Barnett Tim: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Barnett Tim: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8780] 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill be now read a second time 
. This is a local bill sponsored by my local city council. Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Committee has consulted on and considered this bill. It has produced amendments that may be detailed but also I believe are important in creating a smooth way forward for what I regard as a necessary but finely balanced piece of legislation. 
First for the House I would like to set the scene. The former Robert McDougall Art Gallery sits adjacent to the Canterbury Museum and opens on to the Botanic Gardens. Its core structure was funded by Robert E McDougall and it is located on land freed by the Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act 1925. It opened in 1932 and served the people of Christchurch for 70 years until it was replaced by the city’s shining new art gallery. That move to new premises was to the advantage of the people of the city and the promotion of the arts and gave Christchurch a very pleasant problem: what to do with a superbly sited category I historic building? Clearly the answer has to be something sustainable. 
Fate has intervened favourably. There is a fully planned and largely funded renovation and expansion of the Canterbury Museum. That superb collection enjoys massive public support; indeed its visitor figures are the highest for any museum in New Zealand apart from Te Papa. Space there is at a premium. Options for expansion within the profile of that category I historic building—the museum—are very limited. Expansion into the old art gallery space is a natural development and in the public interest. The Christchurch City Council conducted lengthy consultation on the appropriate use of the old art gallery building including 2 days of public hearings in May 2002. The bill that went through its first reading in this House was a result of that. 
I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work it did on this bill. It visited my electorate to consult on it and I regard that as a superb expression of the accessibility of this Parliament. During its visit it went to the site and also heard 10 submissions. I want to credit the energy and determination of the submitters on this bill notably Janet Begg and Anne Dingwall who are motivated by a passionate love for their city and for the former art gallery. They have monitored this development at every stage. Their interventions have improved the bill and their continued close interest in the project will ensure a high level of accountability. I also want to thank the Christchurch City Council particularly its solicitor Peter Mitchell for the energy and resources it has put into interacting with the public and their concerns. The issues raised in submissions were not simple ones and discussions have continued involving both Gerry Brownlee—who has been helpful in this matter—and myself since the select committee reported back. 
There are six core concerns relating to the bill. The first concern is that the gallery should properly be described as a public gallery. That is relevant; it fits the values and intent of the proposed lessees and it has my strong support. 
Second clause 6(1) of the bill allowed the gallery building to be used for purposes ancillary to the display of arts and crafts. The select committee replaced the word “purposes” with “activities” which I believe is clearer. The fear of some local submitters was that the gallery building might be used for unsuitable commercial operations but I think that fear is not well placed. Contemporary successful museums and galleries attract people through their range of services. The removal of the phrase “ancillary purposes”—or “ancillary activities”—would place such mainstream uses of space as storage or cafes under threat which would clearly be ludicrous. Specific concerns about detailed plans are best left to the local resource management process. 
Third clause 8 concerned the fact that the land and property are not subject to tax and it has properly been deleted as it was unnecessary. Fourth the word “Vesting” has been deleted from the title of the bill as being unnecessary and indeed misleading. 
Fifth there has been extensive debate concerning future use of the building and the land. Many submitters are fearful that the land on which the gallery stands will one day be subsumed into the museum or that the building will cease to be used for arts and crafts. I am convinced that if that were to happen Parliament would need to approve it using just such a process as we have today. That is an appropriate guarantee and protection. 
Finally some people have argued that the lease to the museum should be for less than 50 years. I do not believe that such a change is necessary. The best way to ensure public use and appreciation of this treasure of Christchurch is to give it security and sustainability. A close relationship with the museum is the best guarantee of that. 
I recommend this bill to the House.