Mark Ron: Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 03 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4284. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (NZ First): Good afternoon Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First to take this call on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I am very pleased to do so. It is an interesting thing when you stand up and talk to a bill that enjoys such a high degree of support across the House—well actually unanimous support across the House. When one listens to the speeches that have been made it is sometimes a bit of a challenge to find what contribution you might make that is a little different from all the other contributions that have been made.In fact looking back over the course of the progress of this bill through the House in the time that I have been back here with the 51st Parliament I think we have all pretty much recognised the same reasons as to why this legislation needs to proceed and the importance of it. We have talked somewhat affectionately particularly those who were university students who over their time spent a little time socialising and conversing in places like Dux de Lux which is one of the places within the precinct that is affected.I am going to start by doing something a little different I guess. The reason we are able to stand and support this piece of legislation is one because the Minister Nicky Wagner has quite rightly brought it before us and brought it before the Local Government and Environment Committee in good form and two because of I think the tone and flavour of the select committee. I am very aware that this piece of legislation came in in the 50th Parliament and in that time I think there were other people on the committee—and you might have to help me out over that side. I remember coming to the House as a mayor to look at and to watch proceedings around the local government amendment bill that went through at the time.I do remember the now Minister Nicky Wagner being on that committee. I do remember Maggie Barry being on that committee. I do remember Nick Smith being on that committee. I know there are others and I apologise; I cannot remember who they all were right now. But this committee is a very good committee. It might seem a little unusual for an Opposition MP to stand up and to compliment Government MPs but this is a very good committee. It is very well chaired by Scott Simpson—and I see in the future a very strong Cabinet Minister—along with Todd Muller as the deputy chair.I think it is the way in which people manage committees—the collegiality that you enjoy—that actually helps people break through some things that might actually appear as political barriers for the sake of politics or barriers where people do not want to move across because they do not see value they do not share the view and they do not share the philosophy. So I do want to pay my respects to Scott Simpson and Matt Doocey—a good Rangiora man. He is looking after my previous home town very well and my family who live down there—Matt good on you.There is Paul Foster-Bell who enjoys something in common with me in that he has been to Oman and I am enjoying having that time with him on the committee. Julie Anne Genter is on the committee and Joanne Hayes. Joanne is a Wairarapa girl so of course we would hear a lot of common sense and good contributions out of Joanne would we not. Tu Korako—well he is whanaunga down there so likewise I always expected good sound logic good reasoning and collegiality and good performance from Tu as we have seen. There are Eugenie Sage and Su’a William Sio—people who are very experienced in local government and that is what makes bills like local government bills easy to move through at times.We are blessed in this committee with having a good number of people on the committee who have strong local government experience and can see straight to the core of legislation such as this beyond what appears on the paper. They are able to understand the background and the depth and the effect it has on the communities because they have served those communities in a local government capacity. Of course there is Dr Megan Woods who continues to impress me each time I go into that committee.So having shared some compliments across there I think we also need to recognise the former board who like Eugenie Sage from the Green Party has said did a sterling job—unlike some other people we could probably talk about in Christchurch who maybe did not insure their facilities in the same way that this trust did. It is from that platform that the board is now with the new trust able to proceed forward and do the work that has to be completed. I want to congratulate this board particularly Jen Crawford on the way in which she chairs it.I also want to reiterate the importance of the clause that deals with trust vacancies and how people are appointed. I think it has been a very good decision to change the way those appointments are made so it can focus on skill sets. I do think that the amendment adding new clause 5A which deals with conflicts of interest is absolutely essential. So often when you change the way in which a board is selected and you bring on board the governance skills and the executive skills that you need to run what is going to be a $300 million project affecting 23 category 1 heritage buildings and people like that are appointed they are appointed for a range of skill sets. Very often they have a strong business background and very often you unfortunately have to deal with the issues of perceptions where those business people are seen to have vested interests in some way or another because of their business background. They might be property developers in their private life or they might be real estate agents—I do not know—but having strong clauses around dealing with conflicts of interest is very important and I think this bill has done that.As a former mayor I want to also talk about why this bill is important and about the deeper meaning. This bill is important to New Zealand First for a number of reasons. One is through having lived in Canterbury myself for 30-odd years on and off and having family who still reside there. I went down in 1974 and one of the first things that struck me about Christchurch was that it was different to the Wairarapa—really different. It was almost English. The culture the architecture the way in which people socialised and even the way in which they spoke in some parts of Christchurch in 1974 was very English. In fact the first question I got asked when I went down there was not where I was from but what school I went to. I found that quite unique because when I said it was Tararua College people did not have a donkey’s idea as to where the hell Tararua College was. And I think that situation still exists today.But it is a very English city built on the back of those pioneers and those settlers who came in the first four ships and the idea and the notion that every cultural and every heritage building—particularly in a precinct where you have 23 category 1 buildings—would not be rebuilt and would not be restored would be devastating to the community and the people of Christchurch. It is bad enough that the cathedral is in the state that it is in and is most likely not going to be rebuilt. The other buildings that you can see—churches throughout Christchurch—that will not be rebuilt and that are going to be replaced have all taken with them something of the character of Christchurch. So it is that important. It is so good to hear that legislation like this is going through and that we will see these buildings fully restored.There is also the wider issue of community and the great thing about the Arts Centre is the way in which it provides for the culture the community of the people of Christchurch and the people who wish to visit and enjoy its precincts. That ability to socialise to display art to display culture to display those things that are so Christchurch is something that would be difficult to replicate in a modern building built to modern designs and modern specifications. Being a mayor I understand and in fact it is probably one of the reasons why I railed against the National Government’s changes to the Local Government Act 2002 when it removed the four well-beings. Having been a mayor I understand completely the importance of community and the importance of having a centre like this for a town and its people. It is a place where they can go where they can communicate and where they can display and show their arts and show everything that is positive about them and different about them.That is probably the one area where we will have conversations and discussions going forward. They will be the debates around why it is so important that the Local Government Act has to have the four well-beings reinstated in it. I actually think that this piece of legislation is in a quiet sort of way a message and an affirmation from Parliament that culture the council’s involvement and the Government’s involvement in providing cultural and social facilities and amenities is important should be supported and should be maintained. I just think maybe we should reflect on that as we get into a debate where we will take different sides in this House going forward from here. Thank you.