Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3584] 
Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill 
First Reading 
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.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 In speaking to the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill I want to say at the outset that the National caucus will support this particular legislation going to the select committee—but with some serious concerns. 
As a local National Party member of Parliament I am surprised by the lack of communication that has occurred about this legislation. I think that shows either arrogance or incompetence by either the member in charge of it or the elected representatives on or the staff of the Christchurch City Council. This item came up for discussion at our caucus last Tuesday and most of us had no knowledge of this vesting bill. 
The important thing that needs to be ascertained during the select committee process is what the intentions were of that great benefactor to our city Robert McDougall. Earlier last century he left this wonderful facility to the city of Christchurch. I readily acknowledge that time has moved on and that a wonderful new facility is being established at huge cost but that still does not mean that the Christchurch City Council or anybody else should ignore what I presume were the very specific wishes of Robert McDougall. 
Mr Barnett in his address said that the Christchurch City Council is the promoter of this bill and also said that the Christchurch City Council had engaged in extensive consultation. Two National Members of Parliament live within the city of Christchurch—Gerry Brownlee and myself. Neither of us have had any approach at all from any member of staff of the Christchurch City Council. So I ask Mr Barnett to reflect on that during the select committee process because if he acknowledges that that is a process of extensive consultation then I seriously disagree with him. I say to Mr Barnett that if he is involved again in being in charge of a local bill he also should take the opportunity of making sure he consults colleagues. 
I give him an example of a bill that I was involved in in recent years. It was a similar local bill which has become the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act. That bill was passed through this House with a tremendous amount of consultation. It was introduced into the House under my name but under the auspices of the Summit Road Society and on many occasions as it liaised with me I insisted that it also go and liaise with all members of Parliament in the Christchurch area. I think that is a policy we should follow. 
The Mayor of Christchurch Mr Garry Moore is without doubt a simple character and fiercely loyal to the Labour Party. Here we are talking about a facility for the display of art and I remember—I think it was last year—when the Prime Minister was on the mat for forging a piece of art. In fact a man here in Wellington—I think his name was Mr Sharpe—put his head above the parapet and laid a complaint with the police so that they would investigate whether our Prime Minister had committed an act of forgery. It was interesting that Mr Garry Moore the Mayor of Christchurch sprang to her aid but it was rather embarrassing for the mayor and for his wider extended family that the man who had laid the complaint was the mayor’s brother-in-law.  
Jill Pettis 
: Mr Moore is a chivalrous chap. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member can make a speech if she wants but I suggest that the Christmas party that Mr Moore then attended with his extended family was probably a frostier affair than it might well have been. 
I summarise by saying that we support the legislation going to a select committee and we will take the opportunity of examining very specifically the wishes of that great benefactor to our city Robert McDougall but I do ask that both the city council—the mayor and his councillors—and Tim Barnett the member for Christchurch Central who is in charge of the bill please take the opportunity in the future to make sure that they liaise with fellow members of Parliament in Christchurch. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Robert McDougall Art Gallery is an icon in Christchurch. It was a sad day when the doors finally closed but it was an inevitable one because the very success of the gallery meant it required a new facility. The Green Party is very pleased to support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
I will be interested to see whether there are submissions raising the concerns that Mr Carter referred to. I for one certainly received a letter from the Christchurch City Council about this bill and I am sure that other Christchurch members received the same. So I am surprised to hear that Mr Carter did not. I am also surprised to hear Mr Carter say that he lives in Christchurch City because I thought he lived in the Banks Peninsula District Council area. 
Notwithstanding that I look forward to a vibrant new future for the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. It is not for me to try to prescribe how the building is used. There are many possibilities. I would obviously like to see it continue in some way to be a place that facilitates artistic endeavour. The Sunday afternoon concerts in the atrium area were always a highlight particularly with their proximity to Hagley Park. I would like to see something like that continue but that is a matter for others to decide. I am a little concerned about the length of the lease being too long or the building becoming overly commercialised but other than that I think this is a very positive move. I look forward to the bill coming back to the House for its swift passage. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am happy to take a short call on the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill. 
