BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this
I am very pleased to take part in the Committee stage of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I note that Christ’s College is an iconic institution at the heart of my electorate of Christchurch Central. It has a very proud history through somewhat challenging times over the decades, including two world wars, the Great Depression, very recently the quake of 4 September, and even more recently the severe aftershock of yesterday. Pupils and teachers at Christ’s College were among the many thousands of people who were rattled by yesterday’s force 5 quake, but Christ’s College, like Christchurch and Canterbury, is coming through the quake and the aftershocks. Although we are shaken, we are not stirred.
Christ’s College, as some members may know, has around 150 trusts, and about 20 or 30 of those trusts are at the heart of this bill. They deal with causes that may have been appropriate in the past, but are no longer appropriate. To give an example, a trust in the past may have donated funds towards the teaching of Greek, but now there is not a large numbers of boys at Christ’s College who feel the same need to learn Greek. Such trusts were there to provide assistance to such boys, should they wish to do so. I suppose it could be argued that we might use such funds and such trusts to send boys off to the Greek Islands and Athens to study Greek, but that would raise a question as to whether that was a charitable purpose, as the original trust deed intended. The bill is explicit on this issue, and amendments are made to reinforce the fact that there should only be use of funds for charitable purposes.
The point is that those purposes are not always easy to define. For instance, if there were a trust to encourage democratic participation, trustees might use that money to hire the Christchurch Town Hall, at considerable cost, to allow major public discussion on an issue of some public consequence, such as, say, the Christchurch earthquake. The trustees would need to be sure that that was not only a charitable purpose for a particular individual, but also a wise use of those trust funds. I guess trustees would also have to ask when, after considerable expense, that democratic purpose they were funding attracted only 100 people, whether that would be a wise use of trust funds. Would it be a charitable purpose being served? If an intended beneficiary of those funds advised people in Christchurch who had quake claims that had not yet been addressed that perhaps they could resubmit them to the Earthquake Commission, would that be a wise use of those funds when 100,000 claims had already been lodged with the Earthquake Commission? Is that just a double up, or is that double Dutch?
So, quite wisely, the board of governors of Christ’s College has come to Parliament seeking a solution for a law change so that funds held in the 20 or 30 trusts covered by this bill, which may in the past have been used for something like Greek or double Dutch—some language or strange practice that has been left behind by time or by wiser heads—can now be better spent. That is really the thrust behind this bill. I am pleased and the Labour Party is pleased that there have been changes made at the Government Administration Committee to tighten up the purpose of the trusts. This bill is about increasing flexibility for Christ’s College, which is, of course, a private school in Christchurch. It is about making sure that there is better use made of the funds and better use made of the property than how they might have been used in the past and for what it is still vested for. That is at the heart of this bill.
We are very keen to see that the bill allows trustees to vary the purposes of the charitable trusts in particular circumstances. Obviously at the select committee there was consideration of the wording of the legislation in the Charitable Trusts Act under which the trusts operate to describe the particular circumstances in which a governing body may vary the purposes of charitable trusts. This is an issue familiar to me because last year the first bill I had the privilege to introduce through this House was for the Methodist Church. It was in a very similar situation to the Christ’s College board of governors, where trusts had been established back in the mists of time for particular purposes, mostly relating to the care of orphans, that were no longer a concern for the Methodist Church, but the trusts were locked into those purposes.
The only way to amend those trusts, unless there is an Act of Parliament like this, is to approach the High Court, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars for a trust. As has been said, when Christ’s College has 20 or 30 trusts locked up with assets and funds, and it can no longer use those funds for something like teaching Greek, it needs the flexibility to apply those funds across. The select committee was concerned about making sure that the governing body, while it may vary the purposes of those funds, would make sure that they were still used for a charitable purpose. The select committee reported back and recommended inserting into clause 5 in subsection 3 a requirement for trust property only to be used for charitable purposes, even when there has been a variation. That is a welcome change.
It reinforces the intentions of the original trustees, those who set up the trusts, who might have done so because they had sons at the school and wanted to recognise them or their sons had been lost in war. There is roll of honour for the two world wars and other wars for the former pupils to be remembered by their families, and the trusts were established. That is quite a usual circumstance for the establishment of such trusts. So a particular purpose was defined and now as time moves on the board of governors wants the capacity to vary those trusts. That is why we have this bill in front of us. The actual bill is amending things that have been made redundant by the passage of time, things that have become uncertain as to their application, and things that have become impractical to implement. Clearly, where a property is generating income that is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for the purposes, sometimes we want to see the amalgamation of particular trusts’ funds into one fund and the devotion of that to new purposes. Although they will still be charitable purposes, as amendments before the House suggest, the trusts are able to change from their original purpose. That is important.
