NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this
I move, That the Christ's College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This amendment bill 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, as long as it is for a charitable purpose, even though the property is not applied to the original purpose for which it was given to the college. Established in 1856, Christ’s College is one of New Zealand’s oldest schools. Over the years, the college has received numerous bequests from various donors; many bequests are small. The college holds these funds in trusts to be applied for a specific purpose, but often the original purposes have now become redundant, are difficult to implement, or the property generates too little or too much money for the purpose. Presently if the funds cannot be used for the stated purposes, they remain in the school’s accounts and, despite the best intentions and desires of the donors, can do nothing to benefit the school or the students. This problem of trusts is a common problem for long-established organisations, and legislation has been passed by Parliament on several occasions to deal with the issue. The most recent was the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Act 2009.
I particularly thank the members of the Government Administration Committee and its chair, the Hon David Parker, for intelligently and methodically working their way through this bill, and dealing with issues quickly and efficiently. The select committee recommended that the bill, with amendments, should proceed, which was good news for the board of governors of Christ’s College, as it faced the clean-up of the 4 September earthquake. Several of the college’s neo-Gothic buildings were damaged, although all those that had been strengthened to 67 percent of the building code were unscathed. We people from Christchurch understand how important earthquake strengthening is and the percentage of strengthening. We discussed the earthquake damage at the second reading, and tonight I will update the House on the progress of restoration and rebuilding at the school.
According to the bursar of Christ’s College, Colin Sweetman, the repairs are progressing well. The college has been fully operational since the beginning of the third term, and all the cosmetic work has been completed in the classrooms and the day and boarding houses. Work is now progressing on the exterior repairs to chimneys and gable-ends, as recommended by the engineers. Repairs to chimneys and gable-ends, being stone, will inevitably take some time and require skilled workmanship. The college is also addressing the earthquake strengthening of the Cranmer Centre, which is in the historic buildings that once belonged to Christchurch Girls’ High School and are now used by Christ’s College. It is working with both the council and the Historic Places Trust to restore this complex of buildings. Other strengthening and refurbishment work in the college is now out for tender, and it plans to start that work immediately after the college finishes for the year. It will be a big job, and the college will be extremely busy for probably the next 6 to 12 months, but everything is under way to ensure that its wonderful neo-Gothic buildings—an important part of the architectural history of Christchurch—can be used and enjoyed for many years to come.
The select committee found that the amendment bill was generally consistent with the law relating to charitable trusts, but suggested some improvements. It suggested that the bill use the wording from the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, which has an established body of case law supporting it, to avoid ambiguity. It also suggested the inclusion of a clause that would allow the governing body to use excess income from trusts for other purposes, which again is consistent with the Charitable Trusts Act. The committee wanted to make sure that the term “for the benefit of the College” was not interpreted too widely. The funds can be used only for charitable purposes, so to remove doubt the committee included a clause to spell that out. The select committee and the Christ’s College board of governors have worked well together on this legislation, and have done an excellent job reshaping the bill. The board of governors has always made it clear that it wishes to meet the objects of the trusts as closely as possible, and that its approach to any variation of purpose would be as sympathetic to, and consistent with, the original as possible. It also assured the select committee that before exercising this power, it will complete a detailed review of each of the trusts to ensure that the original purposes cannot continue to be fully met.
This is good legislation. It gives the college more flexibility, but it also safeguards the management of those trusts and will ensure that the school and the students will receive benefits from those donations made over the past years in the most appropriate way. During the debate on the 1910 Act, which we are now amending, the Hon Mr Jones said in the House that he hoped that the gentlemen entrusted with the charge of those endowments would realise the responsibility that rested on them. Well, 100 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. 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. Under their leadership, I believe that the board of governors, both male and female, will set the college on the right path for the next 100 years. Thank you.
