Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill

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.

I am sure that the motion will be agreed to. I want to speak about the background to the bill, because, in many ways, this could best be described as a bill that deals with the transition from the way that things were done some 78 years ago to the way that things are done in today’s world. I would like to say to the many people who have expressed concerns about the future of the Robert McDougall Gallery that this bill most certainly does move to protect the gallery’s longer-term interests. In his speech Tim Barnett mentioned Janet Begg and Anne Dingwall. Those two people have put a great deal of time into this matter, ably assisted by Hamish Douche, and, as Tim Barnett has said, their contribution has made the bill even more resolute. It has also given us a lot of opportunities to consider just what various clauses in the bill effectively mean.

The first point I make is that this gallery is a very grand building. As Tim Barnett said, it was built in 1925. It sits right at the back end of the museum, and faces out on to the beautiful botanic gardens in Christchurch. The land was annexed from the botanic gardens in order for the Robert McDougall Gallery to be built in the first place. When the gallery was gifted to the city its purpose was to be a place of display for the arts and crafts that Christchurch City owned at that time. Over the years, that collection has grown to be a very substantial one, and it is now housed further down the road in the new Christchurch Art Gallery.

I ask people to picture this. The botanic gardens are to the south-east of the city, the Robert McDougall Gallery is on the adjacent land, and the museum is immediately behind that. It is then about a kilometre up the boulevard to the city cathedral in Cathedral Square, and, along the way, on the right, there is the Arts Centre of Christchurch—formerly the Canterbury University site—and on the left, just a bit further down the road, there is the brand new art gallery, which is a splendid building. Of course, one can also ride the tram all the way across the Avon River to Otautahi, the former provincial library, which has now been converted into a meeting place for people in the city, and then into the square itself. What is slowly happening in that area is that most of the arts per se are relocating, and one can see an arts precinct developing there, which I think will be good not only for Christchurch but for the Southern Hemisphere. So in many ways protecting this building, by making it part of the museum and giving the Canterbury Museum a very long lease over it, is very positive for the city.

One of the concerns that the group initially raised with the Local Government and Environment Committee, and subsequently with other members, was the issue of the encroachment of food service arrangements into the footprint of the old McDougall building itself. That is an issue that cannot really be dealt with in the bill, and, as the previous speaker said, it is best left to the resource management process. But because the people who are involved do have sensitivities about the use of the building, a revised resource consent plan will be in front of the city council as soon as this bill is passed. It will see a very small amount of the McDougall building used only for seating, and not for the servicing or food preparation associated with cafeteria-type operations.

There was also worry about the provision in the bill that states that the purpose of the gallery is for the public display of art, decorative arts and crafts, and ancillary activities. The basement of the McDougall building is set up as an area in which artworks can be conserved and repaired, allowing for programmes for the restoration of pieces of some merit. That would be defined as an ancillary purpose. If the bill were to exclude ancillary purposes, that could not progress. More than that, the McDougall building is also occasionally used by the Symphony Orchestra for very exclusive concerts. I know chamber music concerts are held there, and it is very appropriate for that to occur. Her Majesty the Queen used the building briefly to freshen up in 1990 before a reception on the Archery Lawn, which is immediately below the McDougall building in the botanic gardens. All those activities would have been prevented, as well, had ancillary activities not been allowed. The group understood eventually that it is the resource management process that will manage the activity that goes on in that building. The legislation very strongly links the ancillary activities to the display of art, decorative arts, and crafts.

The other issue was a suggestion that, should the building no longer be used for those purposes, it would revert to the botanic gardens. The difficulty with that, of course, is that the building itself is registered as a category I building by the Historic Places Trust and cannot be pulled down. Secondly, if the museum were to relinquish the lease, the Christchurch City Council would become the owner, and the council would be vesting the land back in itself because, obviously, it owns the botanic gardens. There is very strong protection there for the land and for any future use. My own confident view is that the building will continue to be a significant gallery for the display of artworks. The Canterbury Museum has a collection of some 8,000 artworks. Many of those are early pencil sketches of Canterbury landscapes, and they will be on display. Many of those sketches were done by famous people from the Canterbury district, and they will be on display.

I dare say that there will be the opportunity in this gallery to have a Helen Clark wing, in which some of the Prime Minister’s artwork could be on display. I say “the Prime Minister’s artwork”, but perhaps some of the artwork arranged by the Prime Minister could be put there. It would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to have artwork that she has purchased displayed in the gallery. It would be entirely consistent with this bill for the Prime Minister to have a gallery full of her art. She would not need to sign it, because the wing itself would be named the Helen Clark wing of the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. I suspect some of the things we would see in it would be some of the plates that are being prepared for the new currency notes that we will soon have in circulation, with Helen Clark’s photograph—and, no doubt, her signature—on them. Some of the stamps that will bear Helen Clark’s head could be in there. Those are all things that are entirely consistent with the display of art and decorative arts.

I would not be at all surprised if the McDougall gallery makes a request to the Hon Judith Tizard, the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, for some of her knitting for display there. That would be OK. Perhaps it could be a bit of knitting that has been done in the House—a bit of a Madame LaFarge effort, knitting as the guillotine comes down on the Government.

But in general, we can say that all those people who worried that that building might not be used for its original purpose should be content that the bill protects it as much as possible. The original gift from the McDougall family—from Mr McDougall himself—was a generous one. His intentions were clear, and they are maintained in this event. It is my understanding that Robert McDougall’s descendants are very happy that the gallery will continue to carry his name, and that it will be a significant part of the museum’s redevelopment. It is interesting to note that, in an airspace between the old museum and the McDougall gallery itself, a marae will be built and a full meeting house will be put in place, so that the earliest descendants of Otautahi can also be recognised in that cultural precinct.

I rise to commend this bill to the House. I was greatly enamoured of the speech by Gerry Brownlee. He has obviously been brushing up on a number of skills—his encyclopedic memory of what goes on in the Robert McDougall Gallery—in order to get ready for the new job that he will need, come 2005. On behalf of the Auckland MPs, I congratulate the Christchurch MPs on promoting this legislation. As they will appreciate, Auckland has several of these wonderful edifices, and we are grateful that the Cantabrians are now on the catch-up. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First, and to indicate that we will, of course, support this bill passing through the House. I was not the New Zealand First person who sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee and took part in the deliberations on the legislation. In fact, it is with some regret that, whilst I am a Canterbury man—a Christchurch resident, and a Waimakariri ratepayer—and, as I now understand it, I am contributing towards some of the costs that have been incurred here, I say it was Jim Peters who saw this bill through the select committee stage. It is just a little sad that he is not here to speak to it, but I will make some passing comments.

First, I would like to acknowledge the generosity of some people, long since passed away, who were responsible in the first place for Christchurch’s art gallery. In fact, that is pretty well laid out in the submission from the Christchurch City Council. In 1928, the managing director of Aulsebrooks Ltd, Robert McDougall, donated £25,000 for the construction of the art gallery. I also find that in 1982-83 the administrative wing was made possible by a generous donation of $250,000 from the Molly Morpeth Canaday Fund. Is it not ironic that the very people who are often accused of being horrible, nasty, mean, Tory people with too much money, and who are often the subject of political envy by socialist parties and members of socialist parties who want to give all the money to the poor and the impoverished, are actually the very people who contribute freely of their own time? We can look at the Todds and at so many of the families out there who, on the one hand—

Hon Mark Burton: This is the man who abused me yesterday about luxury—

RON MARK: Yes, because the member gives away money as though it is going out of fashion. That Minister who is prattling on and interjecting, Mr Mark Burton, is known for one thing: throwing around other people’s money like an 8-armed octopus. He has never ever had to go out and mortgage his home, raise capital, create a business, and employ people himself. He is a man who has lived off the taxpayer’s teat all his life. It is a great irony that this great art gallery in Christchurch would not even exist but for the very types of people whom he and his ilk continually criticise on the election hustings as being greedy capitalists—rich and horrible people. Those very people fund some of our institutions out of their own pockets, and we are grateful that they exist.