This bill authorises the governing body of the college to apply property in certain circumstances for the benefit of the college but where there is still going to be some change. That is a very welcome move. I think there is flexibility carried through in this bill to make better use of property that has been vested in the board, which is a very fine board. Christ’s College is a good school. It has a proud record and it has a number of former pupils who are familiar to this House. There is one well known to this side of the House in the form of one Michael Cullen. The school has a proud record, and this bill gives it the flexibility to vary the purposes of those trusts in particular circumstances. I am pleased to see that the changes brought forward by the select committee and suggested to the House make sure that where there is variation to the purpose, it still comes back to only charitable purposes. That is very, very clear. There was a residual concern that although the purpose of the original bill was to devote benefits for the benefit of the college, even with some extraordinary set of circumstances, the benefits of the college were not in line with charitable purposes. That is why we have seen that amendment come through. So that is a very, very welcome change by the select committee.
The bill is now back before us in the Committee stage. It gives us the final chance for some scrutiny, and that is important. I remember through the Methodist Church legislation some considerable scrutiny both at the select committee and back in the House, and we made considerable changes to that legislation just to make sure that the intents of the original trustees were being honoured. This is very difficult legislation to deal with. We are dealing with issues from decades and decades before where people had a particular purpose and had very, very carefully prescribed what that purpose would be and how it would be served by the establishment of a trust. We need to tread very carefully as a House when we begin to make amendments in that respect.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I hope that the Television New Zealand charter ensures that that last speech is played on public TV—played again and again on public TV.
It would be an overstatement to say that the gallery is full for the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, but I am sure that former old boys of Christ’s College are fairly represented in the gallery for the momentous occasion of the Committee stage of this bill. Indeed, at one stage I saw Rod Oram, one of New Zealand’s most notable financial journalists, up there; he was there for just a second. I thought “Well, I did not know he went to Christ’s College.” I knew he had the accent, but then I thought—
No, Mr Oram is not there now. Then I thought to myself that Mr Oram actually got that accent because he was born in England, and that he was not a Christ’s College graduate. So I had to correct myself and say that not all of the people who are crowding the gallery today are former Christ’s College members.
The governing board of Christ’s College came to Parliament and said that it needed to change the terms of its empowering legislation, because the current legislation was too restrictive about the purposes to which it could put money donated to the school. Trust law requires that if a donation is given to an institution on trust, it can be spent only for the purposes that are set out in the original donor’s intention. The purposes of the trust cannot be unilaterally changed by the trustee. The trustee—in this case Christ’s College—is bound to apply the money in those trusts to the purposes for which the donor of those moneys gave them.
There are good reasons for those rules at law; otherwise, the purpose for which donations are made could effectively be varied by the people who are trustees, and put to some different purpose the original donor would not have agreed to. For this reason, there are restrictions at law about changing those terms of trust. There are different ways that one can, in some circumstances, change the purposes of a trust. One can go to the High Court in respect of each trust, and make an application to vary the terms of that trust if the terms had become redundant. There are provisions in the Trustee Act that enable an application to be made in respect of an individual trust, so that the purposes to which that money can be put can be varied because the original purposes have become impractical. The term “impractical” does not mean that the trustees have just changed their minds to think that the money could be applied in a better way, because that is not a legitimate ground. It has to be that the original ground has become impossible, effectively, to be carried out in accordance with the donor’s wishes, because of some change of events in the meantime. That is the background to this bill.
Christ’s College, which is a venerable and old institution, has had many donations over the years from some of its well-to-do former pupils, who have wanted to put something back into the community via their donation to the school for a particular purpose. But that purpose has been frustrated as a consequence of some change in the intervening period. We have had examples of that. One of the examples we were given at the Government Administration Committee was about a donation for the benefit of the children of former servicemen in World War I. Not many servicemen from World War I are still alive; indeed, there are none in New Zealand now. There are certainly no Gallipoli veterans left alive in New Zealand. I do not know whether there is even one serviceman left from World War I. It may be that before the last of them passed on from this world, they left progeny who are still not of school age. But if there are children of World War I veterans, that is not a very big class of beneficiaries these days.
The Christ’s College trustees, quite understandably, said that they needed to vary the terms of that particular trust. I think, from memory, that some tens of thousands of dollars—it may even be over $100,000—is now sitting by way of accumulated interest, as well as the original trust fund, and is available to be put towards some purpose. But the school feels that it cannot meet the terms of that trust; there is a need to vary it so that that money can be put to some other good purpose for the school.