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this
I am very pleased to speak in the third reading of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I should just note that the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, moved that the bill be heard a third time, rather than read a third time. I am sure the House will take that in the spirit intended. In the first reading debate of this bill, Labour made it clear that we had some concerns about the lack of checks and balances in respect of trust deeds in this bill. I am pleased that the Government Administration Committee, under the very able chairmanship of the Hon David Parker, has brought through some amendments to this bill that put in place the sorts of checks and balances that we as a Parliament would want to see. I want to discuss some of those, and maybe one or two matters that we have left with the trustees to exercise some discretion on.
Under clause 5 the House is supporting inserting a new subsection to allow trustees to vary the purposes of charitable trusts in certain circumstances, though these differ from those set out in the Charitable Trusts Act, which is the legislation that governs all trusts operating in this country. The committee was assured by the board of Christ’s College that in exercising its powers to vary the original purpose it will complete a detailed review of the trusts to ensure for the avoidance of doubt that the original purpose cannot continue to be met fully.
That is an assurance the House would want. Trust deeds are sacred instruments. They endure for a very long time. I should note that this bill amends the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910. Here we are, a century later, dealing with a venerable institution and trying to assist it to, I guess, ensure that it proceeds into the next century in an appropriate and fiscally responsible fashion. I welcome that change because it is important that we signal that we want to see it made very explicit to trustees that where they make changes, they have to be in situations where the original purposes, where money was donated—often in situations such as families trying to honour somebody who had passed away—are honoured by the changes we make.
The other thing I note is new trust purposes. There was a concern in the select committee, and appropriately so, that because the original bill talks about allowing a new purpose for a trust to be for the benefit of the college, although almost all of the college’s activities are indeed focused on its educational outcomes, there could be situations where the benefits might go to the college rather than to a charitable purpose. That is why an amendment has been brought forward by the select committee.
I compare this bill with the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. There have been a number of bills amending trust deeds and trust legislation pertaining to the four major Christian Churches in our country—Anglican, Presbyterian, Catholic, and, most latterly, the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill of last year. In that bill we introduced an amendment that required the oversight of the Attorney-General where variations are made to original trust deeds. That has not come through in this bill through the select committee process. I guess we are putting some trust in the board of governors and the trustees of those trusts at Christ’s—and there are 20 or 30 of them affected by this bill. We know that in almost certainly every instance they will honour the intent of the original trust, direct the finds towards a charitable purpose, and make sure, where there is a variation from the original trust because of passage of time, that the original intent is still kept to—obviously, for an educational and charitable purpose. It is really good to see that those amendments came through the select committee process.
One of the things that came to my mind in question time today was in relation to a question to Minister Tolley about national standards. Christ’s College, as a private school, is not affected by national standards.
Yes, it is an extraordinary thing, is it not, that all State schools are affected by national standards but private schools are not, even though I know that a number of principals at private schools still question the value of national standards and shake their heads over why on earth national standards are being introduced without any attempt to pilot them in the State schools where they are being included. But that will not affect Christ’s College, and this bill does not touch on that, as has been noted.
I was very pleased to visit Christ’s College last year with Phil Goff. One of the things I was very impressed with, other than, of course, the wonderful neo-gothic facades of that institution, which mercifully has come through, yes, with some damage, but still standing, was the broadband infrastructure of that school. I hope that as the trustees look at the future purposes they might direct funds towards, those funds will no longer be used for such perhaps archaic past subjects as Greek. I will not say divinity, as other members may, because obviously that is still a very important framework for the school. It is very proudly a Christian school and that is part of its whole ethos.
There is a fantastic infrastructure for Christ’s College by way of information and communications technology. It probably has the best broadband connections. While I was there with Phil Goff, students were online with Scion forest research institute in Rotorua, asking scientists about particular issues on forestry. It was fantastic to see that sort of engagement. It is probably already well ahead of many schools, and I hope the Government’s initiatives on broadband will see every school in the country with the same sorts of connectivity. It is hugely important, if we want to be a knowledge economy, to provide that. I hope that Christ’s College, having had the foresight and the funding to put in place that infrastructure, might look towards continuing the advances it has provided to its students in terms of broadband. It is a fantastic technology for students to tap into at that sort of level. It will equip them very, very well for the future. That is really important.