Rod Donald 
: Has the member ever been there? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: No I have not been to the gallery. We have a wonderful gallery in Dunedin. Visiting a wonderful gallery is one of life’s great experiences I am sure and visiting the new gallery is something I can look forward to. As I read through this bill one thing strikes me as a member of the ACT party and as a taxpayer and a ratepayer: I would be extraordinarily reluctant if I were a member of the Christchurch community to vest anything in the Christchurch City Council. It is a city council that cannot even get right such basic requirements of its community as its sewerage scheme. Sewage still pours out into the estuary as I understand it yet in this bill we are saying that we think the council is a highly skilled property manager. That is essentially what this bill is about. It is about vesting property in that city council. That idea just does not seem to make any sense. 
If the city council in the “People’s Republic of Christchurch”—Mr Carter referred to Mr Moore as a well-known devotee of the Labour Party; a fact that I would have to say makes him pretty suspect from the start—cannot actually perform why would we want to vest anything in it? If the council cannot get right the fundamental requirements such as sewerage and rubbish collection—and Christchurch does have a major problem with its rubbish collection system—why would we want to vest anything in it let alone something that is obviously very valuable and very meaningful to the people of Christchurch? What is at stake here? 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Does the member live in Christchurch? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: The building is a neoclassical perimetrical design and I am sure that Dover Samuels will enlighten the House and tell us all exactly what a neoclassical perimetrical design actually is. I am sure it is very important. It is appropriate that these historic buildings do receive adequate and full conservation by members of the community. 
But I cannot help but wonder why members of the Historic Places Trust for example do not actually step forward and say: “We do not want this building to be a cost to the people of Christchurch. We will pick it up. We will raise funds.”? Why do they not say that they will ensure that the building is treated in the way it should be treated—as a very important and historic part of Christchurch? Yet again we have the concept of “Let’s bung it all on the ratepayers or the taxpayers. They can pick up the tab.” 
Well I suspect there are a lot of people in Christchurch and indeed throughout New Zealand who have never visited an art gallery. They would actually struggle to pay for it. Is there a cost? I image that one needs a silver coin. 
Rod Donald 
: It’s free. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Oh it is free. I see. So in other words it will not cost the city council anything to maintain it. Is that what Mr Rod Donald is saying? [ 
Interruption 
] He says it is free so there is no cost. I say to Mr Donald that the reality is there is a cost to the people of Christchurch. There is a very significant cost. But that cost of course is being “redistributed” which is another favourite word of the Labour Party and the Green Party. They say: “Let’s redistribute this cost amongst everybody so that we the users can benefit and get it nice and cheaply and so that people who do not enjoy abstract art or whatever and who have other interests like going bowling or playing golf on Saturday still have to contribute.” The concept in this land-vesting bill is that the cost is spread amongst the entire Christchurch community for the benefit of a relatively exclusive few. 
Well if that is way the public really want it so be it but I am not at all sure it is. So it is important that submissions come from the people from ratepayer groups in Christchurch. It is important that people come before the Local Government and Environment Committee or at least inform the select committee of their views so that it can better decide whether this bill should progress in its current form. The ACT party will support this bill going to the select committee. 
Hn LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in this debate first of all to support my colleague Tim Barnett who has brought this bill to the House. I congratulate him on the work that he has done in ensuring that this important piece of legislation is able to be implemented in time for the opening of the new art gallery. Perhaps I am being a bit premature; I guess that the bill will not be passed by the time that the new art gallery opens. [ 
Interruption 
] But the museum redevelopment is what it is for. 
