Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill

I would just like to reiterate how important this bill is for the Arts Centre—it is important in terms of governance for the future of the Arts Centre—and how important the Arts Centre is to the people of Christchurch. So I support this bill completely.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill, in the Committee stage and reiterate Labour’s support for this bill. As the Minister who is the sponsor of this bill and who is in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner, has said, this is an important piece of legislation for Christchurch. I would like to acknowledge the work that that member has put into this bill. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee and the chair of the select committee, Scott Simpson. I would also like to acknowledge André Lovatt and Jen Crawford, who are in the gallery tonight. If I can break from procedure a little bit, I acknowledge the huge amount of work that you both have done in getting the bill to this stage.

I have spoken in previous readings about the significance this site has, I think, to all people in Christchurch, and about the affinity that all Cantabrians feel with this site, and how important to our recovery getting the rebuild of this site is. Central to getting the rebuild of this site and the repair of this site, of course, is having a governance structure that is fit for purpose. It is for this reason that Labour is supporting this bill. We want to see the Arts Centre trust in the strongest possible form going into the future.

Our one reservation, and I would like to re-enter it into the record, is that we do hope that although we are honouring the words of the trust deed in terms of limiting this to the stone buildings, this actually does extend across the site of the Arts Centre and does offer some protection to what is very fondly known to most Cantabrians as the former Dux de Lux buildings, or the old student union, a place that I am sure many Cantabrians feel a great deal of affinity for.

It is my pleasure to be able to support this bill. I have talked previously about a predecessor of mine, the Rt Hon Norman Kirk, and the incredibly central role that he played in bringing this set of buildings to be protected in the way that we have it protected today. I think we all want to make sure that these buildings are protected for many more generations to come, in our city and in our country. I am very happy to take this call.

It is a pleasure and a delight as chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee to take a call in the Committee stage of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. Just before I start my speech, I do want to thank members from across the Chamber for their contributions at the select committee and for the very thoughtful, meaningful, and collaborative way that we were able to negotiate our way through this piece of legislation. The select committee made a number of recommended changes to the bill as originally introduced, and they, I think, have undoubtedly gone to make this a better bill with a better outcome not only for the Arts Centre buildings themselves but for the trust that is charged with governing the heritage and the ongoing protection of this remarkable set of buildings that is so important to the people of Canterbury and Christchurch.

The select committee was privileged to actually go and visit the area known as the Arts Centre during the submission stages, and I think that very much helped the members who are not Cantabrians to understand the full meaning and significance of that collection of buildings to the people of Canterbury. The Hon Nicky Wagner, in her comments as sponsor of the bill, made the point that this set of buildings actually goes quite a long way towards representing the tangible rebuild of Christchurch far beyond the precinct that is just the Arts Centre. In a way, it is a sort of a beacon of hope and inspiration for the rest of the rebuild of Canterbury and Christchurch City. I think that this bill, which will ultimately mean that the governance structure of the Arts Centre organisation is in good stead for the future, will be very welcomed by the people of Canterbury.

As we went through the bill, one of issues that came up was the whole question of the stone buildings. I think that those of us who do not come from Canterbury, who maybe have been visitors to the area before, wanted to put into the legislation a reflection that the stone buildings were deeply significant and meaningful to the whole structure of this bill, but, notwithstanding that, there were actually some buildings in the complex that are not stone, and Megan Woods has mentioned repeatedly the Dux de Lux. I do not have any recollection of the Dux de Lux, but there you go.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: If you had a good night, you didn’t have any recollection of the Dux de Lux.

Well, many people, the Hon Amy Adams is telling me, do not have recollections of the Dux de Lux after a good night. But I am wondering whether the sponsoring member might take a further call later in this debate. I am keen to know a little bit more about that whole area of the stone versus the non-stone part of the building.