I wrap up by saying that this bill has obviously been through the select committee process. The refinements that have been attached require that where there are variations to trusts, trustees take note of the need for there still to be charitable purposes. I suppose there is a measure of trust provided. There is not a requirement for the Attorney-General to provide oversight, as has applied for some of the church trusts. The trustees should take the sanction of Parliament that we have provided to them in a unanimous, bipartisan way, as a signal of the faith that this Parliament has in the fine institution of Christ’s College. That will ensure that the moneys that are now freed up—and we are talking about many hundreds of thousands of dollars across these 20 or 30 trusts, so it is not inconsequential; it is a powerful sum of money—will be used for the best purposes: that is, the future education of pupils at Christ’s College.
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this
The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
The previous speech was a bit disappointing in some ways, because Jacqui Dean was such a contributor in the Government Administration Committee to the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I say in all sincerity that she certainly made a contribution in starting to ask some of the questions about whether we were—
Well, we did not hear from the member in the Committee stage, apart from an interjection here and there.
She appears to want back the call that she gave up so quickly just before.
I am very pleased to rise in the third reading of this bill. The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill came before the House because the governors of Christ’s College had a problem. They had an issue in relation to trusts and, as they say it, “property” vested in the college. Either the purpose for which the property was vested was redundant, they were uncertain about how to apply it, it was impractical from their point of view to implement it, or the property was generating income that was either inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for those purposes. We took that request from Christ’s College at face value when the board came to the committee; they wrote a reasonable letter, and we began our deliberations.
In beginning our deliberations we began to wonder. We thought we were giving quite sweeping powers to the Christ’s College board, because really, as my colleague Ruth Dyson mentioned in the Committee stage, we were giving the board carte blanche to take what someone had given for a very specific purpose, and then do something quite different with it. As anyone knows who has been part of gifting money to institutions, it is extremely meaningful. In my own case, at my old high school my family has given a leadership prize. My father, who was the chair of the board of governors of that school, thought we should do that. He has now passed away, and if my old school were to say that it did not think it really needed to give that prize any more because it had lots of other ways of recognising leadership, I would find it difficult. I think, in all seriousness, that we have to recognise that the families who have given this money have given it for a particular purpose.
In many, many cases it was not possible for Christ’s College to actually contact the benefactors—or the settlors, as they call them in legal terms—to find out whether they were comfortable with the change. I respect the fact that the Christ’s College board was not going out of its way in any way whatsoever to cause discomfort to those who had given money, but we should bear that factor in mind when people give money.
The committee began its work to find its way through how we could create an environment in which we were able to allow Christ’s College to sensibly and appropriately use the money that was given to it, but also to retain the integrity of the original settlors. That led us to amend the bill. Basically we amended the bill to ensure that it was consistent with the Charitable Trusts Act. We took the wording directly from the Charitable Trusts Act, and placed it within what was subsection (4) of new section 5 when we debated it at the select committee. The amendment was really about making sure that the board had to fulfil certain criteria with regard to things that were redundant or inappropriate, and I think that that was a useful addition by the committee.
The committee, obviously, also recommended inserting the new subsection that allows the governing body to use for another purpose excess income from trusts that generate more income than required for the donated purpose. Again, that is useful and important, because a number of the trusts that have been mentioned today generate excess funds.
We also wanted there to be a new requirement for the purpose of the trust to be as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which it was given. I will give one example that I think is interesting; my colleague Mr Parker referenced this particular gift in one of his interventions earlier. The Barker memorial gift was for a scholarship for a boy of New Zealand Māori ethnic origin, who is resident in Gisborne or any of the counties of Cook, Waikohu, Ūawa, Waiapū, or Matakoa. The board of Christ’s College came to us and said that the last act of the trustees in setting this scholarship up was to prescribe very narrow residency requirements and, as a result, the trust had more income than was required to satisfy the narrow purpose. When the board says “more income”, it means it: $245,000 currently sits unspent in the trust.