One of the things that we on the Government Administration Committee had to check—and I served on that select committee, along with National members and other Labour members—was whether the range of new purposes to which those funds could be applied was too wide. That arose from our consideration, which involved a consideration of the existing trust terms. I know that that matter was of concern to Jacqui Dean, as well as to Grant Robertson, to me, and to others on the committee. We were a little uncertain, in fact, about whether we were convinced that in all of these cases, the terms of the existing trust could not be adequately adhered to. In particular, I was concerned about some of the trusts that were effectively for the benefit of pupils coming from lower-income families to the school. I took some convincing that there were not appropriate people in existence in the community or school who could have had those funds applied, for their benefit. I do not accept that in some of those trust situations there were not appropriate people within the class of potential beneficiaries for whom the moneys in the trust could be properly and legally applied, if those in authority at Christ’s College wanted to do that. For that reason, the select committee has sought information from, and asked questions of, the representatives of Christ’s College about whether that might be the case. Those representatives conceded that that might be so in some cases, and they also agreed to the insertion of a provision in the legislation to make it clear that before they could change the way in which this money was spent, they had to be—[Interruption] Oh, Nikki Kaye was also on the select committee, paying particular attention to this. I say I am sorry to the members of the extensive Christ’s College former community in the gallery that I forgot to mention Nikki Kaye; I am sorry about that.
In any event, we decided that it was to be made clear that the terms of trust could not be varied unless there was a need to vary them, and where there was a need to vary the purposes of the trust, the new purpose for which the money could be applied had to be as close as possible to the old purpose. Although it might be true that there are not many children of World War I veterans around, there are no doubt relatives of people who have served in the armed forces in the Christchurch area, and they could be the beneficiaries of some of the moneys of that particular trust. Similarly, in respect of some of the sporting prizes that are now redundant because those codes are no longer popular, there are now new sporting codes that have become popular in the intervening period, and the moneys could still be applied to support a sporting code.
I think that is the essence of what the preamble attempts to achieve when it states: “(2) Over time, some of the purposes have become redundant, uncertain as to application, impractical to implement, or the income derived from the property is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for the purposes …”. In respect of the amount being in excess of what is necessary for the purpose, I would be very surprised if those in authority at Christ’s College could suggest that the money intended to be applied to people who were not of great means would be in excess of the amount that could be applied to that purpose. I would hope that those in authority at Christ’s College will see that if they have that sort of purpose, then they might need to change slightly the class of people they are looking at applying it to, so that beneficiaries do not necessarily have to be the children of old boys but could be other impecunious persons. None the less, the money could be used for effectively helping people from lower-income groups, rather than being applied to some building project or sporting project.
Those are my initial contributions on this bill. I am sure that my colleagues will want to make some other, more erudite comments for the edification of the many old boys in the gallery. Thank you.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Before I call the next member, I will make a little comment. The Committee of the whole House has chosen to debate this bill clause by clause, as it is wont to do. No one has transgressed yet, but I should say that we will be pursuing the matter of relevance as we work our way through this debate. That is a general comment to the Committee.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I will speak to the preamble to the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, as my colleague David Parker did. I am not referring to his absence at all, but I see that he has spoken and run away, in a way that other people have done every now and again in the past. I will go backwards through the preamble to this bill after I have made some preliminary comments.
The first of my preliminary comments is one of some regret. Traditionally Christ’s College has been known as a school that goes with form and takes a proper approach. I regret the fact that this bill is in the name of Nicky Wagner and not Brendon Burns, who is the local member of Parliament. On the basis of form and an appropriate approach, the bill should have been in his name. I accept that with one or two notable exceptions, Christ’s College is the National Party at school, and therefore—[Interruption] Oh, I accept that not all National Party members went to Christ’s College.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I do not think I am allowed to use all the words that Michael Cullen has used in relation to Christ’s College. He is an old boy, but I think it is fair to say that the member is wearing a colour that is more appropriate to the political background of Christ’s College old boys than—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
No, I am referring to the member in the chair, Nicky Wagner. Blue is the colour that they tend to wear. I think it is a pity that National could not see past a political bias in order to do what was good form and the proper thing, and what was the generally expected thing, and ask the local member for the school’s area to be the sponsoring member for this legislation. As people could see from the first of at least five contributions made by Brendon Burns in this debate, he is absolutely across the issues in this legislation and has made a lot more sense of the bill than I have heard from others.
My second point is that I am not at all convinced that the requirements of the preamble are met. The member for Christchurch Central has convinced me not to oppose this bill; he had to do some work in that direction. But if we look at subclause (5), it is clear that that subclause is not correct. It has been clear from the debate we have heard from the member in charge of the bill, Nicky Wagner, on the introduction of the bill and from David Parker, as he has just discussed it. There is an alternative route, and that is by a variation in the High Court. The suggestion that the objectives of this bill cannot be achieved without legislation is just wrong. I am not saying it is not appropriate occasionally—and we have done it in the past with, I think, Anglican and Methodist trusts—to use the House to vary trusts, but I am not sure we should get in the habit of doing it. It means that Parliament is tipping over arrangements that have been entered into by people in the past, when there is a method of doing so through an approach to the High Court—an approach that has not been taken up in this particular case.
