Mark Ron: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8783] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and to indicate that we will of course support this bill passing through the House. I was not the New Zealand First person who sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee and took part in the deliberations on the legislation. In fact it is with some regret that whilst I am a Canterbury man—a Christchurch resident and a Waimakariri ratepayer—and as I now understand it I am contributing towards some of the costs that have been incurred here I say it was Jim Peters who saw this bill through the select committee stage. It is just a little sad that he is not here to speak to it but I will make some passing comments. 
First I would like to acknowledge the generosity of some people long since passed away who were responsible in the first place for Christchurch’s art gallery. In fact that is pretty well laid out in the submission from the Christchurch City Council. In 1928 the managing director of Aulsebrooks Ltd Robert McDougall donated £25000 for the construction of the art gallery. I also find that in 1982-83 the administrative wing was made possible by a generous donation of $250000 from the Molly Morpeth Canaday Fund. Is it not ironic that the very people who are often accused of being horrible nasty mean Tory people with too much money and who are often the subject of political envy by socialist parties and members of socialist parties who want to give all the money to the poor and the impoverished are actually the very people who contribute freely of their own time? We can look at the Todds and at so many of the families out there who on the one hand— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: This is the man who abused me yesterday about luxury— 
RON MARK 
: Yes because the member gives away money as though it is going out of fashion. That Minister who is prattling on and interjecting Mr Mark Burton is known for one thing: throwing around other people’s money like an 8-armed octopus. He has never ever had to go out and mortgage his home raise capital create a business and employ people himself. He is a man who has lived off the taxpayer’s teat all his life. It is a great irony that this great art gallery in Christchurch would not even exist but for the very types of people whom he and his ilk continually criticise on the election hustings as being greedy capitalists—rich and horrible people. Those very people fund some of our institutions out of their own pockets and we are grateful that they exist. 
Here is one of the great ironies. Normally it is the reserve of the rich and the wealthy to be seen at symphonies the ballet the art gallery and walking the catwalk at the Montana New Zealand Wearable Arts Awards. But in this day and age the Labour Party which reflects academic socialism no longer has a truck driver a freezing worker a mechanic or a tradesperson in its ranks. Its members are always to be seen funding art turning up to open art shows poncing themselves around as the new socialist elite of the new society and holding themselves up as the protectors of the art world. That really strikes a chord with the men from the freezing works at Belfast. They know precisely— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: The member’s never been there. 
RON MARK 
: I say to Mr Cosgrove that I was there when he was there during my campaign at the 1993 election. I have been there many many times since then. Asking that question shows that the member is ignorant or wants to perpetuate a lie or both. He should make up his mind. Maybe the man has never been there himself and is jealous of me. But here we have a situation where the member has been there three times in 5 years—not bad given that he has worked in this Parliament for a lot longer than that. Do we not find it ironic that those people who left the Labour Party with their vote who took their membership away—and there are a lot of them here in the House—look upon the Labour Party now as a new cultural and social elite? That makes them given their criticism of the Tories whom they hate and of the capitalists whom they loathe— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And secretly envy. 
RON MARK 
: And secretly envy and whom they just want to be like—even more able to be called that horrible “h” word that we are not allowed to use in the Chamber. 
This bill is a good move. However I cannot let this debate pass by without mentioning that tower of strength in support of Helen Clark as a painter and an artist: the mayor of Christchurch Gary Moore. He is a Labour Party stalwart from way back. It has not been lost on Labour voters in Canterbury that the very people who fronted up with $47 million of ratepayers’ money to build the new art gallery which is replacing the McDougall art gallery came from Labour ranks. Once again Labour members want to be seen at the opera at the ballet and at the forefront of promoting art because God knows they cannot paint for themselves. God knows that Helen Clark cannot paint despite the fact that she said she could. Labour members want to be seen up there amongst the socially elite. That is actually one of the most astounding things about the Labour Party of today. If we are to look at that party closely we must ask ourselves what it does stand for in all the things that it has progressed through the House and through its Labour Party card-carrying lackeys in local government. What have Labour members been most concerned about in the last 4 years? Well they are not concerned about housing in Christchurch because the State houses are full of immigrants and refugees. They are not concerned about the health services and their delivery because that money is going out to immigrants and refugees. They are not concerned about catering for real jobs. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It’s about jobs—real jobs. 
RON MARK 
: Oh jobs the man says. The only thing he is interested in is chasing 55-year-olds out into the workforce. He does not give a toss about the lazy sit-on-their-backsides-doing-nothing people whom New Zealand First had working for the dole. No he wants to harangue nanas and granddads and to get them out to work because they need a job jolt. 
It is good to see that this bill will go through the House. It is good to see that the Christchurch City Council has consulted with people and has adhered to the principles laid down by the people who originally fronted up with the money and donated it for the building of the art gallery. That will leave a great sense of satisfaction with their heirs and no doubt with the 200-300 people who actually made submissions to the council. But that leaves this question: what about the tens and hundreds of thousands of other Christchurch people who did not make submissions? What about those people who actually just want the Labour-led local government of Christchurch and this Labour central government to take care of some of the basics? I am referring to things like escalating electricity prices people who cannot get a State home people who sit in a queue waiting to get access to hospital services while immigrants refugees and asylum seekers take the money out from under their noses—[ 
Interruption 
] It is all about being relevant. This is all about splurging money—hard-earned money—on things that are actually set up to gratify Helen Clark’s artistic desires. That is what the issue is all about. 
If the old gallery ends up being used as a museum that will be great because I know a lot of work is being done to expand the Canterbury Museum. That is desperately needed because in there we house the whakapapa of the Canterbury district and the greater South Island and that is very very important. What I do not want to see there are the ashes of Helen Clark’s painting. I do not want to see in the Robert McDougall Art Gallery which will be converted into a museum Helen Clark’s art works. I do not want at some distant time my great grandchildren to wander through the gallery and see the replica painting of Helen Clark’s forgery—it would have to be a replica because we know that for some reason someone purchased the painting that she signed and destroyed it. But Helen Clark did not know anything about that! 
Hon David Carter 
: What about a photograph? 
RON MARK 
: There may be a photograph but we will have to decide whether it should be the one where she used a hairbrush or an airbrush. That is the other piece of art forgery that could go in this art gallery. The Labour Party’s pre-election card purports to have a photo of Helen Clark on it but it must be her daughter. Yet we know she does not have a daughter so that cannot be the case. Now I am really confused. That was the last bit of art forgery. 
There is another forgery over here. I saw a document down in the bookshop in Bowen House and on the front page there was a photo of a woman with Jim Anderton. I asked who the woman was. Well again it is a piece of art forgery because it is not Helen Clark. It certainly does not look like her. But who knows one day when my great great grandchildren are going through this art gallery they may see the transitional sets of photographs election after election of Helen Clark—one with a hairbrush and one with an airbrush; one with her as an older woman and one as a younger woman. Right beside them we will probably see the ashes of her painting.