One of the suggestions that the select committee made was that clause 6 of the bill be amended. In addition, it recommended that a new clause—clause 12—be added to schedule 2. That new clause would enable the trust board to amend its constitution. I think that, on balance, that was something the select committee thought was sensible and practical, and it probably made the legislation better for having been included. We recommended that in addition to the requirement for the board to register the trust’s constitution, any subsequent amendments should be registered in accordance with the Charitable Trusts Act in the same way that the trust deeds are governed by that new piece of legislation. I think that too was a welcome and sensible addition to the original bill as it was introduced to the House.

The amendment to clause 6 of the bill will remove the ability of the Governor-General to, by Order in Council, amend schedule 2 of the bill. On the surface, members might be thinking: “Well, why would you want to do that? Why would that be in any way advantageous?”. The simple matter is that this change will avoid the prospect of any subsequent secondary legislation amending the provisions of this bill. I think that again is an important piece of ring-fencing, if you like, just to ensure that the future governance of the Arts Centre trust is protected in a way that ensures that it goes on for a very long time in the future.

There were a number of other changes that the select committee made, and I would like to just draw the attention of the Committee to them. One was that we wanted to amend clause 5(c) of schedule 2 to require that the trust board make the conservation plan for the Arts Centre available at its annual general meetings. This was a matter that received significant interest and debate around the committee table, and indeed there were a number of submitters who made the point that a heritage complex such as this needed to have a conservation plan that was available for public scrutiny, public input, and public consultation

They also said it needed to be a living plan. It should not be a plan that was presented just once and then not reviewed, looked at, or changed at any time in the future. It needed to be a document that would take into account all the best aspects of the complex, working into the future. This change will enable the trust board to engage with its key stakeholders, of whom there are many, about the work that is currently being done on the complex and also about what the future shape and style and nature of the Arts Centre will be, not just in the next couple of years but in the next 10, 20, 30, 40, or however many years ahead. The whole intention of that change was to effectively futureproof the conservation aspect and management of the Arts Centre.

I think, from memory, there were 23 buildings as part of the Arts Centre and all but one were significantly and severely damaged as a result of the earthquakes. In terms of the heritage rebuild, we were told as a committee that the work that is being done now, if not the largest heritage reconstruction going on anywhere in the world at the moment, is certainly right up there. Something like $270 million is being spent on the rebuild, and there are craftsmen and master stonemasons from all over the world who are taking part in this very important and historic rebuild of the Arts Centre.

But the main purpose of this legislation is to provide heritage futureproofing for the Arts Centre, which means so much to the people of Canterbury and Christchurch. I absolutely commend the local member, Nicky Wagner, for sponsoring this bill and bringing it to the House in the form of a local bill. It is exactly the appropriate format for it, but I would like it if the member can, at some stage, address some questions or give us some more information about the nature of the stone buildings and why the aspect of stone is so important to the heritage of the Arts Centre in Christchurch and to the Canterbury people.

I think that about sums up the contribution that I want to make. There were many good submissions received. It was an absolute pleasure to visit Christchurch and then to visit the Arts Centre as part of our work on the select committee. It was a pleasure also to see the dedicated nature of the craftsmen, and of the board, which is doing such good work, and to see the work of the board’s chair, Jen Crawford. She is leading a very good governance team. The chief executive officer, André Lovatt, is completely committed, charged, and passionate about the work that is being done.

I am completely confident that this piece of legislation, when it eventually passes through this House, will secure the long-term heritage future of the Arts Centre in a way that could not have occurred without a relook at, and a rehash of, the governance structure of this very important body.

I absolutely commend this bill to the Committee of the whole House, and I am looking forward to the contribution that other members will no doubt want to make as we move this important and significant piece of Canterbury legislation through the Committee stage and onward through Parliament. Thank you.

Like others I am very pleased to take a call on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill, and I am pleased that it is progressing so quickly through the House. It was introduced in June last year. I also congratulate the local member, the Hon Nicky Wagner, on the work she has done on sponsoring the bill. It is always a pleasure to be involved in bills where there is agreement in the House, where peace and harmony break out.