As my colleague Mr Parker said, members of the committee really did feel that it would be possible to meet the requirements of the trust, as they are written, and find someone in the Gisborne or East Coast area who fulfilled these criteria. It may be that we have some form of shorthand there, and in fact the gift is extremely specific about the regional arrangements. But I hope that now that the committee has made these changes, it will be possible for the college to apply this scholarship perhaps to someone from the North Island, or simply to Māori students, because that was the original purpose. If it is not possible to use the funding for exactly that purpose any more, we now have a requirement, placed in the legislation through the select committee process, for the new purpose of a trust to be as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which the property was given.
In this House National has been making new policy to provide for more places in private schools for people on scholarships. There are mixed views, I would have to say, on this side of the House about whether that is a priority use of money, but here is an example of a college that has a gift that can specifically be applied for by people from the Gisborne area who are of Māori origin. It may well now be possible, with the change that we have made, to expand that gift slightly and still keep to the purpose of that particular trust.
The committee regarded that change as one of the most significant things that we did. We wanted the college to be able to continue to apply the trusts and the gifts it received for sensible and appropriate purposes, but not for just any purpose. As I have said in earlier interventions, the governors of Christ’s College were very amenable to this. They were not setting out in any way to use the money inappropriately; they wanted to make sure that they could have some more flexibility in the use of those trusts.
In some of the time remaining to me I will reflect on the broader matter—and I seek your indulgence on this, Mr Deputy Speaker—of members’ bills coming to this House. There are two points about this matter. One is the fact that this member’s bill is in the name of Nicky Wagner, who is obviously an MP resident in the Christchurch area. It is convention, as I understand it, that bills like this come to the House in the name of the electorate MP for an area. My colleague Brendon Burns has supported this bill, and I think that that is good, but it is interesting to note that this has happened; obviously, as time wears on, we will watch out for that.
The second thing I mention in relation to members’ bills is the question of how we treat them when they come into the House. I think that from time to time, when they come in, we think that they are just bills from an organisation, and we ask why we need to put them under the kind of scrutiny that we would perhaps put a Government bill under, or some of the other bills coming up later on the Order Paper in the name of members. This bill indicates to us that we must be vigilant—
Hone Harawira—and that as well—and make sure that we look at each bill on its own merits, and suggest and make the appropriate changes, regardless of whether it is for a private entity or as part of a Government bill.
With that, I say that I am pleased to have been part of this process. I am glad that the college will now be able to use these gifts for appropriate purposes, with some flexibility, whilst still retaining the integrity of the gifts.
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) Link to this
The Green Party certainly concurs with the point made most recently by my colleague Grant Robertson about the need for vigilance on these kinds of bills. I must say that the Green Party has followed the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill with more interest than was originally anticipated, because it contained some issues that required serious attention.
The bill will empower the board of Christ’s College to alter the terms on which property has been entrusted to it. As such, it closely mirrors private bills to expedite the handling of trusts by various church trusts, such as the Anglican, Presbyterian, Catholic, and Methodist churches. In all those previous cases the Green Party supported legislation through the House.
The tests contained within this bill closely resemble those found within the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, particularly Part 3, but, unlike previous legislation, this bill, at least in its original version, did not contain sufficient checks and balances when changes to trust deeds were to be made. For example, the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Act 2009 provides, in sections 10 to 13, significant public accountability measures, and section 12 provides oversight by the Attorney-General. This bill, in its original version, had no such similar protective checks and balances. However, those shortcomings have been rectified in the course of the select committee process, and we are now able to support it.
We think it is important to ensure that any changes in future to school trusts are robust and transparent, and I think that has now been attained. This is an example of the select committee process working well, and we are therefore able, as I think we indicated in the second reading debate, to switch our policy and support the bill at its third reading.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this
I am a little bit surprised that Government members have not taken a few more calls on the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, given that one of their colleagues introduced the bill. That was breaking with convention. I heard Sandra Goudie interject during the previous speech: “There is no convention in Parliament”, which was an interesting statement to make. But the Government is breaking with convention in having someone other than the local member of Parliament introduce a private bill. Given that that member is one of their colleagues, I am really surprised that Government members are not taking more interest in the bill. The bill has obviously attracted endorsement from all parties in the House. It is sensible legislation, and I congratulate the governors of Christ’s College on bringing it to Parliament through an MP who is resident in the Christchurch area.
