Muller Todd: Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMuller Todd: Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 06 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3276. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty):I rise to say just a few words in support of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. May I begin first by acknowledging the very warm comments from Mr Mark on the other side of the Chamber. Thank you very much. Part of the collegiality of the Local Government and Environment Committee is of course due to your ongoing and constructive contribution to the debate that we have around the table.We are here tonight to talk about the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. As we know it is being set up essentially to establish the legal foundations for the trust—effectively to enable it to respond to the challenges and the tragedy of the Christchurch earthquake. We have heard already—far more eloquently than I could ever put into words—about the challenge that the Canterbury community has had to confront about the very special place that the Arts Centre has for the people of Canterbury and about how important it is for them that the improvements continue apace and that there is an enduring legal framework that ensures that what they want from those buildings will deliver for them and their grandchildren into the future.During the select committee process we had a great visit down there and I acknowledge here the work of the chair Jen Crawford and the chief executive officer André Lovatt—in particular André who helped facilitate that particular tour. We donned our hard hats and walked around most of the 23 category I heritage buildings and we were given a sense of what they were what they became through the earthquake and more critically what the vision is for them as they are rebuilt. And I think to see first hand the purpose of this bill expressed not so much in bricks and mortar but in stone and the fantastic application of skill puts this particular bill in context. It certainly did for me. As somebody who is a bit of a historian I actually found it really enjoyable. Unfortunately we could not get into all of the buildings obviously—either because of their state of disrepair or because of where they were in terms of the repair process—but we did walk past the student union building and we got a sense of why it is still important and needs to be and has been captured in this particular bill.The Dux de Lux has already been mentioned tonight. I went there once as a student. Had I known that I would end up here I would have paid more attention to the names that were scrawled on the wall. I probably would have seen halfway up “Megan was here” and possibly just a little bit lower “and so was Ron”.Hon Members: Ha ha!TODD MULLER: Sorry Mr Chair. Anyway as I said it was good to see firsthand.Moving back to the specific clauses obviously there are a number here that we want to reflect on. I think it is right that we have removed clause 8 from the bill. It is absolutely appropriate that debts accrued by the trust board are adopted by the Crown should it ever be wound up. It is a sensible commercial amendment. We talked about it at the time and I think we have got a sensible outcome there. In terms of the objects again adding new clause 5(2) which requires that all income benefits or advantages received by or accruing to the trust board be used to advance the charitable purpose of the trust is a belt and braces approach. You could argue that perhaps it was not needed but the committee decided that we should put it in for the avoidance of doubt to make it absolutely clear about what should happen should that ever occur.We recommend of course amending clause 6. Again I think that makes a lot of sense. It is a sensible amendment to be considered. When we talked about trust vacancies there was throughout the submission process obviously some debate in respect of what happens when there is a vacancy on this new board and in respect of what the proper role for the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage should be. There was some debate and certainly some thought put forward by some of the submitters that we should be careful around the involvement—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call Todd Muller.TODD MULLER: There was some debate—[Interruption] I am sorry do I need to repeat it? Sorry. There is a particular issue here that I would like to hear about from the Minister in the chair should she take a call later on. This was an area that we reflected on: the potential perception of a Minister being involved in influencing any appointments to the trust board. We made some changes to enable that by deleting clause 1(d)(iii) of schedule 2 and ultimately I think we have landed in the right place.Now that we are talking about governance I do want to acknowledge the various stakeholders who have expressed their support for the intent of this bill—in particular the University of Canterbury Christchurch City Council Heritage New Zealand Christchurch Civic Trust and Papatipu Rūnanga amongst others. I do acknowledge their contribution historically and their support for this move from a representative governance board to a skills-based governance board. But my view is that the task is only half done because it is now incumbent I think on the community to ensure that the right mix of skills is appointed to govern this trust board into the future.If I have a challenge for the community it is I guess that it should be global in its search. Too often in this country we are very very keen in this context to showcase our culture and our heritage to the world and we are often very proud of how others see our culture and we are very global in terms of the portrayal of that. But sometimes we are quite reticent in terms of taking up the opportunities of those who have a global perspective and are involved in governing our heritage. So I put a challenge out there: let us look beyond just Canterbury for the skill sets to be able to govern and support this trust board into the future now that it has moved and will move to a skills-based board as opposed to the representative-based board that is there at the moment.We had quite a conversation about land. Some of the issues that we discussed in respect of the titles have already been raised and why historically there has been such a high number of them. There was of course the reference to stone buildings. The chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Scott Simpson has already put that question to the Minister and I think that her perspective will be worth hearing as well. But certainly the recommendation was pretty clear. There is a tweak in the wording of clause 4 to clarify that definition. Personally I think the word “including” as I read it provides the appropriate comfort for those who think that the focus is simply on the stone buildings and that that somehow means that the student union building would not be included in terms of the long-term development of that site. Certainly when you go around that site and listen to the people working on it and to the favour in which the community holds that student union building I am pretty sure that that is going to be part of any ongoing development plan.Also having at the annual meeting the requirement to put that conservation plan on the table and to have it in front of the community and those who are interested in essentially the strategy of conservation and what that will look like over time I think is a good amendment. It ensures that the community of Canterbury stays plugged into the vision of this new trust board and ensures that ultimately those buildings and that incredible cultural asset continue to head in the direction that the community seeks.Finally can I acknowledge the Minister for her work. It must be incredibly satisfying to be part of a process that sees an asset in her community being protected and enhanced—as this bill will do. Again I acknowledge the chairman and those with whom I have worked on the select committee. I echo Ron Mark in that it was for the most part very collegial. Thank you and I commend this bill to the House.