The bill attracted four submissions. They were generally supportive and sought only small changes. I think that shows there was very good consultation on developing the bill. In previous speeches I have talked about the significance of the Arts Centre as a cultural centre and its iconic heritage buildings, and I have talked about its importance to Christchurch. I will not repeat that. I have also acknowledged the work that the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board has done, and particularly the contribution of Jen Crawford and the chief executive officer, André Lovatt.

I would also like to acknowledge tonight the Hon Margaret Austin because she represents the Christchurch Civic Trust on the Arts Centre board. She has played a significant role in the development of the bill. She certainly briefed me and, I am sure, other MPs on the bill’s purpose before it was introduced. That was very helpful in understanding the changes to the trust board’s governance, which were needed to provide a solid base for the future and to enable the trust board to continue with, as Scott Simpson mentioned, the quite extensive earthquake restoration and renovations.

I would just like to comment briefly that the civic trust did want an amendment to the bill on the way in which it dealt with the many different land titles, particularly in the eastern part of the Arts Centre site, where there are five separate titles. It was quite controversial when the University of Canterbury wanted to establish a national conservatorium for music on the Hereford Street car-park site. I think the civic trust was concerned that having these separate titles would mean that there was the potential—the door was left open—in the future for the trust to dispose of one of the titles to accommodate another controversial development. But I was reassured, as a member of the select committee, by the advice that the officials provided, which was that if the trust board was to seek to dispose of part of the site, then it would be acting contrary to the objects of the bill, which, of course, are to promote, conserve, and maintain the heritage integrity of the land and buildings of the Arts Centre.

Although we have the utmost respect for the civic trust and its advocacy work on protecting the heritage of Christchurch, the select committee did not proceed with the change that the trust was seeking. But we did make a couple of changes that, as Scott Simpson has suggested, have also improved the bill, enabling the trust board to amend its constitution through the normal processes in the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. This means that rather than the quite cumbersome process of going through an Order in Council and substituting the wind-up provisions in clause 8—this would have allowed the trust to transfer any debts to the Crown—it can instead refer to the wind-up provisions in the Charitable Trusts Act.

Of course, everybody hopes that those provisions will never be needed. The foresight of former members of the trust board, present members, and former chief executive officers has ensured that the trust had adequate insurance for the Arts Centre, which has been so important in funding the restoration work. Given the flair, the competence, and the dedication with which the trust board is undertaking the very ambitious and inspiring $290 million restoration project, I think we can say that the Arts Centre is in very good hands and that there is no foreseeable need for those wind-up provisions to be used.

Also why I say that is that when you look at the Arts Centre website, it states that this bill is about protecting heritage and improving governance arrangements, but the trust board is also looking very much forward. It wants to “create a hub of creative entrepreneurs in the heart of Christchurch that is undeniably 21st Century:”. That is what the website says. In terms of the repair and restoration, it is bringing in the very latest heating technology, in terms of the heat exchange systems, and is using water in the aquifers to be very energy efficient. It is looking at the use of the spaces that use good technology, are creative, and respect and honour the past, but it is also looking to the future in terms of some of the new creative techniques in the digital sphere, for example. It is marrying the past, the present, and the future. I pay great tribute to the trust board and the work that it is doing to restore and repair the buildings and create a wonderful Arts Centre and centre for Christchurch. Thank you.

I too rise to take a call on this particular bill. I want to acknowledge the work that the Hon Nicky Wagner has done to bring this bill to the House. Like the previous speaker, I want to acknowledge the work that the Hon Margaret Austin has done and the advice she has given to many people about this piece of legislation. Can I also just acknowledge the members of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board, who have been at most of the sittings of this piece of legislation, such is their interest that we do this right. We are very grateful for the advice and support that they have provided during this process.

I do not want to take too much of the time this evening, but I do want to say that many of the intricacies of this piece of legislation have been well traversed over the previous readings. But there are a couple of things that I think are really important that I am particularly supportive of, like the fact that this piece of legislation really goes some way to enshrining what the trust board wants to do, not only in its responsibilities under its current mechanisms but also in terms of what the trust board may want to do in the future to ensure the viability of the Arts Centre right through to the next century.