Here is one of the great ironies. Normally, it is the reserve of the rich and the wealthy to be seen at symphonies, the ballet, the art gallery, and walking the catwalk at the Montana New Zealand Wearable Arts Awards. But in this day and age the Labour Party, which reflects academic socialism, no longer has a truck driver, a freezing worker, a mechanic, or a tradesperson in its ranks. Its members are always to be seen funding art, turning up to open art shows, poncing themselves around as the new socialist elite of the new society, and holding themselves up as the protectors of the art world. That really strikes a chord with the men from the freezing works at Belfast. They know precisely—

Clayton Cosgrove: The member’s never been there.

RON MARK: I say to Mr Cosgrove that I was there when he was there, during my campaign at the 1993 election. I have been there many, many times since then. Asking that question shows that the member is ignorant or wants to perpetuate a lie, or both. He should make up his mind. Maybe the man has never been there himself, and is jealous of me. But here we have a situation where the member has been there three times in 5 years—not bad, given that he has worked in this Parliament for a lot longer than that. Do we not find it ironic that those people who left the Labour Party with their vote, who took their membership away—and there are a lot of them here in the House—look upon the Labour Party now as a new cultural and social elite? That makes them, given their criticism of the Tories, whom they hate, and of the capitalists, whom they loathe—

Hon Ken Shirley: And secretly envy.

RON MARK: And secretly envy, and whom they just want to be like—even more able to be called that horrible “h” word that we are not allowed to use in the Chamber.

This bill is a good move. However, I cannot let this debate pass by without mentioning that tower of strength in support of Helen Clark as a painter and an artist: the mayor of Christchurch, Gary Moore. He is a Labour Party stalwart from way back. It has not been lost on Labour voters in Canterbury that the very people who fronted up with $47 million of ratepayers’ money to build the new art gallery, which is replacing the McDougall art gallery, came from Labour ranks. Once again Labour members want to be seen at the opera, at the ballet, and at the forefront of promoting art, because God knows they cannot paint for themselves. God knows that Helen Clark cannot paint, despite the fact that she said she could. Labour members want to be seen up there amongst the socially elite. That is actually one of the most astounding things about the Labour Party of today. If we are to look at that party closely we must ask ourselves what it does stand for, in all the things that it has progressed through the House and through its Labour Party card-carrying lackeys in local government. What have Labour members been most concerned about in the last 4 years? Well they are not concerned about housing in Christchurch, because the State houses are full of immigrants and refugees. They are not concerned about the health services and their delivery, because that money is going out to immigrants and refugees. They are not concerned about catering for real jobs.

Hon Mark Burton: It’s about jobs—real jobs.

RON MARK: Oh jobs, the man says. The only thing he is interested in is chasing 55-year-olds out into the workforce. He does not give a toss about the lazy, sit-on-their-backsides-doing-nothing people whom New Zealand First had working for the dole. No, he wants to harangue nanas and granddads, and to get them out to work because they need a job jolt.

It is good to see that this bill will go through the House. It is good to see that the Christchurch City Council has consulted with people, and has adhered to the principles laid down by the people who originally fronted up with the money and donated it for the building of the art gallery. That will leave a great sense of satisfaction with their heirs, and, no doubt, with the 200-300 people who actually made submissions to the council. But that leaves this question: what about the tens and hundreds of thousands of other Christchurch people who did not make submissions? What about those people who actually just want the Labour-led local government of Christchurch, and this Labour central government to take care of some of the basics? I am referring to things like escalating electricity prices, people who cannot get a State home, people who sit in a queue waiting to get access to hospital services while immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers take the money out from under their noses—[Interruption] It is all about being relevant. This is all about splurging money—hard-earned money—on things that are actually set up to gratify Helen Clark’s artistic desires. That is what the issue is all about.

If the old gallery ends up being used as a museum that will be great, because I know a lot of work is being done to expand the Canterbury Museum. That is desperately needed, because in there we house the whakapapa of the Canterbury district and the greater South Island, and that is very, very important. What I do not want to see there are the ashes of Helen Clark’s painting. I do not want to see in the Robert McDougall Art Gallery, which will be converted into a museum, Helen Clark’s art works. I do not want, at some distant time, my great grandchildren to wander through the gallery and see the replica painting of Helen Clark’s forgery—it would have to be a replica, because we know that for some reason someone purchased the painting that she signed and destroyed it. But Helen Clark did not know anything about that!

Hon David Carter: What about a photograph?

RON MARK: There may be a photograph, but we will have to decide whether it should be the one where she used a hairbrush or an airbrush. That is the other piece of art forgery that could go in this art gallery. The Labour Party’s pre-election card purports to have a photo of Helen Clark on it, but it must be her daughter. Yet we know she does not have a daughter, so that cannot be the case. Now I am really confused. That was the last bit of art forgery.

There is another forgery over here. I saw a document down in the bookshop in Bowen House and on the front page there was a photo of a woman with Jim Anderton. I asked who the woman was. Well, again it is a piece of art forgery, because it is not Helen Clark. It certainly does not look like her. But who knows, one day when my great, great grandchildren are going through this art gallery, they may see the transitional sets of photographs, election after election, of Helen Clark—one with a hairbrush and one with an airbrush; one with her as an older woman and one as a younger woman. Right beside them we will probably see the ashes of her painting.

I do not have a lot to say about this bill. It is a local bill, and the really fundamental question is why it actually needs to come to this Parliament. That is a fairly fundamental question.

We have had a number of entertaining speeches, where we have gone into the vagaries and inadequacies of the health sector, and into the issue of refugees and immigrants. But, personally, I find this bill to be very narrow and very specific. It is a local bill, and in essence clause 7 is the key part. It affects the rights and prerogatives of the Crown, by repealing section 54 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act of 1925. All that essentially means is that what would have happened to the Robert McDougall Gallery, if it ceased to be used for the purpose of an art gallery, is that it would have reverted to the Crown. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered that, and really there is a lot of satisfaction that the Christchurch City Council is the appropriate body to look after the building.

Christchurch members have already made the observation that the city is developing a sort of arts sector as it were, along a kilometre or so of “Christchurch Boulevard”, adjacent to Hagley Park. As this gallery is adjacent to the botanic gardens, I actually believe, and ACT believes, that these are matters that should be dealt with at the local level. We should not spend the time of our national Parliament on this bill. I do not mean to say that it deals with trivia, but these are strictly minor matters. I just want to put in a plug that in the future we should look to strip ourselves of jurisdiction over these sorts of matters.

Some local bills are important, and do need to come to this Parliament. Our Standing Orders make provision for local bills, and so they should. But I think there are, at times, very, very local matters that should not come here—and I see that the Leader of the House is nodding in agreement with my submission. I do think there are matters that can, and should, be dealt with by local councils and this, in my view, would be one of them.

ACT supports this bill. We see no mischief or any problem with regard to the bill. There is a commonsense recommendation from the select committee, and we will support it.