The next point I make is to have some discussion around subclause (2) of the preamble, which suggests that “Over time, some of those purposes have become redundant, uncertain as to application, impractical to implement, or the income derived from the property is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for the purposes for which the property was given to, or vested in, the governing body:”. I think the only “in excess” area I heard about was in relation to sports that were no longer part of the games played by the boys of Christ’s College. But I did not hear very good arguments right at the edge, other than arguments of convenience. I am not sure that it is appropriate for Parliament to be the vehicle to tidy up trusts that are inconvenient to a particular school. I think it is fair to say that there is not much debate that these things need to be tidied up. We know, as indicated here, that some of the funds do not have enough money and some of them have too much money for their purposes.
I sat on the Government Administration Committee on three occasions when the bill was being considered. On the second occasion the governing body of the school was brought back to have a discussion with the committee because at the time we were concerned that the bill as introduced was broader than it needed to be. I must say that like most people representing Christ’s College, they were exceptionally polite, they were well informed, they had good legal advice and good legal advisers, and they made a case that on balance convinced the select committee to proceed with the bill, but to make amendments, which I think were made unanimously.
Mr Hayes took a leading role for the Government on this legislation, and we thank him for the work that he did. We hope that he is not doing it in an attempt to line up one of his own schools for this sort of legislative change. It occurs to me, as we consider the preamble, that maybe as part of an education amendment bill we could work towards some sort of arrangement whereby, if there is a big group of these schools, we could consider them as a job lot. I do not know whether there would be a total level of trust. Scots College and Christ’s College might be a bit scared of being amalgamated as a result of that sort of legislation. If I were in charge of the bill there might be more danger of that, but probably not quite as much as is indicated in the preamble.
Returning to the preamble, which is important, I think it is fair to say that subclause (4) is absolutely accurate. In fact, it could well be described as an understatement. It states: “The governing body wishes to have the authority to apply property in these circumstances to provide more appropriate and enhanced benefit to the College:”. I would say that from the school’s point of view there is no doubt at all that they want to have an increase in power of that type. It is also fair to say that subclause (1) is entirely accurate: “The governing body of Christ’s College holds property given to, or vested in, it for various purposes:”. There cannot be very much debate about that. Unlike subclause (5), it is a matter of fact.
Sandra GoudieHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
The member is happy to carry on. The cat has a tongue. The member is very good at contributing. She appears to be able to sit down—
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this
I feel as though I need to enter into the debate at this point to bring some balance—
Hon Nathan GuyIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
I am a King’s College old boy, actually—that is my point. My point is that I need to bring some balance to the debate. I am sure there are a few more private school old boys and girls on the Government benches than there are on this side of the Chamber, and I will take it upon myself to bring a little more balance to the debate. We do not all turn out wearing blue. Some of us manage to pop up on the red side of the House, as well.
I am looking at the preamble. Recital (1) states: “The governing body of Christ’s College holds property given to, or vested in, it for various purposes:”. When I was at King’s College, unlike with most boards of trustees in New Zealand, there were no elections to the governing body, and I think that is still the case now. The board of trustees did not really believe in democracy. In fact, the college had a statement on its website, saying that we all know that democracy can throw up interesting results and perhaps not the result that is best for the organisation. King’s College eschewed democracy and went for a straight appointment of the board.
I have no idea whether the governing body of Christ’s College, which is referred to in recital (1) of the preamble, has the same system. I just tried to do a quick search to see whether the same system is in place at that college, and I could not find any information on how the Christ’s College governing board is appointed or elected, or on what the system is. If the member in the chair, Nicky Wagner, has any information to enlighten me on that point, then I would sincerely appreciate it if she could get up and discuss it.
The governing body of Christ’s College holds property given to it for various purposes. Mostly these are trusts, and a lot of them are used for scholarships. The nature of the purpose of scholarships can change over time.
Again, I will reflect on my time at King’s College. It was in the mid-1990s, and at that point in time—
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
It must make Mr Mallard feel rather ancient given—[ Interruption] Well, private schools were doing quite well in the mid-1990s, to be fair, given the Government of the day. I do not know whether that makes Mr Mallard feel rather old knowing that I was at high school at the time.
I was at school in the mid-1990s, and at that time rugby union went from being an amateur sport to being a professional sport because of the way that rugby league had been siphoning off so many rugby union players. I know that the Chair is looking at me and hoping that I bring it back into the scope of the debate, but this is to do with rugby scholarships to private schools like Christ’s College. All of a sudden there was a proliferation of rugby scholarships as the New Zealand Rugby Football Union sought to contract young rugby players, and King’s College—and, I am sure, Christ’s College also—sought to get some rugby stock into the school that it had not been able to generate itself through its own processes. It looked to other schools to attract those players. Those scholarships suddenly proliferated in the mid-1990s.