Some of that work is really around ensuring it is able to provide the right kinds of skills and expertise at the trust board level, so it is provided the opportunity to ensure that the right skills base is able to be brought in at a pertinent time, when it is needed. I think that is a very useful and forward-thinking mechanism for the trust board to use.

This is a fairly compact bill. There are only two parts to it. Part 1, of course, deals with some of the general aims, sets up the legal framework for this piece of legislation, and looks at the amended governance structure to attest to those particular objects that I talked about. It ensures that into the future the governance structure is appropriate for the future use and, of course, goes on to ensure that we are able to respond to, and appropriately recover these buildings from, the earthquake damage.

Part 2, of course, sets out much more the objects of the trust and, in particular, ensures that there is compliance with the Charitable Trusts Act within this, and it does set out the powers of the trust board. The bill then concludes with the schedules and the descriptions of the constitution.

I do not really need to say much more on this. I commend the Hon Nicky Wagner for bringing this bill to the House. The Arts Centre is a great piece of heritage, it has had a long and varied history over its time, and I look forward to enjoying the Arts Centre well into the future. Thank you.

I did want to come down to the House and take a call on this bill as a member from Canterbury and a member who has had, obviously, an involvement right through the period of the earthquakes and the recovery. Can I just begin by acknowledging my colleague in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner, who has not only brought the bill as the local MP for Christchurch Central, which she has successfully been for some years now, but also, in a happy coincidence, in her capacity as the Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery.

As I think every Canterbury member of this House will agree, there are certain milestones in the recovery and certain parts of the recovery that we look to as being a real sense of: “Yes, that’s another one under our belt that makes us feel like we really are making significant strides.” All of the progress steps are good, but there have been certain points where you can just feel a collective sense of: “Yeah, you know, we’re getting there.” I can name a number of them, and they will be different for every member. Certainly one of the earliest ones for me, and it sounds a little bit sort of trite and frivolous, was the first night sitting in the new temporary AMI Stadium watching the Crusaders horsemen gallop around the park, the crowd going nuts, and the red and black flags flying proudly. There was that sense of: “You know what, we might be down, but we’re still here.”

The Arts Centre, in a totally different way, has the same sort of community cohesion and sense of being like a living member of our community, because I do not think there is a Cantabrian who does not have fond and numerous memories of the Arts Centre in a number of ways. I, obviously, went to law school at the University of Canterbury, and there is a real sense in Canterbury when you talk to the University of Canterbury graduates of “Were you in town or out at the new campus?”, and that was a real dividing line in the history of the University of Canterbury. The law graduates from the good old days, as they would have it, back in the Arts Centre would talk lovingly about their lectures in the Arts Centre buildings and of going off to court, and doing their articles during the day with local law firms.

The Arts Centre has, obviously, progressed through a number of iterations. We are talking about more than a hundred years of history. Over its life it has had quite a number of iterations, through to a market and, sort of, an arts precinct with local food, cinemas, craftsmen, and obviously the famous Dux de Lux.

There are a couple of things that I think are worth commenting on. Firstly, this Committee—and a number of speakers have done it before me—has been absolutely right to pay tribute to the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board. They have paid tribute to both the trust board that is there now—Jen Crawford and her team of trustees—and the trustees who have been there right the way through this incredibly difficult period, and, actually, those who even earlier did have the foresight to think about preserving, protecting, and strengthening the centre and also taking out significant insurance, which has been, obviously, in hindsight, an absolute blessing.

Not only that, but I have been, as a local member, hugely encouraged and impressed by the unwavering commitment the trust board has to taking the time it takes to put the Arts Centre back in a way that is as true to its original design as possible. That is not a small undertaking. As a member of a trust board you have, obviously, fiduciary responsibilities, and yet it has understood the importance of doing this right. I do think it needs to be acknowledged for that work. It is a shame that we cannot see the same sort of collaborative consensus and community-wide support for some of the other restoration decisions in the city, because equally important buildings, unfortunately, have been caught up in much more contentious processes.