I remind the House that the local purpose reserve under which the council will hold the land is “for the display of art and decorative arts and crafts and ancillary purposes” and therefore I do not think there is anything that people need to get upset about in terms of the proposals. But I did hear David Carter speaking earlier on and I thought his contribution was—well pathetic was the word that sprang to mind. He commented on whether notice had been given in respect of the proposed changes. The Standing Orders of course require that such notice be given to constituency members of Parliament in respect of a local bill. Without pointing out the obvious fact that David Carter has now been beaten twice by Ruth Dyson and therefore is not a constituency member of Parliament I note that the city council despite that still gave him notice. It gave everybody notice. It sent notices to the Hon Jim Anderton Tim Barnett Gerry Brownlee Rod Donald Clayton Cosgrove Ruth Dyson myself David Carter Ron Mark Marc Alexander and Mahara Okeroa. That is a full list of all the MPs who either base themselves in or represent different parts of the Christchurch electorate. In fact David Carter does not live within the Christchurch City Council boundaries. 
Rod Donald 
: He told us that he did today. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well the last time I looked he lived within the Banks Peninsula District Council boundaries so unless he has moved in the last week I do not think he can even claim to be a member living in the area affected by this particular decision. 
I congratulate the city council on taking a very broad-brush approach. It not only has complied with Appendix C of the Standing Orders—the requirement that constituency members of Parliament be informed of a local bill—but has in fact gone a step further and given that information to other MPs from that area and surrounding areas. I have a copy of the letter that I received and that I know other members received as well. Perhaps Mr Carter does not read his correspondence. We were told that the city council had resolved to promote a local bill it was made clear what the objects of the bill were and a copy of the bill was attached for our information—details of what the bill was going to contain were attached for our information. Then there was this little bit at the end: “If you require any further information on this matter please contact the council’s legal services manager Mr Peter Mitchell phone 941-8549. Yours faithfully Peter Mitchell Legal Services Manager.” How much more notice and information do members require before they feel they have been given an opportunity to consider this matter before it even comes to the House? One of the protections around the local bill mechanism is that this kind of very direct notice is given to members of Parliament so that those concerns can be raised early in the piece. 
So it is a bit rich for Mr Carter to stand in the House and indicate that somehow members of Parliament had been left out—thinking of course that the Christchurch City Council might have something against them. That would be absolutely surprising because David Carter’s own brother was a member of that council until relatively recently and therefore David Carter has I would have thought a very good working relationship with council officers. I know that they not only went out of their way to make sure that the rules of the Standing Orders were complied with but went beyond the strict requirements and observed what lay behind the Standing Orders—and that is providing the ability for people to have a good look at this information before it comes to the House. 
That being said I would again like to congratulate my colleague Tim Barnett. I know he is looking forward to shepherding this bill through the House and I look forward to support on all sides of the House for what is a very sensible adjustment to the law. 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I shall briefly exercise my right of reply. I know we have equally important business coming up in the House later tonight so I do not want to take up our time. First I reiterate Lianne Dalziel’s comments. I did ensure firstly that the city council undertook not just the minimal consultation it has to in terms of our Standing Orders but went further. Secondly as sponsor of the bill I ensured that it had undertaken some public consultation because the last thing we need is for what should be primary consultation between the city council and its public to happen through a select committee. So I ensured that happened and I think the concerns that remain in the community are limited. I do urge the select committee to organise a hearing in Christchurch assuming they get sufficient submissions so that they can hear about the issues first hand and visit the site.  
Second I will just respond to Mr Eckhoff’s comments. For long we have known that Mr Eckhoff has chosen to want to lay waste to our national bird but now he seems to be after our cultural icons as well. One of his political friends from the Business Roundtable once referred to Christchurch as the people’s republic and within 7 days the city council had printed a number of T-shirts reading “The People’s Republic of Christchurch”. I do not think those from outside the city always understand the very nature of the Christchurch version of public ownership of what is important. We have a higher level of services there because we kept control over strategic assets.  
Third I thought both Rod Donald and Lianne Dalziel illustrated in their comments the kind of affection and passion that those of us from Christchurch have for our icons. This new art gallery will be an icon and so is the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. We are all concerned to see that the legislation that Parliament can give to the city to protect that icon is up-to-date and in place. The art gallery the arts centre the botanic gardens and the museum comprise the southern hemisphere’s largest and most significant cultural precinct and the legislation before us today will help to ensure that that precinct is even better in the years to come. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee