Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I move, That the Christ's College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee.

Christchurch is considered the most English of New Zealand cities, with the river Avon flowing through its town, its Anglican cathedral, and its neo-Gothic buildings, including those of Christ’s College. It is not surprising, because the city and the whole Canterbury province began life as a Church of England colony, as envisioned by Edward Gibbon Wakefield and John Robert Godley.

Christ’s College was part of that vision, and it began in 1850 as a school for early settlers. Although it was directly modelled on the philosophies of the English public school, it was on a much smaller scale, being run out of two rooms in the immigration barracks at Lyttelton. It provided a classical education, including Greek and Latin, modern languages, mathematics, English, history, and geography. The students, mostly boys, were also expected to conduct scientific experiments, to draw, and to sing. The school was named Christ’s College by J E Fitzgerald, Canterbury’s first superintendent, after his old college at Cambridge.

In 1855 the Church Property Trustees founded Christ’s College as a separate educational institution, and it moved to its present site at the foot of the cultural precinct in Christchurch, with 35 pupils and a staff of three. Certain land endowments were handed over to it, mostly town lands. In the same year Parliament passed the Christ’s College Ordinance, which incorporates the deed of foundation incorporating Christ’s College, Canterbury as a body corporate having perpetual succession. Over the last 155 years, Christ’s College has been subject to further legislation to address various issues that have arisen and difficulties that the college has faced regarding the administration of its property and funds.

The Christ's College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, which I bring forward today, amends the 1910 Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act to authorise the governing body of the college to apply property in certain circumstances to the benefit of the college, even though the property is not applied for the original purpose for which it was given or vested in the college. Over the years the college has received numerous bequests from various donors. The terms of some of them require that the annual income generated by their funds be applied to a specific purpose—for example, the provision of prizes for certain subjects or sports, or the provision of scholarships to pupils who meet certain criteria. Accordingly, the college holds these funds on trust to be applied for those specific purposes. Although the 1910 Act gives the governing body wide powers, section 5 of the Act makes it clear that nothing in this Act is to be construed to give the power to use “any moneys or property for purposes other than were intended by any conveyance, transfer, grant, gift, deposition, or declaration of trust setting out the purposes for which any property was given to or vested in the College.”—that is, the college must apply the funds to the purpose specified by the donor. This reflects the common law duty of trustees to comply with the terms of any trust. But let me make it clear: the college wishes to, and, as a trustee, must, ensure that to the fullest extent possible the objects of the trust continue to be met. However, the stated objects of a number of trusts have, over the years, become largely redundant. Also, some of the trusts receive income that is either in excess of, or insufficient for, their needs.

The college is not alone in trying to manage this issue. The Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill has recently been passed in this House, and it dealt with the same problem, as did the Anglican Church Trusts Act in 1981, the Presbyterian Church Property Amendment Act in 1996, and the Roman Catholic Bishops Empowering Act of 1997. As a registered charity, the college could apply for approval of a scheme under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, but as was recognised by the House in passing the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill, that is lengthy, expensive, and impractical, given the number of trusts that have to be varied.

The Christ's College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill does not confer power to use properties for purposes other than those that were intended. The board is aware that where it is possible to carry out the donor’s intention, those intentions must continue to be honoured. However, in certain circumstances, when it is not possible to use the income for a stated purpose, the governing body may use it in other ways to benefit the college. Those circumstances are when the original purposes have become wholly or in part redundant, uncertain as to their application, impractical to implement, or the property generates income that is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for those purposes. There are many examples of the purposes of bequests becoming redundant, such as funding for sons of soldiers who have suffered or fallen during the First or Second World Wars, and funding for students from Christchurch orphanages that no longer exist. There are also prizes for sporting events that do not happen any longer and for subjects that are no longer taught. And nowadays the funding streams do not always work effectively. There are scholarships that are too small in dollar terms to be useful, and funds that grow so quickly that they cannot be dispersed under the original rules. If the funds cannot be used for the stated purposes, they just accumulate in the school’s accounts, and despite the intentions of the donors, they can do nothing to benefit either the school or the students.

This change in legislation is necessary for the effective use of bequests from past donors to the college. The Attorney-General has concluded that the bill is consistent with rights and freedoms affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I seek support for this bill so that it can be sent to the Government Administration Committee to be considered, and so that donated funds and property can continue to be used appropriately for the benefit of the college and its students.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this

The Labour Opposition will support the referral of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill to the Government Administration Committee, but will not necessarily support it any further, unless some amendments are made to it.

There are three areas that I want to discuss. The first is the very broad nature of new subsection (4), inserted by clause 5, which is the circumstances clause and, effectively, the operative clause of the bill. In my opinion the rights to overturn the wishes of donors are much more than are necessary, and there are not the protections that the select committee decided were appropriate in the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill that came before the House not very long ago. I say to the people who drafted the bill that I think it is poor drafting for them not to take into account the view of the House on what was seen to be the excessively liberal nature of the provisions of that earlier bill. I am concerned about that, and there has been an attempt to take a degree of liberty with the House, beyond that which was shown by way of the amendment of the Methodist Church legislation in the fairly recent past. I think a better approach would have been to take account of that; then things would probably have gone more smoothly.

The second point I make is one of politeness. Although, with a local bill, there is a requirement that bills come through the local member, there is not such a requirement for private bills. But I think most members of the House are aware of the fact that the normal approach is to invite the local member of Parliament to bring the legislation to the House. I say to the governing authorities of Christ’s College that the fact that they have chosen not to do that has been noted in the House. One would expect people who see themselves as important in the way of historical precedence to follow that history, unless there was a good reason not to. I understand that no invitation was given to the local member to introduce this bill, and that lack of politeness has been noted by this side of the House. I would expect that at some stage the authorities responsible for the bill would like to explain that to the House.

The major point I will make—and I will be interested in the views of the Minister of Education when she speaks on this bill—is that it appears that, as with legislation on other independent schools, there is no reference in this bill to the question of the day in education, and that is the issue of national standards.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this

I suspect that the proprietors of Christ’s College are watching the debate this afternoon from their staffroom, as indeed are, possibly, the senior students of Christ’s College. If that is the case, I send them the greetings of Parliament and particularly those of the member in charge of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, Nicky Wagner, who gave a very good opening speech when she introduced it. I guess those proprietors, staff, and pupils of Christ’s College will be utterly bemused by the quality of the previous contribution to this debate, where the politics of jealousy and the politics of sour grapes were on display for all to see. I think that this bill deserves better than that in this Parliament, and we on this side of the House intend to deliver better than that.

The bill is being sent to the Government Administration Committee. That is an excellent select committee, which will give due consideration to the matters raised by both Nicky Wagner and the Opposition member Trevor Mallard, who made a poor contribution to this debate. In particular, I turn to new section 5(4)(a) of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act, to be inserted by clause 5, which specifies the circumstances in which property may be applied for other purposes under new section 5(3). I will go through those circumstances. The circumstances are, firstly, that “the purposes for which the property was given or vested have become (wholly or in part) redundant, uncertain as to application, or impractical to implement; …”. When this bill goes to the Government Administration Committee, members of the committee will be very interested in what is meant by that. I refer back to the speech of my excellent colleague, Nicky Wagner. She notes some examples of purposes of bequests that have become redundant, such as funding for sons of soldiers who had suffered or fallen during the First World War and Second World War. It is worth remembering that the school has a very proud history of sons of the school going off and fighting in those wars. I suspect that there are not any sons of those soldiers who are currently, or who ever will be, at the school, so therefore the purpose of that bequest has become well and truly redundant.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

I am pleased to rise and support the first reading of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has indicated, the Labour Opposition is quite prepared to see this bill go to the Government Administration Committee, but we have some questions about the detail. Christ’s College is a venerable institution in Christchurch. It has a proud 160-year history. It has had a number of distinguished pupils—including, I think, former member of this House Dr Michael Cullen—amongst the alumni of that school.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to comment on the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, but I will start by acknowledging a loss to this country—and, indeed, to Christchurch as well as to the rest of the country—with the passing yesterday of Bevan Tīpene-Matua of Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Kahungunu, Rangitāne, and Raukawa. Bevan was a Green Party member, but also a passionate educator who worked for many years in Christchurch before he went back to his home in Porangahau. He was also the first Māori research fellow at the Crop and Food Research agency with a special interest in intellectual property, plant variety rights, and tikanga Māori. Bevan’s death is a huge loss to education, to his hapū and whānau, and to the country as a whole. Our hearts go out today to the whānau at Porangahau. It is a loss for the Green Party and it is, indeed, a loss for us all, especially for his whānau and his tamariki.

However, returning to the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, I rise to speak on it because we are actually voting against the bill, based on our view that it is not well drafted and lacks sufficient checks and balances when it seeks to change the trust deed. In the past we have supported private legislation to expedite the handling of trusts held by the Anglican, Presbyterian, Catholic, and Methodist Churches, and in all of the previous cases we supported that legislation through the House. The tests contained with that legislation closely resemble those found within Part III of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, except that any change does not require High Court approval and is therefore considerably cheaper to implement. Those tests are sufficient. However, unlike previous legislation, this bill does not contain significant checks and balances when changes to trust deeds are made. For example, sections 10 to 13 of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Act 2009 provide significant public accountability measures, including, in section 12, oversight by the Attorney-General. This bill has no similar protective checks or balances.

It is unfortunate that the school needs to move legislation through the House, which is itself an expensive process, merely to better expedite the use of property entrusted to it. Christ’s College has a highly specific mandate when compared with the mainstream churches, but the powers entrusted to the board must nevertheless be balanced by good process. Is this legislation in the best interests of the school’s beneficiaries? Yes, mostly it is. But this is bad law, and we will have had little opportunity to improve it because we have no one on the select committee.

We are also concerned that the Government gave $35 million to private schools, at a time when there have been cuts right across the board to the public education system. Even worse is the national standards debacle link with private schools. Private schools such as Christ’s College have resources that many public schools can only dream about. The risk of league tables from national standards may help the private sector schools, because they may look good to some parents who can afford to abandon struggling public schools. However, this reduces the community to individuals buying education if they can afford it, rather than maintaining and building social equity through a strengthened public system. The Green Party firmly opposes any undermining of the public school system in favour of the private system. The entrenchment of educational inequity and the measuring of schools against a rigid educational standard will not address this problem.

Another question we have with regard to this bill is a deeper question about the benefits to mana whenua. How many impoverished tamariki from local hapū benefit from this school being sited within their rohe? Given that there are major questions around the Kemp purchase in Te Wai Pounamu, we can never assume that all land sales to the Crown, and then to the churches for private schools—as in this college’s case—can be described as being without the slightest taint of inequity. And have mana whenua been consulted on this bill?

So, although Christ’s College and some other private schools may benefit from issues such as league tables, we are not concerned about protecting their business. We are committed to protecting vulnerable children for whom education is a struggle, and to supporting schools that do their best with very little. I will never forget, when I was a lecturer in many schools, visiting a wealthy private school where the students were provided with wetsuits as a matter of course in order to do kayak training in heated swimming pools, and it had a library DVD screen that took up a whole, beautiful wall, whereas last year I visited some students at a public high school near Wellington where the students asked me whether some schools actually had a swimming pool. The gap is already big enough, in terms of resources, between public schools and the wonderfully resourced private schools that I have referred to. We do not need to increase that gap.

Although we are not supporting this bill, we are taking this opportunity to say we challenge the private school system in terms of the benefits and privileges it confers on those who have access to it. We demand that the Government puts its energy into and emphasis on maintaining and strengthening the public school system. We have raised legal and technical points that may be addressed at the select committee, although we will not be there to raise those concerns. But at a deeper level we want to stand for a public education system—

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa. Ko tāku i te tuatahi, he whaiwhai haere i te kōrero a tēnei nā mō tērā kua riro ki tua o te pae. Ko Bevan Tīpene-Matua tērā, ā, he uri o ngā waka o ngā iwi e kōrerohia ake nei; a Ngāti Kahungunu, ko Ngāi Tahu, ko Rangitāne, Ngāti Raukawa. He tangata ngākaunui ki te āhuatanga o te mātauranga o te tangata i noho tahi ia i roto o Te Wai Pounamu, i Ōtautahi tonu. Nō reira, e aroha atu ana ki a ia mō tōna whānau e rongo nei i te āhuatanga o mokemoke, o pani. No reira ko ia tērā.

Kāti, ka hoki mai ki te pūtake o tēnei o ngā pire kia whakatakotohia ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata mō tōna pānuitanga tuatahi. Ko tāku, ko te kī atu ki te Whare Pāremata kei te tautoko ake te Pāti Māori ki tēnei āhuatanga i tōna tuatahitanga. Pēnei i te kura i haere nei māua ko te Shane Jones mātou ko Hone Harawira, he kura ē hia kē nei ngā tau e noho nei i te mata o te whenua. I a au e rongo ana i te kōrero a te mema nei a Nicky Wagner, āhua ōrite me kī te kaupapa o te kura ki tā te Kura o Tīpene, i te wā i a ia e ora ana, ko te whakapono ka mutu, ko te mātauranga, otirā ngā āhuatanga o te mātauranga. Nō reira, kai te waia, kai te mōhio tonu au ki te āhuatanga o ēnei momo kura.

Engari, tērā pea ko te nuinga o te Whare Pāremata ka mutu o te motu, ka pōhēhē nei kāre he paku wāhanga o te Ao Māori i roto i tēnei momo kura, engari he whakaaro hē tēnā. I a au e rangahau ana i ngā kōrero mō tēnei o ngā pire, i puta te kōrero, ē, kua puta mai tētahi mema o te Whare Pāremata i tērā kura tonu. Nā, ko te nuinga pea, kāre i te tino mōhio ko tētahi o ngā mema Pāremata mō te, me kī, mō te takiwā o te tūru Māori ki te Rāwhiti, ko Jack Ormond tērā, ā, ko ia tērā i haere ki te kura o Christ’s College. Ko ia tērā i haere ki tāwāhi ki te pakanga tuatahi o te ao, i roto i te, me kī, a Tūmatauenga. Ka mutu, i haere ki roto o Rātana, ā, ka mutu, ka hara mai ia ki roto i te Whare Pāremata nei i te tau 1946. Ka noho mai ki konei mō ngā tau e rua tekau. I muri mai, ā, ko ia tētahi he tangata toa mō te whutupōro. Ka haere ia ki tāwāhi, ki Wīwī, ki Ingarangi i muri mai o te pakanga tuatahi o te ao, i raro i te marumaru o Aotearoa. Me kī, i noho ia hei mema o te tīma o Aotearoa i te tau 1923.

Nō reira, arā noa atu ngā hītori o tēnei kura, he kura me kī matua, he kura tuakana o te motu. He kura motuhake nei i Aotearoa roa nei, ā, ka mutu, i pūta mai ki taku mōhio, tekau tau pea i muri mai o te hainatanga mai o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Pēnei tāku e kōrero nei, ko ētahi ka pōhēhē kāre kau he paku mea o te Ao Māori i roto i tērā kura engari, i puta te kōrero kua whakaaetia, kua whakamanahia tā rātau tono, kia tuku me kī, i ngā tikanga Māori, arā, Māori performance ki te taumata tuatoru i raro i te āhuatanga o te New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Nō reira, tērā pea he kōrero ohorere tērā ki a tātau katoa.

Me kī, ko te pūtake o tēnei pire, he whakatikatika i te āhuatanga o te pire Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 me kī, kia whakawātea mai ngā uauatanga mō te whakahaere i ngā whenua, i ngā rawa kua tukuna ki roto i ngā ringaringa o te kura. Ka mutu, ko te pūtake o tēnei pire, me kī, he tuku i te mana whakahaere ki te poari ki te tuku kaupapa kē, kia kaua rātou e herea e ngā tikanga o tērā pire matua.

Nō reira, ehara i te mea he nui ngā kōrero mō tēnei pire, hoi anō, ko tā mātau ko te whai i wā mātau whāinga matua i roto i te kōrero, “He aha te mea nui”, arā, tā mātau kaupapa kōrero, arā, ko te tautoko i ngā hapori ki te whakahaere i ngā rawa kai roto i ō rātou ringaringa. He āhua rite tēnei āhuatanga ki tērā pire o ngā wātene Māori, nā te roanga o te wā, ā, kua rerekē te ao, kua rerekē ngā whakahaere, kua rerekē me kī ngā whakaaro o tēnei wā ki tērā i te wā me kī, i puta tētahi kaupapa i mua noa atu i ngā tau ē hia kē nei kua hipa. Nō reira, āhua pēnei tonu tēnei pire. Ehara i te mea he nui ngā āwangawanga, kei te kī atu te Pāti Māori tukuna ki tōna pānuitanga tuatahi ka mutu, waiho ake mā te komiti whāiti e whakatikatika ngā kōrero a te Minita, ā, ka hoki mai ki te Whare.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all. The first thing for me is to follow on from the previous speaker, who paid a tribute to that person who has passed beyond the veil, namely Bevan Tīpene-Matua, a descendant of the canoes of the aforementioned tribes, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāi Tahu, Rangitāne, and Ngāti Raukawa. He was a person committed to the education of people, and lived in communities throughout the South Island, particularly Christchurch. So my sympathy goes out to him, and his family, left lonely and bereft. That, then, is Bevan Tīpene.

So I return to the focus of this bill that has come before the House of Parliament for its first reading. The Māori Party supports the bill emphatically at this stage of the process. The college is very much like the one that we and the Hon Shane Jones and Hone Harawira attended. It is an institution that has been around for quite a long time. As I listened to the address by the member Nicky Wagner, the college’s philosophy appeared to be very much like that of St Stephen’s College, when that school existed. Religion and education, and all aspects of it, were paramount. Therefore, I am familiar with and aware of the circumstances relating to these kinds of schools.

Most of Parliament, and indeed the country, may mistakenly consider that there is not a shred of Māori association in this kind of school, but that is not true. As I researched material for this bill, it came to light that a member of Parliament had attended that college. Many may not be aware that he held the seat of Eastern Māori. That was Jack Ormond, who went to Christ’s College. He went overseas to the First World War with the Māori Battalion. He joined the Rātana movement and came to Parliament in 1946. He remained here as a member of Parliament for 20 years. He was a former champion rugby player. He toured France and England after the First World War as a New Zealand representative.

So this college has a long history. It is the oldest independent school in the country. To my knowledge, it was founded just 10 years after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. As I stated earlier, some have mistakenly thought that there is not a shred to do with Māoridom in that college, but it should be noted that it has an accreditation to level 3 in Māori performance. Now, that might startle us all.

The focus of this bill is to amend the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 and remove any difficulty in administering property invested in the college. Basically it provides the governing body with the power to apply property vested in the college for some other purpose for the benefit of the college and not be tied by any agreement in that primary Act.

It is not as though I have a great deal to say about this bill, but suffice to say that it is consistent with the main aim in our policy, “He aha te mea nui”, in that we support communities by trusting in their own locally developed solutions. This is similar in context to the legislation for Māori wardens, where changes occur over the passage of time in the fabric of society, the world, and present thinking. Therefore, legislation governing functions is now redundant. This bill is like that. Because there are not many concerns, we, the Māori Party, endorse this bill through its first reading. Any amendments by the Minister should be considered by the select committee and then reported back to the House .]

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

Te mea tuatahi māku, e tautoko ana i ngā mihi ki tērā o ngā mate kua ’hakahuatia e te Rōpū Kākāriki mō tērā o ngā tohunga o te ao mātauranga. Nā reira, tautoko ana i ngā whakaaro mō taua rangatira.

[The first thing for me to do is to endorse the tributes made by the Green Party about one of the experts in the field of education who has passed away. So I support the sentiments expressed about that noble person.]

Labour supports the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill’s referral to the Government Administration Committee. As stated in the explanatory note, the bill amends the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 to “remove difficulties in administering property vested in the College where the intended purpose or purposes for which the property was given to or vested in the College have, by the passage of time, become redundant, uncertain as to application, impractical to implement, or the property generates income that is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for those purposes.” In other words, it is tidying up little parcels of land so that the college has the flexibility to do what it wants with that land in terms of supporting the education for the boys of the college.

However, this is not the only flexibility that Christ’s College will receive under this Government. Like all private schools, Christ’s College has the flexibility to either implement national standards or not implement national standards as it deems fit. It is a flexibility that is not granted to State schools in the country, and we have to ask why it is that State schools are not granted the flexibility to implement or not implement national standards. I would like to know how many private schools in New Zealand will implement national standards. I would say that the answer is zero or a number very close to zero. That is because private schools know that there is no evidence and no research to back national standards. In fact, every time we ask the Government to provide the body of research and evidence that supports the implementation of national standards, we get no answer. I suggest that the National Government either front up with that body of research and evidence or be quiet about it. Unless schools can see that there is a body of research and evidence to back up the implementation of national standards, the policy will not win any favour.

I was surprised to hear Louise Upston in the House last night talking about a decile 1 kura kaupapa Māori school in her area. She said the kids there are very, very successful and they are doing really well. Then she kicked an own goal by saying that the school is not implementing national standards yet. I was blown away that she would be so naive as to stand up and talk about a school that is highly successful, is full of Māoris, and is decile 1, even though the school is not yet implementing national standards because it does not have to for 12 months. That tells me that national standards are not actually necessary because schools are doing really well without them. I wonder whether Louise Upston will stand up and apologise to that school if, when it has national standards are imposed on it, its achievement goes down. Will she apologise to that kura kaupapa Māori in her electorate for forcing this one-size-fits-all approach—national standards—on it?

There is no principal or teacher in New Zealand who is opposed to high standards or opposed to giving parents the information that they—

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

This bill, the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, as Kelvin Davis so eloquently explained, is to amend the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910, to remove difficulties in administering property vested in the college where the intended purposes have now been made redundant. I listened to Te Ururoa Flavell’s speech very carefully, and he spoke very proudly of his time at St Stephen’s College, and that of Shane Jones and Hone Harawira.

AARON GILMORE (National) Link to this

It is a pleasure to support the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, brought to this House by my wonderful colleague Nicky Wagner. People have spoken lots about the various issues around this bill, and one of the things we should think about is that this school has a very long and proud history. I was not a student of Christ’s College, but some wonderful members of this House were, including Sir Arthur Guinness, a former Speaker of this House back in the early 1900s, and, of course, Dr Michael Cullen. The other key people I remember vividly who went to Christ’s College were Robbie Deans and his brother, from Christchurch.

My experience of Christ’s College is that I have actually visited one of its bits of land. The college has bits of land all over the place in Canterbury, which many runholders and farmers have given to the school in many ways. It owns some ski land with a ski lodge; in various forms it owns bits of land all around the city of Christchurch.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this

It is always a pleasure to follow on from Aaron Gilmore. It is quite interesting that he has referred to the transfer of property, because a young friend of mine contacted me on my Facebook page a couple of days ago. He said he was talking to Aaron Gilmore at an event here in Wellington recently, and Aaron Gilmore had told him that I had sold my property and was moving out of the electorate. That is really bizarre. So it is very strange to stand in the House and have a debate about the transfer of property, when in fact that is the sort of nonsense that that person has succumbed to in his desperate attempts to win a position as an electorate member of Parliament. But of course he cannot manage to get to the point where he is standing in Christchurch East.

It is my honour and privilege to have been the union organiser for Christ’s College’s boarding house. Everyone is looking for a personal connection to Christ’s College, and that is my connection. I used to be the Canterbury Hotel and Hospital Workers Union organiser. I helped to organise the boarding school workers—

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I want just to recap. As we have heard, Christ’s College is one of the oldest schools in New Zealand. It was established to provide education for the sons of settlers of the Church of England colony of Christchurch. In 1855 Parliament passed the Christ’s College ordinance, which incorporates the deed of foundation, incorporating Christ’s College Canterbury as a body corporate having perpetual succession.

The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill that we have been debating today will amend the 1910 Act to authorise the governing body of the college to apply property, in certain circumstances, to the benefit of the college, even though that is not the original purpose of the bequest. I will go through those circumstances: if the original purpose has become wholly or in part redundant, if it is uncertain as to application, if it is impractical to implement, or if the property generates income that is inadequate to or in excess of the amount necessary for those purposes. We heard from John Boscawen how difficult such circumstances are for boards of governors to deal with.

Let me make it clear: the board wishes to ensure that the objectives of the trust continue to be met unless they are impossible. We have heard tonight that many bequests can no longer be used effectively for their original purposes. The interesting and most common example given by the college is a bequest by an old boy to make sure that left-handed guns were available for cadets in training. Obviously the old boy was a left hander who had trouble with the right-handed guns at cadets, and he wanted to make sure that no other boy had to put up with that. Nowadays, of course, there is no cadet training at college. Other examples include the 1919 gift—so the gifts go back right to the establishment of Christ’s College; Maria Somes was the first benefactor of the college—to provide bursaries for the sons of soldiers. I noted that the bursaries were for the sons of those who had fallen or suffered as part of the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces in World War I or World War II, or for the sons of the members of various forces of the British Empire who had served in the Great War.

We have talked about orphans, and about Christchurch orphanages that no longer exist. We have talked about sports events that do not happen anymore, and subjects, like Latin, that are no longer taught. It has become virtually impossible to meet the criteria of many of these funds. In the trusts where there is too little or too much money stipulated, the board would like to have the power to adjust those figures so that purposeful scholarships, as close as possible to the original, may be awarded.

Under present legislation, where it is not possible to use bequests the money continues to just accumulate in the college’s accounts without being spent. This does nothing to benefit the college or the students, despite the donors’ intention. Several speakers tonight have sought additional safeguards in the management of these requests, but I remind them that under the 1910 Act that we are seeking to amend, Parliament gave the board wide powers in relation to the administration of those funds—far more significant college funds and assets than those we are asking for the power to administer, tonight. In that debate in 1910 the Hon Mr Jones said he hoped that “the gentlemen entrusted with the charge of these endowments would realise the responsibility that rested on them.”

One hundred years on we can see that Parliament’s trust has been well rewarded. The gentlemen of the board have governed prudently and well, and the college has prospered. Today, a century later, I ask for similar support from this Parliament. This time I believe that there is even more reason to trust the governing body, which will have a far lesser responsibility. In 2010 the warden of the school is the Bishop of Christchurch, the Rt Rev Victoria Matthews, and the chairperson of the board is Mrs Mary Ross. I believe that they and the other lady members of the governing body can, with the gentlemen of the board, be absolutely entrusted with the managing of the school’s funds successfully for the next 100 years.