Interestingly enough—and it may sound a little like a tangent—one of the things I cannot help reflecting on as the Minister of Justice is the impact we see through this legislation of trust boards not remaining fit for purpose and trust deeds that are written with the best will in the world very quickly becoming rigid and unhelpful documents in the face of adapting to the modern world. Really, this is what we have in this legislation. It is a piece of legislation to give a proper legal foundation for the trust board and the operations it needs going forward, and I am delighted that this House is able to set aside the time to do that. It may not reach the significant impact of some of the other decisions that we debate, but it is critical to this organisation, which is doing a good job, and to see this House come together, recognise that, and make the time to do it is critical. But there is a salutary lesson for people setting up trusts and charitable trusts and vesting property in such trusts all over the country: they are not without complications and are not easy to amend when you do need to amend them. I think that there is a critical lesson in that.

Finally, I read through the report back from the Local Government and Environment Committee. As a member of this House who does not sit on that committee, I want to thank and acknowledge the work of that committee. It has clearly been a process of quite some detail and I commend it for that.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a very brief call in support of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I want to start, actually, by paying tribute to the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have got to say that when I first came back into Parliament and witnessed the swallowing up of all the chairman’s roles and deputy chairman’s roles of all the select committees, it sort of made my heart sink a little bit. I thought, well, here we have a Government that has decided that it is going to control everything in Parliament and it is not going to share any responsibilities with other parties at the select committee level, and I found that quite disappointing.

I went into the select committee with a bit of a heavy heart. I have got to say that Scott Simpson and the other Government members of the Local Government and Environment Committee are proving to be very collegial and very easy and good to work with. I really want to take my hat off to Scott Simpson and say that in the next reshuffle, mate, I hope you actually land one of those portfolios in Cabinet or even outside of it. You are doing a good job. I know full well that this is going to be used later on; I am just saying that I am appreciative of that.

I particularly say that because, as a mayor, I came to this House when the local government amendment legislation was going through and I, unfortunately, had to sit as a witness to those submissions put forward by other people who are interested in the Local Government Act. I was thoroughly disappointed with the way that that committee attacked members of Local Government New Zealand and other submitters who dared to criticise the legislation that went through. I am sorry, Nicky, but the behaviour of that committee and the reports that continue to be discussed around Local Government New Zealand speak very ill of that committee, in the way it behaved. This Local Government and Environment Committee is nothing like that. It is a very good committee to work in, and the work coming out of there reflects that.

It is interesting also to look at the names of the people who have been involved in the Christchurch Arts Centre over the years. As someone who lived on and off in Canterbury for 30 years, I see those people’s names here in the legislation going back in time to 1978—Albert Brownlie, Malcolm Douglass, Peter Dunbar, Richard Harrington, Graham Miller, Noel Searell, and Thomas Taylor. Those people have done sterling work in Canterbury for the Arts Centre over the years and that work is carried on very ably by Margaret Austin, a person I have great affection for. She is one of those people who talked me into standing for Parliament right at the outset and supported me in my campaign against Ruth “mother of all Budgets” Richardson—a scalp we very, very nearly got and we did get indirectly when she got fired by Jim Bolger as a result of that election.

This bill is an easy one to support. It is eminently sensible. The purpose and objectives of the bill are clearly to set up a better governance structure that makes it possible for what is going to be a $290 million project involving 23 category I heritage buildings to be completed on time and with fiscal prudence, and to ensure that the Arts Centre is managed sustainably going into the future. We can only support that.