The bill amends the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 to remove difficulties in administering property vested in the college when, according to recital (2) of the preamble, the intended purpose or purposes with 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 where the property generates income that is “inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary” for the original purposes.
The select committee took its task very seriously, gave the bill the scrutiny required, and came up with some appropriate amendments, I think, to narrow down the powers of the governing board of Christ’s College, so that the changes it makes to the purposes and use of the available property or trusts are also narrowed down somewhat. I think that that is a sensible restraint on the powers of the governance board, in terms of changing the way it uses those funds, which have been granted to the college by people who might now be long past and of course have no ability to have a say in those changes, and who potentially could disagree with the types of changes that the board might want to make. The legislation just limits the board’s powers ever so slightly, and I think that is a sensible move.
I agree with the comments of my colleague Grant Robertson that we should not just allow these private bills to pass through without some comment. It is good to look at them seriously, and to give them the same scrutiny we would give to any other bill. Again, I refer to the fact that Government members have taken less and less interest in this bill as it has continued through its stages, and now they seem to have tired of the whole thing, altogether.
Jo GoodhewIAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
I can assure the junior Government whip that I have one eye on the clock, and I am certainly aware that we are getting closer and closer to the dinner break. I can assure her that I will not go on too long in my speech, lest she be concerned that we give this bill too much scrutiny. We never know; in the third reading debate it is probably a little bit late to discover something massive in the bill that we might want to change, and too late to make any amendments, but it is still important to give a bill like this the type of scrutiny that it needs.
Perhaps one of the reasons why Christ’s College turned to a National MP was as some kind of vote of thanks for the Government’s spend-up on private schools—a spend-up that was to the detriment of public schools, it is fair to say. Perhaps that is why this bill is in the name of Nicky Wagner; I do not know. But it does reinforce the stereotype—one that I have been working hard to try to break with my colleagues on this side of the House—that not all private schools and graduates of private schools have National-leaning tendencies.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY Link to this
My colleague Ruth Dyson wonders what that has to do with me. She obviously was not here during the Committee stage, when I confessed about my background of having been privately educated.
This is a sensible bill; it has been sensibly amended by the select committee. Opposition members feel that it is an important enough bill to have the appropriate level of scrutiny, and now I believe that my colleague Ruth Dyson has a few words to say on the matter.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this
I am delighted to speak in the debate on the third and final reading—and in what may be the last contribution—of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I will make a couple of points.
Firstly, I acknowledge the Government Administration Committee for its rigour and the way it undertook its consideration of this bill. My colleague Grant Robertson referred to the responsibility of people who are left alive to ensure that inheritances are, as much as possible, used for the purposes for which they were left. I think that is a serious responsibility for us to take. The bill, as it was originally introduced, was not quite tight enough in that regard, so I acknowledge that improvement.
I also acknowledge Grant’s father, who, as many of our parents have done, left a scholarship for leadership skills. I think that Mr Robertson’s father made an important contribution for future generations, and it was a really good tribute to him to have that acknowledged during the discussion in this House.
I understand that the select committee had more advisers on the legislation than it had submissions. There was only one submission but two sets of advisers: one from the Ministry of Education and one from the Ministry of Justice. I guess the clerks were from the Government Administration Committee, so the select committee was certainly well served.
That is a very fine thing, and it is why we have ended up with this bill, which amends a 1910 Act to ensure that the property held by the school in trust is able to be used for slightly broader purposes than were originally intended. That is a sensible resolution; it means that under the Charitable Trusts Act the trustees will not have to apply to the High Court to approve a new trust process for any variation. This bill will now give the trustees flexibility, which we are confident they will use wisely in the best interests of the school, its pupils, and its future. I commend the progress of this bill.