I acknowledge the honourable member Ken Shirley who has just resumed his seat, but I took a slightly different position from his. A few weeks back in the House we debated and were in cooperation to pass the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill, which happened to be a local bill, as well. My contention is art galleries and museums are not just entirely a local issue as such. I think that museums and galleries in each city have a national and, to an extent, international importance, as well. Most museums, including art galleries, whether in Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch, are not just the pride of the local people. They also provide quite a major attraction to international visitors, and in fact they are always, within the itinerary, the first port of call in order for international visitors to understand New Zealanders, then, further, each region’s differences.

I follow on from the compliments paid to the McDougall family by a few colleagues who have just spoken. Indeed, the McDougall art gallery has for 70 years provided a very, very enjoyable experience for the many people who have visited it. My participation in the opening of the new Christchurch art gallery reminded me of how all these treasures, valuable paintings, and art have been hidden away from the public for so long because they had long outgrown the old McDougall gallery. As well as receiving the generosity of the McDougall family, the new Christchurch art gallery also received generous support from local people. I would like to mention, for example, Ms Ros Burdon, who contributed as part of the fundraising committee of the new art gallery. Also, I am very privileged to be married to Sammy, my husband, who has also served on the fundraising committee, and has seen quite a few Asian community members in Christchurch donating generously to the Christchurch art gallery. This demonstrates that whatever the background of the members from Christchurch, they all share the same pride and generosity towards the new art gallery, which will provide much enjoyment and pride to this very fine city that I have been living in for 27 years.

The reason we are here to debate this bill is due to the advantage of having the new Christchurch art gallery situated on Worcester Boulevard, which led to the McDougall gallery now being available to be leased by the Christchurch City Council, as it sees fit. But the submitters rightly pointed out that they want to make sure the future use of the McDougall art gallery will also still be for public enjoyment. I am very pleased that the Christchurch City Council has already indicated that the art gallery will be leased to the Canterbury Museum. Like the Auckland War Memorial Museum collections, the art treasures and collections of the Canterbury Museum also deserve a lot more space. I have a particularly soft spot for the Canterbury Museum. About 10 years ago the Canterbury Museum curator approached the Chinese community and asked whether they were interested in assisting the Canterbury Museum to develop a dedicated Asian display gallery. It was with a lot of pride and joy that we cooperated with fundraising and providing cultural input. The Canterbury Museum now has a permanent display area to show the fine collection of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese artefacts. The other interesting thing is that the existence of the permanent display gallery continues to attract generous donations from the Asian community. Every time there are international visitors, or visitors from Auckland and Wellington, the museum is one of the places to which the Asian community proudly invites those visitors.

I think I mentioned in the House a few weeks ago that I hope that one day the Auckland War Memorial Museum will also see fit to have a space dedicated to the growing Asian population up there. I certainly would like to see Te Papa, the national museum, acknowledge that New Zealand is now a multicultural society. The people of Christchurch can see the collections of the Canterbury Museum, or any other future special exhibitions that can be brought to Christchurch, and I think that is a fantastic addition for Christchurch people. I remember that for quite a number of years the Canterbury Museum and the McDougall gallery cooperated to bring special exhibitions to the area. Now, with this extended space, I can imagine the Canterbury Museum not only expanding its existing display space but also negotiating, with a lot more flexibility, with international museums to bring special exhibitions to Christchurch. I always think it is a very good commercial venture when one brings in special exhibitions that will help to pay for the cost of exhibiting those shows and, at the same time, generate revenue that will help to reduce the operating expenses of the museum.

It was quite interesting to see some of the anxieties shown by the submitters with regard to making sure that public purpose statements are introduced to this bill. They are concerned that maybe local government, or whoever, may want to use the McDougall gallery for purposes other than public access. Although I can understand their anxiety, there is, nowadays, a more consultative way for central and local government to conduct their business, so the public certainly should have more confidence that this consultation process will be respected. I can remember that in Christchurch, for a long time, people always told me that if any mayor or elected people dared to touch a corner of Hagley Park, they could guarantee they would never be elected to any public office. I am quite sure that the Christchurch public can rest in peace, as no public body would imagine that a very valued part of the Botanic Gardens, which has a fantastic building in the form and shape of the McDougall gallery, would not continue to remain in public hands.

It is indeed a pleasure and an honour to be associated with the debate on the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill. [Interruption] I thought the Labour members might have had something useful to say, but, as usual, they are full of hot air and do not have much to contribute. Unlike Labour members, I certainly have New Zealand’s interests at heart—not petty politics about regionalisation and criticism from members who cannot respect and support the initiative in cities like Christchurch, Wellington, or Auckland. I can assure members that I will support good projects and roading issues whenever they are necessary.

Before I start to say a few words as a fellow Canterbury member who supports the bill, I thank Mrs Wong, the new representative of west Auckland—

Pansy Wong: Central Auckland.

CLAYTON COSGROVE:—central Auckland, for her contribution. I find it ironic that she talks about petty politics. It is strange to be in agreement with Mr Shirley—and it scares me to think of it—but I think he is right when he says that a number of these bills could be dealt with differently if we had a change in the Standing Orders, and we should expedite good bills like this swiftly. But when Mrs Wong gets up and talks about petty politics, I have to point out that it is the petty politics of the National Party today—it broke an agreement to expedite this bill—and the grandstanding of the National Party that is slowing down the process of a very straightforward bill that is supported by my fellow Cantabrians and by every member of the Parliament. [Interruption] I think Mr Mark supports it, but we are not quite sure. I think Mr Mark is looking forward to the day when the Robert McDougall building opens a branch of Madame Tussauds wax museum, so that all the relics from New Zealand First will be able to have a permanent exhibit within it, because they will not be exhibited in this Chamber.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: Before the dinner break I made the point that I agreed entirely with Mr Shirley when he said that we should expedite bills like this through the House. I made the point that I agree, as a Canterbury member, that this bill is a good bill. It is, I believe, supported by all parties in this House, yet we have the bizarre situation—and I believe it was Pansy Wong who had the audacity to talk about petty politics—where the National Party welshed on a deal that was before the Business Committee. We now have the bizarre situation where a good bill—which has no politics in it whatsoever—from my neck of the woods in Canterbury will be delayed inexplicably by the National Party’s wallowing in petty politics. I ask Mrs Wong and members of the National Party to reflect on that. It is pathetic. It is not what we get paid for in this Chamber. Occasionally we can do things that have no politics in them. Mr Shirley made a pretty reasonable contribution. We do not often agree, but we agree on this. At times when these issues are non-partisan, non-political, and straightforward, to have an Opposition playing games like this, welshing on deals, and delaying a local bill just for the sake of it is pathetic.

Hon Mark Burton: It’s a very sad day.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is a sad day. It is pathetic. The people of Canterbury—my neck of woods, and Mr Barnett’s—will look with contempt on that Opposition for the petulant and immature display it has given us today. This is a very good bill. It modernises the ownership practices of the Christchurch City Council. Finally, it is worth noting that in establishing the new art gallery that replaces the McDougall, we should thank many of the folk who made huge donations to the new art gallery. People like the Burdon family and the Stewart family in Christchurch have made huge contributions in a monetary sense to facilitate that new art gallery, and they should be acknowledged, despite Mr Mark’s scornful comments that the Government somehow pours buckets on people who have a few bob. That is not on. It is immature, and he is well suited to his position on the Opposition benches. This is a good bill. As a Canterbury MP I support it. I know that Government members will facilitate it expeditiously, unlike the petulance of the Opposition.