I am one of those people who spent a few nights in the Dux de Lux, having a quiet ale here and there. No doubt if I had known him then, I would have probably had a beer with Matt Doocey as well, as we discussed the ills and the woes of the world, amongst many students from Canterbury who likewise imbibed a few in those surroundings. The opportunity to take my children—and now my grandchildren—into the Arts Centre to enjoy the entertainment, to enjoy the arts, the culture, the vibrancy, and the atmosphere was something we enjoyed as a young family and I am very confident this legislation will make it possible for that to continue for generations to come.

There were some issues around—and I am just looking back through my notes here—the powers of the trust board and the appointments, the mechanism by which people are appointed. Eminently sensible decisions were taken there. Removing the Minister from any perceived control over who gets appointed I think was a very sensible move and New Zealand First supports that. Having said that, I know from personal experience there have been some very sensible decisions made by some of this Government’s Ministers in the past, people they have appointed to places, and I thank them very much for those appointments in the past. I just want to close by saying that it is a good bill, good work. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure working with the team on that. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill.

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!

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

I move , That we stay in Committee. We have other speakers coming up.

I am standing to take this call on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. It is great to be from Christchurch; great to be from Canterbury. As a young fellow born in the old Calvary Hospital, it strikes me with some irony that I spent many years as a student investing in the longevity of the Arts Centre via the Dux de Lux, and now I get to invest in the longevity of the Arts Centre through this bill. I managed to wear my new blue suit today, but, like my parliamentary colleague Megan Woods, I very much wanted to wear my red and black suit—but I am red and black on the inside.

The Arts Centre is as Christchurch as sitting on the embankment at Lancaster Park, watching the Christchurch and Canterbury teams through the 1980s Shield challenge era. The Arts Centre is as Christchurch as sitting in the square watching the Birdman and watching the Wizard at lunchtime. The Arts Centre is as Christchurch as going up to Mount Hutt and skiing during the morning and heading down to Sumner and swimming in the afternoon.

Could I acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner for bringing this local bill to the Committee. You could not find a harder-working Minister and MP than the Hon Nicky Wagner, and, I suppose for a Canterbury MP myself, she is such a role model with her work ethic. I also acknowledge Scott Simpson, who is the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—a select committee that holds a huge workload—for his effortless approach in dispensing the work at hand.

The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill reflects the local, national, and international heritage significance of the Arts Centre. Growing up in Christchurch, I very much know that Christchurch is deemed the most English city outside England. The Arts Centre is the heart of that, along with the Hagley Park, our beautiful botanic gardens, the Avon River, which weaves its way through the city, with the willow trees, and, of course, the great Christchurch Cathedral. But most of all, I suppose, it is our archaic one-way system through the city, and the great English street names, like Hereford Street, Manchester Street, and Lichfield Street. The bill is a key part of protecting and preserving the Arts Centre of Christchurch for the future. As many will know, Christchurch experienced severe earthquakes, and the Arts Centre was impacted on by the first earthquake in September 2010, and subsequently in February 2011.

Since we are in Committee, I would just like to take some time and talk to the clauses. Clause 8 was removed—this one would have transferred trust property to the Crown on an interim basis in the event that the trust was to be wound up. Omitting this clause avoids debts accrued by the trust board being adopted by the Crown. Also, new clause 5(2) was added, requiring that all income, benefits, or advantages received or accrued to the trust be used to advance the charitable purposes of the trust. We do know that this Arts Centre has considerable potential for income and revenue streams. Before the earthquakes and the subsequent closure of the Arts Centre, there were up to 1.5 million tourists turning up at the Arts Centre every year. They went along to see the Court Theatre. They went along to see the many markets, as well as the art studios. I myself can remember going along to the range of cuisine and food carts there as well, and, of course, to the Dux de Lux, which we have heard a lot about tonight. There is also the amending of clause 9 to state that the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 applies to the trust and the trust board.

I think we need to remind ourselves here of the scale and the size of this work. Currently this restoration project is the largest in the world, at a scale of around $280 million to $300 million.

💬 Todd Muller: How much?