I wonder whether that was a case of a trust like the type of trust we are dealing with in this bill being used for a slightly different purpose. It is possible that that was not the case; that new money came in from another source. But I think the Government Administration Committee was quite interested in situations like that with regard to this bill.
When one opens up the use of property given to, or of trust money vested in, the governing body of a school like Christ’s College for alternative purposes, then it should not be used in a manner that is not quite becoming to educational purposes. In this case, the money was used for the prestige of the school on the sports field, rather than for what the original nature of the scholarship was.
A number of scholarships are put in place for sporting purposes, and of course there is absolutely no problem with continuing with that same use. But, as recital (2) of the bill points out: “Over time, some of those purposes have become redundant, uncertain as to application, impractical to implement,”. It is important that while we widen the possibilities for the governing body to make use of that money, we take care—
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I know that under the Standing Orders I am limited to four calls on any one part of a bill or clause. [ Interruption] Three, is it? Well, I will have to hurry up—
I am on my third; that is right, so I might be hard-pressed to get through all of the things I need to raise. But I could not really go past the preamble without talking about some of the things that are referred to in it in respect of these trusts and give some individual instances. One of the gifts that have become redundant was the Duncan Rutherford Prize to provide a prize for the 200 yards “Lady Jane handicap” running race. I am intrigued by that, and I would like the member in the chair, Nicky Wagner, to explain the title of the “Lady Jane handicap” running race. It is not the “Lady Jane” handicap running race; it is the “Lady Jane handicap” running race. I do not understand what the “Lady Jane handicap” was. There is $14,000 of unspent income in this account. I am confused as to what the “Lady Jane handicap” was that was of relevance to the 200-yard running race. That is one I would like an answer for.
Paul QuinnI heard Mr Quinn say it was a standing start. Another one I have is the 1947 gift of the prize for fives. There is now $7,000 unspent income in that account. We are told that that is redundant because the fives courts were demolished, so fives is no longer played. That seems pretty poor planning at the school to demolish the courts. Maybe that is excusable, but we could have some explanation of that.
Another one I would like an explanation of is the Balfour Prize, an 1880 gift of $100. This shows how from little acorns large oak trees grow.
Jo GoodhewI raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am struggling at the moment to work out how this relates to the preamble. [ Interruption]
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
No, I do not think I need any assistance. I think the member is speaking about the trusts that exist, and I think he is within the scope of the bill. But I am continuing to monitor.
The Balfour Prize of a gift of $100—I presume it was pounds in 1880, but it is shown on our papers as being a gift of $100, probably £50 back in 1880—now has unspent income of $25,000. I thought “How could that be?”. How could that be? Then I looked and I saw that it was a gold medal to be awarded annually to the boy passing the best examination in divinity in the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, in Greek—in Greek! I was convinced when I read that that there was a need for some change, given that Greek is no longer taught at Christ’s College. I could agree with that change.
Another one I found intriguing that the school had not been able to give out as a donation was the annual prize for coming second in the 120 yards hurdles—second! Now, look, ours is not to reason why. I do not know why the prize was second. I know that even at Christ’s College not everyone can come first. I wonder whether there was some sort of personal interest on the part of the donor, who may be in the annals of history, but who came second in the 120 yards hurdles. I would have thought that ever since that prize has existed there was someone coming second in the hurdles race. I would not have thought that Christ’s College could not spend that.
I will now turn to a matter of some seriousness, because there are a couple of examples that go the other way. For those ones that I made light of, I can see why there is a need to vary the terms of the trust. But there are a couple that worry me. This was why the select committee said we needed to be careful. There is $245,000 of unspent income in respect of the D and D Barker Memorial trust. The terms of the prescribed purpose of that trust state that it is a scholarship to be awarded to any boy who is, or whose parent has been, resident in Gisborne or the counties of Cook, Waikohu, Ūawa, Waiapu, or Matakaoa, and who is of New Zealand Māori ethnic origin. I find it very hard to accept that Christ’s College cannot find people of Māori ethnicity from Gisborne who are not worthy of that trust money, because there are plenty of low-income boys in Gisborne who would benefit from a Christ’s College education. I, for one, would be disturbed if the money from that trust was not put to its proper purpose, which is to bring boys from the Gisborne area who are from low-income families to help them get a good education at Christ’s College.
I do not think it would be proper for Christ’s College to apply that for an alternative purpose, because there is absolutely no doubt that the Gisborne area is an area of deprivation, there is no doubt that there are many boys there of Māori ethnicity, and there is no doubt that they would benefit from the high quality of education they would get at Christ’s College. So that is one trust fund that should not be applied in another way.