I was pleased to hear Mr Clayton Cosgrove assure the House that, at the end of this debate, when leave is sought to try to progress this bill through all its stages tonight, it will not be denied by the Labour Party. The National Party is very keen for this bill to pass through all its stages tonight. The only thing we sought at the start of the debate was the ability for our interested Canterbury members to make a contribution. After quite lengthy points of order, that opportunity was denied to us by the Labour Party. Why it did not want local National Canterbury members speaking to this legislation I do not know. It was interesting that, as Mr Cosgrove finished his contribution, he acknowledged that it is in the interests of Parliament and of Christchurch people to see this bill progress through all its stages tonight. I know that it is the intention of the National Party to seek leave for that to be done. Let us see, once and for all, whether the Labour Party intends to assist this bill through all its stages tonight.

I rise with pleasure to support the bill. I recall a contribution I made when this bill was given its first reading in the House. I talked about the tremendous contribution that the McDougall family, amongst others, has made to Christchurch and to arts and culture within our city. No doubt, when he made his decision to vest a substantial amount of money to the city of Christchurch for an art gallery, which opened in June 1932, he had not given much thought to the future, and had not considered the fact that 70 years on Christchurch would be the proud owner of a tremendous new art gallery, which was opened earlier this year.

To bring just a tinge of sadness in terms of that particular opening, it is interesting to note that no National members of Parliament were asked by the city council to attend. It occurred on a Saturday morning. I was quite happy to spend my time in the electorate office, looking after all those constituents coming to me.

Hon Mark Burton: Who’s the mayor?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The person in charge of the guest list was none other than the mayor, Garry Moore—that well-known Labour Party lackey of Helen Clark. If Helen Clark and Garry Moore get a huge sense of satisfaction in going through the guest list for the opening of the new Christchurch gallery and taking off names like David Carter, Gerry Brownlee, and Brian Connell because they do not want National members of Parliament at the opening, that is their business.

Clayton Cosgrove: They didn’t know who you were.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I say to Mr Cosgrove that that is the level of petty politics that the Labour Party sometimes stoops to. I also think it is the level of petty politics that it will again stoop to at the end of this second reading debate, when there will be the opportunity, by leave of the House, to move immediately to the third reading and to pass this legislation through all its stages tonight.

Hon Mark Burton: We tried once.

Hon DAVID CARTER: So did we! It is important that Mr Burton tell the truth—something that that particular political party is very economical with at the moment. He talked of a deal that was done in the Business Committee.

Hon Mark Burton: That member wasn’t there.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I was not there, but Mr Brownlee was, and he disputed what Mr Burton said. He then invited him to table the minutes of the Business Committee. We have waited. Throughout the dinner break, when Mr Burton went up to his office, he had the opportunity to get the minutes, but he has not tabled them. It is, obviously, over to the House to draw its own conclusions as to why Mr Burton has not tabled the minutes of the Business Committee. He has not done so.

Hon Mark Burton: I have no need to table the minutes.

Hon DAVID CARTER: He is absolutely right; he does not have to table the minutes.

Hon Mark Burton: I told the truth.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I do not know about that, because we get so many questions here about that side, about the truth and open government. We had questions only today about the “corngate” inquiry and the Prime Minister’s intention to cooperate, with full disclosure of the facts, and we are getting a litany of suggestions that that is not happening before that select committee.

I want to talk about the Robert McDougall Art Gallery. I was commenting on the tremendous benefactor to our city that Robert McDougall was in establishing this art gallery. What Labour members will also not remember is that his family was a tremendous benefactor in establishing the Nurse Maude Association, which was the subject of a local bill about a year ago that I was pleased to be involved in. That is the sort of people Christchurch often has—people who are prepared to donate huge amounts of money to make sure that our city is richer, certainly in its arts and culture.

I want to move to the interest that the National Party has shown in this particular legislation. It was with some pride that I took Bill English, Lynda Scott, Lockwood Smith, and Nick Smith past the Robert McDougall Art Gallery about a month ago. I pointed out the extreme importance of this locality and the way it knits so closely to our museum, which is a remarkably good complex, and the way it sits on the edge of our Botanic Gardens. So Bill English, Lynda Scott, Lockwood Smith, and Nick Smith are well and truly appreciative of the fact that this bill should be passed tonight. I hope we will see that happen.

Gerry Brownlee informed us of the reason it is important to have this legislation passed. He talked about the 8,000 pieces of art—contemporary Canterbury art and historic Canterbury art—in storage at the moment that could soon be displayed in this particular building, now that it has been vacated with the opening of the new art gallery.

David Benson-Pope: There is nothing in it!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Mr Benson-Pope says there is nothing in it. I think the 8,000 works of art should be seen on public display; it would be nice to see them. I guess he is hoping there is room for a little bit of the more contemporary artwork that is around Parliament at the moment. Maybe Helen Clark is in her office now doing another painting that she may sign or she may not sign. She may get Alec McLean— who I think was the artist, but did not get to sign it because Helen Clark could not get there quick enough to sign it—to do one. Maybe that sort of art could be displayed in the Robert McDougall Art Galley. Maybe that is why Labour members now perhaps do not want this legislation passed with alacrity; they want to give the Prime Minister more time to prepare her artwork.

Pansy Wong: Is that the reason?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I do not really know. But it is vital that this legislation is passed.

David Benson-Pope: Hold it up, then, why don’t you?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Let Hansard know that I have to hold the legislation up for the senior Government whip, who I think suffers from Alzheimer’s, because he does not realise what piece of legislation we are debating. For the benefit of Mr Benson-Pope, it is the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill.

The reason the bill has to be passed is so that Christchurch can enjoy the magnificent arts precinct that has been created over a generation. The museum and this particular building are contiguous, and are situated almost opposite the arts precinct—the old university site—and the boulevard leading up to the new art gallery and, further on, for the benefit of Mr Benson-Pope if he visits Christchurch, the magnificent Avon River. The other site that I think is also important to the art and culture of our city is The Strip—the well-known Strip. I see Mr Barnett’s eyes light up. I tell Mr Barnett that, no, we are not talking about that sort of strip at all; we are talking about The Strip along the Avon River.

Let us hope we can get this legislation through all stages today. Christchurch people are listening with anticipation to the contributions that are being made by Labour members tonight.

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 £26,000 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 5,500 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.

It was a great pleasure to take the Local Government and Environment Committee to Christchurch to hear submissions on the bill, for a number of a reasons. It was a pleasure to have a trip laid on for us around this gracious and historic building early in the morning—in a biting frost, I must say, but they turned on the heating especially for us. The gallery is a very beautiful building constructed with special-purpose lighting and designed to maximise the display of works of art. Clearly, a purpose-built building like that needs to continue to be used to display materials that need that very good lighting and physical layout. It was interesting to hear the story of the imitation marble columns and the special process that had been pioneered here to make those columns. It was interesting to see the very extensive basement where there are restoration facilities, storage, and workshops. Indeed, it is an impressive building. It was exciting to hear the plans to combine that building with the museum, as an extension of a very significant public building and display in Christchurch.

It was also a pleasure to hear the very strong community feeling that the people of Christchurch have for this building, for their public buildings generally, for the Botanic Gardens in which the gallery sits, and for its purpose as an art gallery. Quite a number of submitters argued very strongly that the important thing to them was that this gallery remained a public building and freely accessible to the public of Christchurch. There is a real fear out there that, in times of change, buildings like the gallery will somehow end up in the commercial sector, and no longer be freely available to the people to whom they were originally given as a bequest. Submitters argued strongly that the word “public” should go before the word “gallery”, in clause 6, to reinforce the idea that this was a public building and it should stay a public building, and the committee agreed with that request. As I said, there was a lot of suspicion about the risk of losing public ownership and control of an asset such as this.

Also, very strong representation was made to the committee that access should remain free, that there are now very few public facilities for recreation and education that are accessible to poor families, who have difficulty enough affording the bus fare and the lunch for a day’s outing without having to pay admission charges as well. That has always been the tradition in the McDougall gallery, except for special exhibitions, where a fee can be charged. The committee agreed with the public that it was important that that be maintained.

Some concern was expressed about the word “ancillary” as in “ancillary purposes”. Here again there was a fear by people that the building might be taken over by commercialisation, by souvenir shops selling tasteless junk, or extensive food and alcohol premises, thus reducing the space available to display works of arts or of historic interest. Quite a strong argument was presented to the committee that we should remove ancillary activities altogether from the bill. We did not feel that was a logical or feasible thing to do, given that we wanted to provide for all the curatorial and other activities that go with a museum or an art gallery. We also thought it quite reasonable that a cafe should be provided where people could have a bite of lunch when they were visiting. But it is worth recording the strong feeling of the people of Christchurch that this building should be public space used for the display of works of art, and should not be used for just another commercial activity.

There was also concern about what might happen if one day the building were no longer required for the purpose that this bill provides. Strong representations were made to us that if that were the case, it should return to the Botanic Gardens. On the face of it, the Botanic Gardens have nothing to do with the purpose of this bill. In fact, that is where the gallery is located, and the citizens of Christchurch laid their concerns before us that the Botanic Gardens had been gradually whittled away, with little bits here and there having been taken for other purposes and no longer part of the gardens. They argued strongly that if the McDougall gallery were no longer to be used as a gallery, the land should return to the Botanic Gardens. We thought that was putting too tight a constriction on people in 50 years’ time, when the lease will run out if it is not renewed, but we thought it was important to provide some process whereby the purpose of the gallery could not be changed, and the ownership of the land could not be changed, without a full process of public input. In the end, officials recommended to us that it was difficult to do that with certainty for a time 50 years into the future without our ensuring that if that were the case, it should come back to Parliament. So despite being one of those who argues that we get too many local bills taking up the time of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and that it would be good for local government to solve more of these issues itself rather than bring them to Parliament, to respond to the strong feelings of the people of Christchurch that they want a legal guarantee that the purpose, function, and ownership of this very special place could not be changed without their input, we have provided that if that change needs to take place in 50 years, it will come here again as a local bill, and therefore they will have input into it.

I commend the bill to the House. I think the changes made to it by the committee are valuable, and I look forward to seeing it passed and implemented.

It is my pleasure to join this debate and support the rapid progress, I hope, of the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill. This is the second time I have had cause to discuss the bill in the last 2 days. Yesterday good agreement was reached in the Business Committee to advance it quickly, and now today, when that agreement was welshed on by some members of this House. It is becoming a bit of a practice with members opposite to welsh on the undertakings of the Business Committee, but I want to share something with the member opposite who, by inference, as good as called me a liar, without breaching the privilege of the House.

I want to read to him item 8 from the minutes of yesterday’s meeting, and I am happy to table them afterwards. In “General Business” it was noted that leave would be sought for the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill to have a second and third reading, with no Committee stage, in a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. That is precisely what I said earlier, and precisely what I assured the House about. Mr Brownlee welshed on the deal because his colleagues put pressure on him, which is a very sad thing because it was a cross-party agreement that we had carefully put together.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Oh, come on!

Hon MARK BURTON: Now, of course, Mr Mapp says it does not matter, because they have been caught out with their nasty little tricks. It has backfired. I say that the good people of Christchurch should not be disadvantaged because of members opposite who cannot be trusted.

Before I conclude, I want to say that Mr Shirley and I do not agree about a lot of things, but in his comments earlier he did make a point that I think has some merit, and we should consider it through the Standing Orders Committee in relation to these sorts of bills. It is not that these bills are not important, but they do perhaps belong more properly in the jurisdiction of local government. I think it is something we should look at in the future.

With that, it is my pleasure to support the progress of the bill. I seek leave to table, for the benefit of the House, the minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee meeting.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House, and leave subsequently rescinded.

Secondly, I seek leave that at the conclusion of the second reading of the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill the House move directly to the third reading, and that the question on the third reading be put without debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not object to the tabling of the minutes of the Business Committee, but I seek your advice upon an aspect of it. My understanding is that the minutes of committee meetings cannot be tabled in the House until they have been cleared by the committee itself—in other words, adopted by the committee. The Business Committee met yesterday and the minutes have been circulating today. I do not think they have been adopted by the committee. Therefore, while I have no objection to full disclosure, I question whether it is in order for minutes that are not yet the official record of the committee to be tabled in the House.

I share the concern of the member, but given that my integrity had been challenged, and that the challenge had been specifically put to me across the House to table the minutes, and that, most importantly, I did so by seeking leave of the House—the House can give leave for anything—I therefore tabled the minutes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is right. I do not need any further assistance on this issue.

I seek a point of clarification, Mr Speaker. The Hon Peter Dunne raised a very interesting point, and I did not hear you respond or rule on that aspect. The Deputy Leader of the House has moved on to the next stage of it. I would certainly like a clarification of the point, because I find it a bit of an outrage that the Deputy Leader of the House, particularly, should come down here and wave around the minutes of a committee that has not yet approved those minutes. That is my understanding of the situation, and I think it is very inappropriate behaviour. I think we need a ruling on that from you as Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I did not give you a ruling before, because Mr Burton was speaking to the same point of order. I was about to give a ruling when you chose to speak on the same point of order. I allowed you to speak, and that is fair enough. The ruling is that Mr Burton was fully entitled to seek the leave of the House to table the minutes, which he did, and there was no objection. In fact, the minutes are a draft only, so no approvals were needed. The House was fully entitled to do what it did.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That decision, which I do not question, raises a further issue. In the event that the committee, when it meets next week, does not adopt those minutes, what becomes the status of the document that the Minister has just tabled, which purports to be the minutes of a meeting?

I think we have put ourselves in a very difficult position. I accept that the House can, by leave, do just about anything, but we have put ourselves in a very difficult position if papers that have not been formally adopted by a committee can be tabled in the House, purporting to be the record of that committee’s proceedings, when the possibility exists that the committee may subsequently change those records. Does that mean that the Minister is then obliged to come back to the House, withdraw those papers, and table the amended set of papers?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No.

Hon PETER DUNNE: The point I am making, Mr Assistant Speaker, is that we end up in a situation where the integrity of the committee process is challenged. Also—and I say this with due respect to the Minister—perhaps by inadvertence, his integrity is challenged by virtue of the fact that he may have tabled documents that are no longer accurate.

I want to raise another matter that I think you should take into consideration, Mr Assistant Speaker. It seems to me that we may well have been misled with the tabling of this document. I heard Mr Burton seek leave to table the minutes of that particular meeting. As it has now transpired, he has not tabled the minutes. What he has done—according to what you have said yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker—is table the draft minutes. If the Minister had correctly described them as the draft minutes, he might well have found that Parliament was not prepared to accept them. It is important that when a member of Parliament seeks to table any document, the document is factually described.