It is $280 million to $300 million. This is currently the world’s largest restoration project, and we do know that the Christchurch Arts Centre is also the largest cluster of heritage buildings in New Zealand. What we need to do is think about this gem within the story of the earthquake recovery. There are a lot of views put forward, but if we do not take stock of the good stories of the Christchurch recovery we are going to miss these great stories.

The Local Government and Environment Committee did go down and convene the committee in Christchurch, where we heard the very succinct and eloquent submissions of the chief executive officer, André Lovatt, and the trust chair as well. It was great to get a tour of the Christchurch Arts Centre from them. My colleague Todd Muller has talked about it tonight. Their energy and enthusiasm and their passion are what is driving this forward, as well as the support of Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand, and also the rest of the world. What I mean by that is that they took us into the stonemason room, and around that room they have flags from all around the world. Each flag represents a different type of nationality of stonemason. Many of these people have contacted the Arts Centre off their own bat because they want to be part of this restoration project. It is currently the largest project of its kind in the world. It is great to see this workforce coming from around the whole world to instil this specialist skill of stonemasonry. Christchurch’s Art Centre will be rebuilt. We are very much looking forward to that gem of the Christchurch recovery.

We also amended clause 6 and in schedule 2 added a new clause 12 to enable the trust board to amend its constitution. I would ask the Minister whether we could maybe hear a bit more about what Jen Crawford, the trust chair, and André Lovatt, the chief executive officer, spoke about. It is a shift from representation to a skills-based governance model. They explained that what they would be doing is moving to a skills-based governance model where individuals will be appointed by an appointments committee so that the trust board has a strong set of skills to address the issues that will come up through this restoration project, but it will also ensure that this board will have the right skills and experience to take the Arts Centre forward over the next 10, 20, 30, and 40 years. So I would hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that—to ensure that the implementation of this new governance system will achieve the outcome that they hope for. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

I call Simon O’Connor.

I would be biased if I said that was the right call. I am very pleased to stand and take a call on this, the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I am very conscious—and I probably must apologise to Minister Wagner and others—that I am an Aucklander. I do apologise, but I actually think that the arts is something that moves well beyond just Canterbury and Christchurch. It is something for the whole country.

I want to acknowledge the work that is already being done and add to some of the questions that my colleagues have been putting to the Minister tonight. I want to signal to the Hon Nicky Wagner that there are a few thoughts I want to raise. As an initial context, I remember the Arts Centre well from trips down to Christchurch in the past. I remember it for two reasons: not only for the art and for the drawing together of people and the expression they bring but also for the architecture. When I returned after the Canterbury earthquakes, that was something I felt quite profoundly and quite sadly. But really what it comes back to is the people. I think, inherently, what is happening here is drawing the people back together. That is not only in the bill but in the governance structures and so forth. If I was to push that a little bit further in some ways, picking up on what the Greens spoke about earlier—I think it was the member Eugenie Sage—actually, this has been quite a collegial discussion and environment in which to progress things forward.

The arts are important. Anyone who knows me knows I am a great supporter of the arts—everything from the Royal New Zealand Ballet to the opera, to the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, and the like, and also the other forms of the arts and expression that we have—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: The NZSO?

Oh, sorry, I have been remiss. I have shown my Auckland bias. I have been instantly reminded by the Hon Christopher Finlayson of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, of course. I say that as context because, of course, what the Arts Centre does is touch on a whole different range.

Some people might be questioning, as we look at this bill tonight in the Committee of the whole House, why we are bothering with something such as the arts. I cannot help but be drawn to what Churchill once said—granted, in the context of the war and the devastation there. He was asked by someone: “Why are we actually putting all this money into the arts? Why are we putting it into the arts when there are much more important things?”—in this case, the war. Churchill said: “Well, what are we fighting for?”.

I think that is a really important context when we come to Canterbury and to this particular area. What we are after is a really important expression. If I may share one quick expression. When I lived in Fiji for 2 years, around a vocational—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking your advice. I know that we decided to take this bill as one part, but now we are about to hear about his Fiji trip. He has talked about the Auckland orchestra in the context of Christchurch. I just think it is going a little bit broad at the moment, and I would like you to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I take the member’s point, and I ask the member who has the floor currently to come back to the matter in question.

