15 years beginning with the date of the commencement of the Act. I'd be interested in the Minister's views because along with all of us on the select committee and all of us who are interested in what is going on with this legislation and for the sake of the people of Christchurch the progress we feel and the goodwill behind it—and now with the financial backing of both the Crown and the council and it would appear a very enthusiastic group of private stakeholders raising money—I think that this is a project that could actually progress at a great rate. So having got rid of some anachronisms which are laws that continue on well past their use-by date—I would hate to see that this particular piece of legislation does that. So those are a couple of issues. If the Minister would like to comment on them I would be very interested to hear what she would have to say on those subjects. Thank you.