There is another one called the Ernest Helmore Memorial trust. Again it was a generous bequest back in 1922. I will read out the purposes that were described to us at the select committee and the advice that we had from Christ’s College. The bequest was to assist parents in poor circumstances to send their sons to college or to keep their sons at college, with the board to determine the selection criteria and the level of assistance. So there is a very, very wide purpose already in terms of the criteria that can be used, which the board can set. The purpose is clear: it is to assist parents in poor circumstances to send their sons to college. We are told that there is $99,000 of excess income. The explanation we were given at the select committee was: “For any year in which there are no or few applications made and accepted, the trust generates excess income”. I have to say that I do not accept that. I do not think the trustees of that trust or, indeed, the school are trying hard enough if they cannot find parents in poor circumstances whose sons would benefit from an education at Christ’s College.
Although having made light of some of the awards—like coming second in the hurdles, prizes for Greek, or the game of fives, when the fives courts have been demolished—I really think there is a serious issue that we got on to at the select committee. Although we agree with the preamble and other parts of the bill that will be covered later in this Committee stage, we tightened up some wording to make it absolutely clear that the governing body needs to adhere to the terms of the trust where that is possible. In the two instances that I gave in respect of impecunious boys, and boys of Māori ethnicity from Gisborne, they can clearly meet that purpose of that trust. I will speak to some of my Māori colleagues from the Gisborne region—like Parekura Horomia, Moana Mackey, and others—and suggest that they tell some of their locals about this trust fund at Christ’s College that they should apply to utilise. That would be a good thing for those students and it would do justice to the original intentions of the generous donors who, so many years ago, gave money with the intention that it be spent for the benefit of low-income people who could otherwise not attend Christ’s College.
I have some speaking time left but given the importance of this debate I will leave it to someone else, rather than waste it with unnecessary comments on my part.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
I feel somewhat strange in contributing to this debate—
John HayesHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
He was a good saint, I say to Mr Hayes.
People have mentioned that Christ’s College has a long and honourable history, and that is true; they struggle with first XV rugby, as exhibited this season when St Bede’s College thrashed them. But I note that as an institution in Christchurch they are, indeed, a venerable institution. Although there is not so much religious but school rivalry, especially in Christchurch, we note that, I think, St Bede’s College holds the record for the largest number of MPs. I was not going to say the largest member, although Gerry Brownlee is a former St Bede’s College old boy. St Bede’s College has the largest number of members of Parliament at one time, in the Chamber. It used to be six when Mr Blumsky was a member of Parliament, so I think we hold that record. I do not know that we hold the record for the largest number of all time, but we do for the largest number at any one time. I note that across the Chamber Messrs Brownlee, David Carter, Dunne, Cosgrove, and O’Connor all come from that venerable—and far better school I would say—but rival school, St Bede’s College.
It is a pleasure that Nicky Wagner is in the chair, as the sponsor of this bill. I am very pleased that she is here, given that I would not have thought she would be available today, after the hammering she took from Gerry Brownlee, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. I am told it was for her conduct in criticising the Earthquake Commission, the Government. She suggested some rather bizarre behaviour that people in my province of Canterbury should engage in if the Earthquake Commission had missed them, and that was to put “URGENT” in an email. I will come back to the bill, Mr Chairman, but I am pleased that Ms Wagner has recovered from her emotional experience with Mr Brownlee and is here today.
This bill is technical. I note with interest that it mirrors very similar private legislation to expedite the handling of trusts by church organisations such as Presbyterian, Catholic, and Methodist churches, and it promotes a tidy-up. I am not sure whether this is still the case in my electorate of Waimakariri, around the Redwood suburb in my patch, that there are a number of leasehold properties—or used to be anyway—that Christ’s College had ownership of. I assume, not knowing the intricacies of this bill back to back, that those properties will also be covered in the tidy-up of this trust legislation. Mr Parker, I know, has raised a number of interesting issues in respect of the beneficiaries of those trusts and who in the future may be able to benefit from the large moneys that Christ’s College has approved over many years.
Members on this side will support this legislation. I do not believe there is any politics, apart from interschool rivalry, in the Chamber. The bill will receive, I am told, reasonably swift passage, as we go through it this evening.
The bill amends the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910. I am trying to recall which is the older school within Canterbury. Mr Burns might be able to assist me as to whether it is St Bede’s College. I should know this.
Colin KingHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
Lincoln, OK. That is another venerable institution in our province, absolutely. Christ’s College is very old and venerable. The board has administered large—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
I am glad we have some positive stories in the Chamber—1852 or 1855, Mr King says.
In a modern way the bill attempts to bring together the administration of property vested in the college for the intended purpose or purposes for which property assets were given or vested in the college. A number of the clauses and areas in the Act are obviously now archaic or redundant. The bill will allow a modern institution that administers millions of dollars, I presume, in respect of its own operations and the assets therein, and to manage those in a contemporary sense.