I think the member has made a very valid point. It may well be that the best way to resolve this impasse is for the member who sought leave originally to seek leave afresh to table the draft, unapproved minutes of the committee, then the House can make an informed decision on whether it wishes to accept them. As Mr Carter points out, we now have a rather bizarre situation. The Minister says he has tabled the minutes. Next Tuesday will be the earliest date the committee can approve those minutes. There is an error there. The way through it is for the Minister to withdraw the original request, seek leave to table the draft, unapproved minutes, then the House can resolve the matter accordingly.

As the House knows, I sought leave to satisfy David Carter’s doubting of my word. I am more than happy to further accommodate the House and, as an act of goodwill—I have no obligation to do so, because I sought leave in good faith—amend the leave I sought to say that I seek leave to table the draft, unconfirmed minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee meeting.

I am now a bit confused, because the House acquiesced and did not deny leave, so the motion was carried. I totally agree with the Hon Peter Dunne. I think he has made a very good point, because people may have had a totally different feeling if they understood them to be the draft minutes. I think the Deputy Leader of the House would have to withdraw the previous leave he was granted, then reapply for leave to table the appropriate document, which is the draft, unapproved minutes of the Business Committee. Otherwise, I do not know how the Journals of the House would record it. We would have a somewhat messy situation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is pretty clear cut. I thank members for their contributions and for their guidance. What was done was done, and it was done quite rightly. The Minister may not have described them as draft minutes, but I do not think that is a big enough error—if an error at all—to negative what happened. The House was fully entitled to agree with the leave that was sought to table those minutes. It is irrelevant—and I mean no disrespect to the committee about which we are talking—what the committee does next week. It is totally irrelevant to the tabling of that document.

With respect, that document was tabled under the guise of being the minutes of the Business Committee meeting of yesterday. Your ruling now implies that the document was not the minutes of the Business Committee meeting yesterday. The question that then arises, which the House does need to consider, is what the status of that document is. It is merely the secretary’s doodlings. It has no official status whatsoever until it is adopted by the committee—and I do dispute your point about relevance in that respect—which comes back to the fact that the Minister sought, I thought, leave to withdraw his original request and to submit to the House a request for leave to table what are simply the secretary’s notes of a meeting, which I think the House might have an entirely different view about accepting.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That was the second part of what I was going to address. You chose to extend the point of order, and that was fine.

I am speaking to the point of order, because it does not seem to have yet been resolved.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): What?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: The issue that Mr Dunne has raised has not actually been resolved; you have not actually ruled on that matter. The question is this. I believe that the House was under a mistake—you will be well familiar with that concept in law—when the Deputy Leader of the House sought to table minutes that were not actually what the House had been led to believe they were. It is quite clear that the decision of the House could well have been different—I am not saying it would have been different; I am saying it could well have been different—if people had known what was actually being tabled. What was represented to be tabled was not actually what was tabled. The importance of that is this. You just mentioned a bit earlier that that was not a material factor. I put it to you that it actually is a material factor, and it wholly changes what was sought to be tabled. The minutes, if they were such, have an official status, and there would be no other issues that could possibly arise from that fact. In this instance, however, they are not minutes but are, to use the rather memorable phrase of Mr Dunne, mere doodlings of the secretary, until approved. That is a material difference. It is not a minor consequence, as may have been suggested by yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I would suggest to you that you do have to reconsider your earlier ruling on the matter.

I thank Dr Mapp for that contribution. The fact is that leave was sought to table a document, leave was granted, and that document is in the custody of the Clerk now, and any member may familiarise himself or herself with that document. I do not intend to reverse my ruling. I accept that there was a slight misdescription. I do not think it had any bearing whatsoever, despite what members say, on the agreement to the leave. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 113/5. I have ruled, similar to that ruling, that the slight misdescription did not invalidate the tabling. The document is in the custody of the Clerk. It has been tabled. Where you wish to move from here is over to you—I do not mind—but you will not relitigate that issue as far as I am concerned.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there is a way forward—and this is relating to the status of the document that was tabled. Your assertion and your judgment were based on the fact that it would not make any material difference. I think there is way to test that. If you were to invite the Deputy Leader of the House to resubmit the draft, to apply for leave to table the draft minutes of the Business Committee, then we could test that assertion—whether your assumption that it would not have made any difference is true or false. I put that to you as, perhaps, a way forward.

I thank the member for that. It was my view that it would not have made any difference. Of course, a new test of that would not quite be fair, because all members have prepared for it and have, as you know, discussed the issue. But if the member would like to do that.

I am more than pleased to do it. I just want to say this as I do so. I submitted the document in good faith to the House. If I gave any inadvertent ill-description, I unreservedly apologise to the House; it was submitted purely to assist the member opposite who cast aspersions on my word. I simply want to say to that member that it is an unfortunate turn of events when his own colleagues have driven us to this, because it further sours our ability to do business in the House. I seek leave to table the draft, unconfirmed minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee meeting.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Minister is now seeking leave to table a document described as the draft minutes, but under your ruling of a few moments ago the original decision to table a document that he described as the minutes still stands, so if the House agrees to leave for the Minister to table the draft minutes, what is the status of the document that he tabled a few moments ago—and I accept that he may have been inadvertently misled at the time—that he claimed was the minutes? Do we have two documents under two different titles, or is in fact a second set now required to withdraw the first document?

The member is now clearly being unreasonable. I have already made clear to the House that I inadvertently ill-described the document that I am now seeking leave to table as the draft, unconfirmed minutes. I think that is a matter of clarity. I am disappointed in the member.

I have in my left hand the New Zealand Herald of today’s date. I have in my right hand a document called Speakers’ Rulings. If we go down the path that the Minister is now suggesting, I could seek to table the New Zealand Herald believing and saying to the House that I think it is actually Speakers’ Rulings, then, when someone says they are two totally different documents, I could say: “Oh well, actually what I meant to table was Speakers’ Rulings, even though I have also tabled, purporting it to be Speakers’ Rulings, the New Zealand Herald.” It is an absurd situation, and I think the way forward is for the Minister to withdraw his original request, then to seek to table afresh whatever he chooses now to describe the document as.

I get the message from the example you have used. I think it is a very extreme example. There is no way that you would have been able to do that, if I was in the Chair. The member would not have been able to table Speakers’ Rulings instead of the New Zealand Herald. He would not have got that past the Chair.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Point of order—

I do not need any further assistance.

Dr Wayne Mapp: It is a fresh point of order.

When I get to the member, I will allow him a fresh point of order. I want to say, in relation to the other one, that leave has been sought again, and even if they are submitted, it does not alter the fact that the document has been tabled, and it remains in the custody of the Clerk. You can table as many documents as you like.

Hon Peter Dunne: What is the official record, then? What becomes the official record?

