Ardern Jacinda: Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2832. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I think it has been quite uplifting to hear members across the House talk with such passion about the importance of protecting important historic and heritage buildings in New Zealand and specifically within the Christchurch context. I think that is incredibly important given the loss that that city and that region have experienced in terms of their heritage buildings. I do want to come back to that in a little bit.Speaking directly to the Arts Centre though I too like many other members across this House visited the centre both before and post - the quakes. Post - the quakes I was left with absolutely no doubt about the passion that is held by those who are working on this project for doing the very best job they can on behalf of the people of Canterbury to preserve such an important cluster of buildings. There are however a few issues that relate to the Arts Centre. Obviously it was the home of the University of Canterbury for more than a century. It comprises 23 heritage buildings. They are collectively registered as category I historic places under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act and of course with such a significant number of buildings it is a large project—it is 7 years and it is $290 million.The definition around the buildings that has been used struck a little bit of controversy though at the select committee. To be fair very few things I think did raise any question marks. But two of the submissions did raise concerns about references in the bill to “historic stone buildings” which of course is the majorityof the buildings I understand but that does leave out as currently drafted protections for the former student union building which would be known to many as Dux de Lux and it has been referred to in a number of speeches in this House. Although I understand that the issue over the protections not relating to that building has been raised with those who are members of the Arts Centre trust they have said that the plans are not really locked in for that building as I understand it as has been reported and that there is still a longer-term plan around that building that needs to be developed.Given that this particular part of the centre’s grounds has not been included in the definition I think it would be helpful if the trust were able to give words of comfort particularly to those from Historic Places Canterbury who have spoken out about this issue and are really seeking assurances that it is part of the wider plan. Even though it is not included in the definition by virtue of being a brick and wood building as opposed to being a stone building I think there is room for the trust to work collaboratively with those advocates who are trying to ensure that that building is looked after too. That is just one of the points that I wanted to make.I do also want to just touch on the fact that provision has been made in the bill for legacy around the trust. If the trust is wound up the trust property would be vested in the Crown. I think that is a really important part of the bill. Of course we would hope that we would not have a set of circumstances that would allow that but I have seen cases in the past where there has not been proper provision for that and it has led to disastrous results.Speaking of disastrous results I want to spend only a quick part of my contribution on the wider issues around heritage buildings in Canterbury. There have been 1240 demolitions as of February 2015 within the four avenues compared with 292 rebuild consents and 20 percent of those demolitions have been of heritage buildings. The centre of Christchurch has lost 50 percent of its heritage buildings and often that happened with great haste and in some cases without it being necessary. The Majestic Theatre is a prime example of that. Labour almost a year ago to the day called for section 38 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act to no longer be applied to heritage buildings to give proper Resource Management Act process to the removal of heritage buildings. Yes safety was a very necessary concern in the beginning but that moment has moved on and we were seeing time and time again decisions of expediency at the cost of heritage. I would hope that there is an end to that process now in Christchurch.