I will not labour the point in respect of support for this bill, because, as I said, I feel slightly uneasy being of Irish-Catholic, St Bede’s College stock in supporting—
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
I have overcome it well, my colleague says. Yes, we are a broad church.
We support this bill. It will get its passage through today and I think it is pleasing that in Canterbury, given the difficulties we have, we have such great educational institutions whether they be Presbyterian, Catholic, or the second-raters—the Anglicans!
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) Link to this
I stand to speak to the preamble of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, I do not have stories to tell, not being from Christchurch, nor indeed being educated in New Zealand in my schooldays. However, I can claim to be a Marist boy, and I have not heard anybody talk about being a Marist boy, yet.
Proper Marists. At school I was taught by Marist Brothers in Fiji, who were all New Zealand Marist Brothers and taught us well. There were no discussions in those days about huge bequeaths or trusts that kept the school going. There might have been some old ones but the school that I went to, and enjoyed my education in, was funded entirely by contributions from former students.
It is quite amazing to think that Christ’s College goes back to 1855 and over that period of time a huge number of trusts were set up, as was the tradition in those days, to assist schools in all kinds of ways. It is quite amazing to realise that in this particular case there are 148 trusts that are administered by the board of Christ’s College, but 28 of them are unable to be administered because there are major problems with that in the contemporary environment. The bill attempts to address how the trust board may begin to modernise, if you like, the purpose of those trusts. It is important that we go through this process, because when people make huge contributions to trusts of this nature for a particular purpose, they need to be guaranteed that the purpose will be satisfied. Our own Charitable Trusts Act provides the framework within which that need operates. When there is a need to revisit matters, we go through this process to ensure there is a smooth transition to a new purpose for the trusts to enable the resources of the trusts to be utilised. So that is what this bill is trying to do. It is important also to have the opportunity to have the full debate here so that—
I am still on the preamble. The member might take a call to enlighten me on some of this, but there are quite a large number of matters to be addressed. Even in the first reading of this bill some of those concerns were raised, and it is good to see that the select committee has worked its way through most of those. When the time comes to debate the other aspects of this bill, we will talk about those specific things, as well.
As far as the preamble is concerned, clause 4 raises some concerns for me in that the governing body itself is seeking to have the authority to determine the new purposes. That translates a little later on in the bill into not utilising the provision that some other trusts of this nature have where the Attorney-General still has a role. In this particular bill that is obviated; it is not included. We will debate that when the time comes to have a look at that particular section. But apart from that, I am done speaking on the preamble. Thank you.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
I want to take some time to talk about the purpose clause of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, because this is where the Government Administration Committee did the majority of its work. As previous speakers have outlined, we certainly understood as a committee why Christ’s College had come to us. It was in a position where it was not able to undertake a number of the activities it wanted to undertake. Money was locked up in trusts that the college was not able to use for the purposes it wanted to use them for, or, indeed, the trusts had generated significantly more income than they needed to achieve their purposes. It was difficult sometimes for the committee to work through the reasoning behind that, and I will highlight a couple of the trusts as examples.
There is the T H Lowry gift, which was to be applied for the encouragement of athletics and athletic sports in connection with the college. Obviously, athletics is still a sport, and it is still a sport that is competed in at Christ’s College, so it would perhaps seem odd not to be able to fulfil the purpose of that trust. But the college was able to tell us that it has a lot of other income and funds available for athletics and the income from the trust was exceeding what it could spend in a reasonable way. This is the area that the committee struggled with, because we felt that, presumably, there would be purposes related to athletics where the trust could be used in the future, but perhaps not at the levels mentioned.
A different example of a similar concern was the Ben Masefield Memorial gift, which is an annual prize for the most promising under-17-year-old member of the cadet corps or air training corps as at 31 December in a particular year. Cadets are probably completely off the scene in high schools in New Zealand nowadays. Certainly they are in respect of Christ’s College, so it would be very difficult to spend the—
Jacqui DeanI stand corrected by the member for Waitaki. Air training cadets are still in schools. The question is not so much whether air training cadets exist but whether schools still have them. I think we will find that Waitaki Boys High School and St Kevin’s College down there are probably not providing them, just as Christ’s College is now not providing them. But we could check, and I would be happy for Ms Dean to take a call at some point and let us know. I know she followed this bill extremely closely at the select committee, so it would not surprise me if she would like to take a call.
Those are just two trusts where the committee grappled with the fact that although we understood—
I thank the member for that.
The committee felt that we needed to make some changes to the purpose clause to be able to accept Christ’s College’s point but also to ensure that integrity was kept in terms of how money was distributed. The way in which the committee did that was to replace subsection 4 in new section 5—which is set out in clause 5—which lays out the criteria by which the college can change what it is doing with these trusts.