It is all part of the official record. The first one—and we accept that there was a slight misdescription—is part of the official record. It is the draft. That is the one he seeks to table; it will be exactly the same, and they will both be in the custody of the Clerk. If members wish to view them, and to prolong this matter, I am quite happy. Dr Mapp has a fresh point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is fresh point of order and an important one in view of the second attempt—well, it is actually not a second attempt; it is a new attempt—by the Deputy Leader of the House to table the unapproved, draft minutes. The question I would invite you to consider is why on earth the Deputy Leader of the House would be seeking to table draft minutes—

Hon Mark Burton: Because his colleague asked him to. That’s why.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: There is actually an issue of privilege here, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Privileges Committee has been sitting for weeks on a whole variety of cases that have been brought before the Privileges Committee on the issue of documents of various select committees being released before they are approved. Yet here we have the Deputy Leader of the House seeking to table a draft document not approved by the committee, and one could only speculate about that very act. Ironically, I am actually helping the Deputy Leader of the House, but I have to express my surprise that the Deputy Leader of the House is so deficient in knowledge—well, that is not a fair statement but it is one that it invites—as to actually invite a breach of privilege by seeking to table minutes. It is extraordinary. I would ask the Speaker to consider that point.

Of course I will consider that point; what weight I give to it is a different matter. I want to repeat that it is not for the Chair to ask why a member seeks to table a document. I am not sure whether the last speaker was present when that tabling occurred or whether the member had a chance to object to it. I do not need to be reminded that the request had a slight misdescription in it. In my view, that had no bearing on the acceptance of the leave, at all, and I repeat that. I think we need to move on. It is members’ night; if members wish to go on for another hour on this, I am quite happy. I would not let it continue if it was not members’ night. It is over to members.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the course of the Hon Mark Burton’s contribution to the House earlier he made statements that, to say the least, impugned my integrity. I think it is important for the House to understand that the Business Committee is a group that works under the chair of the Speaker in a very informal manner, that the resolutions of that committee are reached by consensus, and that the greatest beneficiary of that committee’s activities is in fact the Government, because it is, for the greater part, facilitating the Government’s business. We routinely allow select committees a longer period of time to report bills than the date for the report back put on the bill when it was sent by the House. We make arrangements for members to be able to participate in select committee business where they have a particular interest. The Leader of the House is often able to indicate on a confidential basis where he thinks the legislative programme is going, and to indicate some priorities that the Government sees on different sorts of legislation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): What is your point, Mr Brownlee?

GERRY BROWNLEE: My point is this. The accusation was that somehow I have welshed on the deal that was made on the day. The deal was that, provided that United Future had no objection, because United Future is like a sore toe to the Government—very tender and hard to make progress with—provided that United Future was happy with arrangements around the bill, then it could progress through all stages today. Leave would be sought at the start of the proceedings that there be a second reading, and that we then progress to the third reading with no debate and a vote. All that we asked for was some consideration of local Christchurch members’ interest in speaking on this bill, and that there be another 30 minutes of contribution from members who wanted to make it. The Government, in the sort of bloody-minded approach that it takes to all these things, decided to refuse that.

I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that he might like to get on the blower to his superior, the Leader of the House, and ask whether he thinks some of the arrangements he has been discussing with us—that are known to me and to our senior whip and to no one else in our party—are likely to progress if he keeps up this sort of attitude. There is no doubt that people listening to this will be absolutely flabbergasted by the utter waste of time that has gone on here tonight. It could have all been fixed if there was just as much goodwill from the Government to a members’ day piece of legislation as the Opposition is routinely required to show to the Government in the advance of its own business.

With regard to the impugning of my integrity, I do take offence, and I ask the Chair to indicate an action to the member concerned, to put that right.

I thank the member for that, and I need no further assistance on it. There is no material in that point of order on which I can or should rule at all.

Gerry Brownlee: But I took offence.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am aware that offence has been taken on both sides on this matter, which is quite surprising, really—but it has. I cannot interpret it for either side, and I cannot interpret it for you, Mr Brownlee. It is a matter for you to sort out with those who have impugned you, and I wish you would do that. I am sure the other party would be happy to talk to you and settle it. We should not need to come to this.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order. While that point of order was in progress, I had a look at Speakers’ Rulings and I found two that are highly relevant to the circumstances we now find ourselves in. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 113/5, made in 1998 by Mr Deputy Speaker Revell—a member who will be well known in this House for the acuity of his rulings from the Chair. Mr Deputy Speaker Revell ruled in 1998: “In seeking leave to table a document members should not only succinctly describe what is in the document but also sufficiently describe the nature of the document to inform members.” My submission to you is that by suggesting to the House, that the document that was being tabled was the minutes of the Business Committee—something we now know it was not, because the minutes have not been approved—the Minister did not succinctly describe what was in the document, because the document was not what he said it was, and he did not sufficiently describe the nature of the document, as being a draft document, to inform members. Therefore, he was at fault on that score.

The situation gets more serious. If one looks at Speaker’s ruling 114/4, made by Mr Speaker Kidd in 1999, one can see that a totally different complexion can be placed on the turn of events. I think it is worth quoting that Speaker’s ruling to the House: “If a member is given leave to table a document and deliberately misleads the House by delivering to the Clerk a totally different document from that for which leave was granted, a contempt would be committed.” The member purported to table the document that was the minutes of the Business Committee. He made no suggestion at the time that he was in error or that he was vague about what he was doing. He said subsequently—and I am inclined to accept his word—that he might have been in error in doing so, but that might be because, as a very astute observer of the Standing Orders, he was well aware of the provisions of Speaker’s ruling 114/4, and knew that he had placed himself in a situation of potential contempt.

You have ruled that the materiality of this is not relevant, given that it is essentially the same document, and all we are arguing about is whether the word “draft” appears on the top. But I would submit that your very esteemed predecessor, Mr Kidd, when he made that ruling in 1999, was well aware of these types of situations, and ruled in quite a severe way that members who act in this way place themselves at risk of being accused of contempt of the House. So I would ask you to reflect on your earlier ruling, in the light of that situation. I would come back to the point that was raised in an earlier point of order that the best way through the divide that the House now finds itself in would be for the Minister simply to withdraw his original request and to resubmit a fresh one. I say to the Minister—who previously indicated he was not prepared to do that—that unless he does reconsider in that light, the House is starting to find itself in a very difficult position, and it may well require Mr Speaker to be recalled to rule on it ultimately.

I am sorry to inform the member that I am the Speaker, and the member will not be approaching that subject at all. I do not need any assistance on this. I have allowed the member to relitigate, in a way, my ruling, and I should not have allowed that, because there was not too much new in what he said. The member brought up Speaker’s ruling 114/4. I did not accept for one moment—nor do I believe that any members in this Chamber would accept—that the Hon Mark Burton set out deliberately to mislead the House. You all may have your own views, but as the Chair I do not accept that he was in contravention of Speaker’s ruling 114/4.

Hon Peter Dunne: What about 113/5?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is the one I quoted to you earlier, so I was quite aware of that one. The Minister sufficiently described the nature of the document; he did not describe the status of it—that has been canvassed. He certainly described the nature of the document, and anything else we wished to know. I am certain that all members knew that the document was, if not the minutes, part of the record of that committee. I do not think there is any doubt about that. But I thank the member for raising those two Speakers’ rulings.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The first document sought to be tabled would not constitute a breach of privilege because it was described as official, approved minutes. However, we find that it is not that kind of document; it is unapproved. It is my submission to you that an attempt to table unapproved documents of a select committee would constitute a breach of privilege, based on other decisions of the Privileges Committee. I invite you to consider whether you would wish to facilitate the Deputy Leader of the House seeking to table unapproved minutes, which, in my submission, would constitute a breach of privilege.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Given that I value your advice, Dr Mapp, can I ask you, if that constitutes a breach of privilege, who would be guilty of the breach—the one who attempted to do it, or the one, like yourself, who approved it?

