Alexander Marc: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Alexander Marc: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8791] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill which deals with the issue of what to do with the gallery now that the new Christchurch City Council art gallery is open. We know that the Robert McDougall Art Gallery was presented to Christchurch City by Mr Robert E McDougall and was opened on 16 June 1932. The land on which the gallery is situated was part of the city’s Botanic Gardens until 1925 when Parliament passed the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act. Section 54 of the Act vested the land in the corporation of Christchurch City for the purposes of a public art gallery. 
Craig McNair 
: Tell us more. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I will. 
Hon Member 
: When was that? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: In 1925. The Act imposes certain conditions on the use of the land. After 70 years as one of the city’s most significant arts and cultural centres the Robert McDougall Art Gallery was closed to the public in June 2002 to enable its collection to be transferred to the new Christchurch Art Gallery which opened in May this year. I am very pleased that the old gallery which holds a category I classification in the New Zealand Historic Places Trust register and is a group one listed heritage building in the city plan is to be retained on its existing site by the city council. Group one heritage items include buildings places and objects of national significance the protection of which is considered essential. The Canterbury Museum approached the city council to use the building as an extension to the museum complex as it is already situated adjacent to the museum. 
The direct descendants of Robert McDougall have also been consulted over the future use of the building. Robert McDougall was a successful businessman associated with the Kaiapoi woollen mills and the well-known Aulsebrooks bakery—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes indeed so. It was said of McDougall that by instinct and practice he was generous and above all he was modest. He was a well-known philanthropist establishing a welfare league for his employees and providing a library tennis courts and bowling green in the factory grounds for their use. But his particular interest was art. He gifted £26000 to establish the Robert McDougall Art Galley. 
Craig McNair 
: How much? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Twenty-six thousand pounds which is quite a bit. The family of Robert McDougall has expressed the desire that the building continue to be used for widespread community use and I am pleased that this sentiment has found favour in the decision to lease the old gallery building to the Canterbury Museum. 
The entire museum complex is a wonderful old building that was once part of the University of Canterbury along with what is now known as the art centre. The museum is in great need of additional display space and I think it is a good idea to utilise this vacant and adjacent building for this purpose rather than construct a modern building nearby that would be out of character with the rest of the museum complex. The annexe built on to the Anglican Cathedral in Cathedral Square is a case in point. 
In the case of the Robert McDougall Art Gallery I am pleased to advise the House that a conservation plan has been prepared by the city council to assist with the conservation and adaptive reuse of the building. Although the McDougall gallery served the cultured citizens of Christchurch so well for so many years there were times when one sensed that its capacity was limited and that had implications for its ability to host many major exhibitions. The gallery was opened in 1932 with 160 paintings and sculptures but its exhibition space has not been altered since its construction more than 70 years ago although an administration area—the Canaday wing—was added in 1982. 
I am very excited by the new Christchurch City gallery which can deliver in place of the McDougall gallery. It is a wonderful building. I was there at the opening. I can tell the National members who were not there that there was plenty of hot air for the balloons so they were not needed. The new $47.5 million complex features two floors of exhibition space two educational activity areas an auditorium a cafe and wine bar which I particularly like two retail outlets a sculpture garden and underground parking. Through purchases bequests and donations the gallery’s collection now totals over 5500 items including paintings prints drawings sculptures ceramics textiles glass metalwork and photography. The gallery’s collection and acquisition policy is now focused on the art of Canterbury. 
I want to return to the bill and some of the recommendations of the Local Government and Environment Committee which were very sensible indeed. Several submitters wanted the word “public” to be inserted before the word “gallery” in clause 6 and the committee agreed to ensure the building’s continuing public use which was intended when the land was originally vested in the council. However it was noted that should the building be leased to the Canterbury Museum the affirmation of public access would not prevent the museum from charging for special exhibitions as this is the usual practice in the case of special exhibitions in order to cover extraneous costs. 
A number of submitters were concerned that the wording of the bill leaves open the possibility that the gallery be used for commercial purposes. This ignores the fact that the gallery previously ran a retail service to supplement its income. I am pleased that the committee has taken the reasonable view that the museum may also want to do this on the side in the course of fulfilling its functions. 
Perhaps the most important aspect of the bill that was addressed by the select committee relates to the future use of the land. A number of concerns were raised about the future use of the land and the buildings if they are no longer used for the purposes specified in this bill. The original enabling legislation intended that the land could be re-vested in the Crown and the control of it reverted to the then Christchurch Domain Board if it ceased to be used for a gallery. The city council today is the successor of the Christchurch Domain Board. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt my colleague because he is giving a very fine speech. Even though I am sitting as close to him as I can it is very difficult for me to hear given the interruption we are getting from the benches over there. I think you should call the members to order. As an ex-Cantabrian I know that this is a very important cultural issue for Christchurch and it deserves to be well ventilated this evening. My colleague was doing that but he was being interrupted and you need to intervene. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is absolutely right. I was just about to do that. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I shall continue ventilating. Without this bill the council could potentially lose the ownership of the McDougall art gallery and would be left with only the control of the building if the Crown chooses to exercise its right under the original Act. That creates legal doubts as to the ability of the city council to permit the gallery to be used for other purposes. It is important that a public facility such as the McDougall art gallery should not be subject to such doubts no matter how unlikely one might consider that they would be realised. 
However the effect of the bill is that the area becomes a local purpose reserve owned by the council and subject to the Reserves Act. That means that the reservation could be revoked or changed by normal processes under the Reserves Act although the council would not be able to sell the area because of the specific prohibition clause. The committee considered it unlikely that the building would cease to be used as a gallery in the foreseeable future as the council has indicated its intention to lease the building to the Canterbury Museum. However it is important that should the building cease to be used for the purposes specified in the bill the local community is involved in any decisions about the future use of the land. 
So I am pleased that the committee recommended a new clause that provides that the purpose for which the land is held must not be changed under the Reserves Act. This would avoid the slightest possibility of the status being changed without the requirement for public consultation under the Reserves Act. It ensures that future councils will not be able to change the purpose of the reserve from its use as a gallery as set out in the bill. Should the building cease to be used for that purpose the council at the time would need to bring another local bill to Parliament to determine its future use. That would ensure the public’s involvement in the future use of that land. As a Christchurch-based MP I think it is an eminently sensible plan that should take account of local opinion.