If I may, actually—the context, the element, of Fiji, despite the member’s objection, is destruction. I do not intend to push this too far, but it is the—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have made a considered ruling that Fiji is not part of Christchurch. Indeed, arguably, it is not even part of the South Island. The member opposite has flouted your ruling—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I do not need any further help in respect of this matter. Please take your seat. I do not need any assistance from the member on this point of order. The member who has the floor was drawing it into context, and I am sure—I am absolutely convinced—that his next contribution will be totally salient.

Vanaka vaka levu, au kila—anyway, we will leave it there. Let us not continue, or we might get into trouble.

The key part about the Arts Centre here is that it is a new opportunity to take what has been an existing trust and to build on the strength of it, but to bring about new opportunities. We have heard from many members about the great work that Jen Crawford, as the chair, has been doing, as well as André Lovatt as the chief executive officer. What we are seeing in this bill is an attempt to change the structure to move it towards something that is more skills-based. We have heard that from other members. I think that in a time of crisis, if you will, it is really important often to move from the representative, which respects the sort of normality of the situation, to bring it back into the context of crisis. This means you need skilled people from the community to help drive this forward. We have heard it from the Local Government and Environment Committee, and when you read through the report, you can see that a lot of consideration has been given to this: how do we do it better?

For those of us who have worked in community groups, on community boards, with sports groups, and otherwise, we always know that there is an ebb and flow. We are not expecting the crises of Christchurch, but there are ebbs and flows when there are times where you move from normality into the need for skills-based leadership. It is really good to see that in place here. I think, though, I would appreciate some of the insights from the Minister on why she sees this to be comprehensively skills based and why there is no need, or not a specific need, for some representation, or maybe the two will blend in there. The other is, and it is one of the first things that was drawn to my attention, around clause 8. The select committee was very clear on the need for the Crown to be removed in terms of transferring the trust property to the Crown. I think this is quite a fundamental question. The Crown is trying to step back. I think there is a paradox in that.

I just want to reflect on some questions that have come up during the debate. First of all, I want to reflect on Scott Simpson’s question. Scott Simpson was concerned about the reference to the stone buildings of the Arts Centre. As we have heard significantly tonight, the stone buildings are a cluster of 23 magnificent stone buildings. They are all neo-Gothic buildings, just like the provincial chambers, just like the Christchurch Cathedral, just like the Canterbury Museum, just like some of the buildings in Christ’s College. They are wonderfully detailed, they are very special, and they were built over a period of about 50 years from about the late 1880s forward. It is particularly important that the stone buildings are emphasised in this bill. It reflects the wording of the original trust deed and represents the importance of these stone buildings to those people who set up the trust. It also, of course, represents the heritage significance. The Local Government and Environment Committee supported the view of the trust board on this point, but it did propose an amendment. It was an amendment to the definition of “The Arts Centre”, so that it did include other buildings on that site. I think that is the right thing to do.

In reference to Todd Muller’s request, in terms of the removal of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage—I think that was a wise thing to do. It did remove any possible idea—any misperception—that the Minister wanted to influence the board, and showed that the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board would be truly independent.

In relation to Matt Doocey’s comments on the English names of Christchurch streets, they are indeed reflecting the English provinces and we do have the Arts Centre on Worcester Street. He may be interested to know that the way the names were picked is that they were names of dioceses of the Church of England, and that is how we get Madras, Barbados, and Montreal Streets—so not just English streets.

Finally, to Simon O’Connor—in terms of the purpose of the bill, of course it is to provide quality governance for the future. I think the present trust board was well aware of the need for a comprehensive, skills-based board, and I think that will futureproof the board going forward.

All in all, I thank the Committee members for their comments and debate tonight. This is a good bill and I support it.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Preamble, Parts 1 and 2, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.