We did not know at the time of the request that it was draft minutes—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That was not the question. I was asking you, because you had posed a question there.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Surely, it is the one who attempts to table it—the perpetrator.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Even though you as a member allowed it?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Well, no one has allowed it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I think we are going round in circles.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): You wish to assist the Chair?

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Yes, that is exactly what I wish to do. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 114/1 made by Mr Speaker Tapsell in 1996. It makes the point: “Leave should only be sought to table papers that are not readily available from other sources. The tabling of a document is not an occasion to make a point;”. That is relevant in this case because the Deputy Leader of the House was, of his own admission, attempting to make a point. He said he wanted to counter the suggestion that, in essence, he had told porkies. That was his verification of that, so he was attempting to make a point. I put it to you now that, under that Speaker’s ruling, perhaps he should never have been allowed to table it in the first instance. I seek your clarification of Speaker’s ruling 114/1 as it relates to the sequence of events that have occurred here tonight. Would you like me to repeat that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, I was listening intently to it. I am aware of what you have said, and I thank you for it. Was there someone else who wished to give advice on that? No, there is not.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a separate point. In addition to the, I think, quite valid point raised by Mr Shirley, I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 110/7, which was made by a very esteemed Speaker of this House, Mr Speaker Guinness, who ruled in 1905: “The Speaker must accept the assurance of a Minister that a document from which the Minister is quoting is not a public document.” The Minister—and I assume that the Deputy Leader of the House was acting in a ministerial role when he sought to table the document—was quoting from what were allegedly the minutes of the Business Committee. I submit to you that the process that has been followed has been deficient on two counts. Firstly, you did not, as Speaker, meet the test of Speaker’s ruling 110/7 in that you did not seek from the Minister an assurance as to the status of the document that he was quoting from, and, secondly, the Minister did not provide clarity to the House as to the status of the document he was quoting from. I therefore submit that the last 35 or 40 minutes have been entirely out of order, and that we should simply go back to where we were and carry on as though nothing had happened, because the Minister’s procedure has been in error, and I submit that your rulings, in allowing him to table the document, are in breach of Speaker’s ruling 110/7, and that therefore the House finds itself in a position where it has acted completely contrary to its own rules and procedures.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for that contribution. No, my rulings up to this stage have not been in error. Specifically, Speaker’s ruling 110/7 does not apply to this case that we have before us.

Hon Peter Dunne: So he wasn’t acting as Minister when he tabled the document?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): He was not dealing with an official document. The advice I have received from the Clerk, and I accept that advice, is that Speaker’s ruling 110/7 is not relevant at all, and that will be the end of that one. It was a tabling under Standing Order 362, which I have here and which you refer to, not a tabling by leave, and therein lies the difference. I think we have had a good go at this. It is now entirely over to the Hon Mark Burton. I know we are halfway through his second request for leave, but he may withdraw his first request to table a document and revisit that; it is entirely up to him. He can seek leave to rescind it if he wishes.

I am happy to seek leave to rescind the first tabling.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought to rescind the first granting of leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. I thank all members for their contribution. The original tabling has been rescinded.

I seek the leave of the House that at the conclusion of the second reading—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that there were two stages here. He was, firstly, going to withdraw the original tabling, and leave has been granted for that and it has now been withdrawn. The second step was that the Deputy Leader of the House was going to seek leave to table the draft minutes—

Hon Mark Burton: I’ve already done that. I did that before.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): He did it earlier, but if that is unclear to members—

I am happy to do it again, because I have already done it. I seek leave to table the draft, unconfirmed minutes of yesterday’s Business Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is.

I seek the leave of the House that at the conclusion of the second reading of this bill we move directly to the third reading, and that the question on the third reading be put without debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

I understand that there is still a speaking spot left, and National would like to take that spot and have two 5-minute speeches. The speakers who will be speaking have spoken before. I seek leave for two 5-minute speeches.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is true; there is one gap left. Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

As a resident of Christchurch for 27 years, I think it is fitting for me to stand up and put some positive aspects back into this very fine legislation. I remember that a few weeks ago the House cooperated and passed in unison the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill, and I regret that the Labour Government has wasted Parliament’s time in taking offence at arrangements that the National Party was very happy to oblige with to help facilitate the passage of this bill.

Putting all those negative feelings aside, I think tonight is the time that Parliament should celebrate the passage of this bill. The Canterbury Museum and Christchurch will be the benefactors of this bill. I am pleased to learn that the Christchurch City Council will lease the Robert McDougall Gallery for the extension of the Canterbury Museum. I want to pay a compliment to the Canterbury Museum director, Anthony Wright, who in the past 5 years has invigorated the museum. I have every confidence that he will utilise the McDougall Gallery well to exhibit and showcase the very fine collection of the Canterbury Museum.

I also take the opportunity to compliment and acknowledge another Tony—Tony Preston, previously the McDougall Gallery director and now the director of the new Christchurch Art Gallery. Tony Preston landed in Christchurch some 4 or 5 years ago. He is not from Christchurch, but has integrated into the society well. He is a very strong director with a good network, and has the city and its residents behind him. Christchurch has now seen a very fine building take shape in the form of the new Christchurch Art Gallery, and that has freed up space for the Canterbury Museum to take over the McDougall Gallery.

We come here to tonight to celebrate the passage of over 70 years in the life of the McDougall Gallery. It has provided much pleasure and prestige to the residents of Christchurch and, indeed, to other New Zealand and international visitors. Those visitors can continue to enjoy its fine works in the new Christchurch Art Gallery, but, in addition, the McDougall Gallery will be utilised by the Canterbury Museum under the very capable direction and management of both Tony Preston and Tony Wright. I have pleasure in being associated with this bill.

I rise with pleasure to support the passing of the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill. It is interesting that this bill is before Parliament, but it is not surprising that we are modernising something that was set in place over 70 years ago. As has been discussed by most contributors to tonight’s debate, we are moving forward now that the Robert McDougall Gallery, which was the major art gallery for Christchurch, has been replaced by a magnificent new structure approximately a kilometre away. Clearly, because it involves legislation, it has been necessary to bring a local bill back to Parliament, so that we can talk sensibly about the future of the Robert McDougall Gallery building.

A number of Labour Party members have questioned why such a small and insignificant bill needs to come before Parliament, but it is a very important bill for Christchurch. The second point I want to make is that the debate surrounding this legislation will go down in history as the most incredible debate we have ever seen. I can imagine many students of politics and law hauling out Hansard and reading it—

Clayton Cosgrove: Night after night.

Hon DAVID CARTER: —if they have nothing better to do—with absolute amazement at what has occurred. Two amazing precedents have been established tonight. I am making a second contribution in a second reading debate, and I never thought I would see that. [Interruption] As I say, it will be read by students for a long period of time.

The second, more interesting, point is that we have also seen, through a 30-minute series of points of order, the very interesting situation of a document being tabled and subsequently withdrawn. In time, when people study this particular legislation—

Rodney Hide: In the member’s time in Parliament, has he ever seen leave sought for untabling documents?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Rodney Hide asks if I have ever seen that, and I have not. That is the point I am making—this is a precedent. It is absolutely amazing; it is history in the making. People will be staggered that those of us who have been privileged to make a contribution in this debate have made two precedents within a bill that was really not a major one. I take the opportunity of noting the two precedents that have been established. I hope, in a way, that the management of the House will improve substantially, so that those precedents will not be recreated.

I hope that we will see the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill passed tonight, because that is what the people of Christchurch who are associated with the arts community want to see.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Bill.