Subsection 4 states: “The circumstances are that—(a) it is impossible, impracticable, or inexpedient to apply the property for the purpose for which it was given to, or vested in, the College; or (b) the available amount of the property is inadequate to carry out the purpose for which the property was given to, or vested in, the College; or (c) the purpose for which the property was given to, or vested in, the College has already been carried out.” That was pretty much what the board of the college wanted when it came to us, but we wanted to add into that some more criteria, more guidance, for the college. So we added subsection 4A.
Subsection 4A states: “If the governing body is satisfied that the property given to, or vested in, the College is more than is necessary for the purpose for which it was given or vested, the governing body may apply any excess property for charitable purposes for the benefit of the College …”. The key phrase is “for charitable purposes for the benefit of the College”. So this is to keep it inside the same boundary by saying that the property will still be used for charitable purposes and for the benefit of the college.
The committee raised the question of what would happen one day if Christ’s College ends up with a commercial arm as part of its operations. Schools are evolving in all sorts of ways and that is possible. We asked whether we be comfortable with some of the proceeds of these gifts going into that kind of area. The committee decided that it was not and that the provision would be consistent with the Charities Act, and we put it in that kind of language. So that was an important addition to this part of the bill.
We also added subsection 4B, which states that in exercising the powers I have just outlined: “the governing body must apply the property for a purpose that is as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which the property was given to, or vested, in the College.” Again, we were trying to make sure that although it is quite clear, as David Parker said earlier, that there is not much Greek, divinity, or other such things being taught—
Divinity is probably still taught but not in Greek; that is the issue. We certainly understood that it would not be possible to do that, but we thought that it was in the spirit of the gifts that were given to the college that we should have a clause that obliges the college to put the gifts to purposes as close as reasonably possible to the original purpose.
So those are the amendments we made to new section 5(4), in clause 5. I think it is worthwhile outlining them, because, as I think I said in my second reading speech on this bill, private bills often sail through. This is an example of the committee taking its job seriously and recognising an issue. The governors of Christ’s College were extremely cooperative and understood what the committee was trying to do, and therefore they have gone along with this change. Private bills will not necessarily be waved through the House, and the amendments made are an example of that.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
I take pleasure in speaking briefly to the purpose of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill and I will pick up the point that my colleague Grant Robertson made. Bills that come before this House that are small, are primarily technical, and, like this one, have only one submitter—the board itself whose trust deed is to be amended by this legislation was the only submitter, according to the report back from the Government Administration Committee—provide an occasion when the Committee of the whole House should take its responsibilities very seriously and ensure that the proposed changes do not just receive a sign-off from it.
I have thought about this legislation quite a lot. Even though it was proposed in good faith, the select committee has done good work on it and, I think, has amended it to restrict quite a lot the ability of the board to change the scope of bequests. If people leave in their will an amount of money to the school for a specific purpose and actually specify in that bequest the purpose for which they want to leave it, we can take it by implication that they do not want it to be spent on anything else. For example, people might say they would like to bequeath a lot of money to Christ’s College for political education on the ways of the labour movement in New Zealand. That is a possibility. At a future time the school might decide not to run a course on that any more; it might decide that it does not want it to operate at Christ’s College, in the same way that it no longer teaches divinity in Greek. Where does the authority come from for a group of people to say that because they do not teach that any more, they will use the bequest for an entirely different purpose?
That is actually the nub of what this legislation does. When a purpose is no longer in operation, is no longer fashionable, or the school does not pursue it any more, we as a Parliament have taken it upon ourselves to change the purpose for which a bequest, grant, or donation can be used. Obviously, it is quite an extreme position that one would literally alter the nature of the purpose, but that was actually proposed in the original version of the bill. I commend the select committee for the way that it considered the responsibility of Parliament. David Parker has contributed to the debate already tonight, and I commend his chairing of the select committee, and also the other members, who I understand contributed in a bipartisan way—only two parties are represented on that committee—to make sure that this bill received the rigour of scrutiny that it deserved.
Later on in this debate, when we look through clause 5, we will see that unanimous amendments have been made. In new section 5, subsections (4), (4A), and (4B) are entirely new. I want the Committee to give particular attention to that area, because that is where the select committee, by unanimous agreement, said Parliament was potentially handing over too much power, and it might well be an abrogation of the responsibility that we have as a Parliament to ensure that the original intention of the donation, gift, or bequest to the school is carried out. The select committee has narrowed the ability of the board to entirely alter the purpose of a donation, so that it cannot be used for a different purpose. It is very similar to the way that the powers of an enduring power of attorney are able to be applied: so that the specific purpose, the understanding, and the intent of a person—whether or not it is stated—are carried out. I commend the select committee for its diligence, and I look forward to the bill progressing later on this evening.