Foss Craig: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — First Reading 
Foss Craig: Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:2974] 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker and speak to the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. This is a private bill and it is the first private bill I have spoken to—so there is another thing I can tick off. Just before I start— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What’s the member been doing for 3 years? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I have been very very busy I say to Mr Mallard. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Member 
: Winning in Tukituki actually. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Yes I have been keeping the Tukituki electorate visiting the prison and having chats with my friends in the service. 
Chris Tremain 
: Winning your majority! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: And rebuilding our majority. Those are just some of the things I have been up to. I have not heard but I think this bill has cross-party support. I guess we will hear whether it has when other speakers rise to speak to it. It would surprise me if we did not have cross-party support. 
Of course it goes without saying that the National Government supports this bill. If it passes its first reading it will go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for further examination and review. I guess we will need to have discussions with the sponsor of the bill Mr Brendon Burns and I congratulate Mr Burns on sponsoring the bill and hopefully getting it through. I am sure we will be working with him. I will offer our cooperation to make sure it goes through the process firstly to keep the Methodist Church happy and secondly because it is actually an eminently sensible bill. It is a good clean-up. It fixes a problem. There is an expensive route for the fixing of the problem as was alluded to using the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. Of course it would have to go to the High Court and with the number of trusts involved as we all know at the end of the day the lawyers would be the winners and the assets the Methodist Church has would be diluted. I commend the House for its motives here. They are good solid motives across parties to help get this bill through. 
When speaking this week I have to note just as an aside that I think today marks the 30th anniversary of Dame Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister in the UK. I do not know whether she was a Methodist. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I doubt very much whether she was a Methodist. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: She may have been. I mean other speakers may offer different religions that she may have had the Iron Maiden. [ 
Interruption 
] As a colleague of mine notes she was the woman who put the “Great” back into “Great Britain”. I am pleased to have my name beside hers in  
Hansard 
 and it is interesting to note that my mentioning her has provoked a fair bit of comment around the House. 
This bill is not contentious and as I said earlier I look forward to working on it with my colleagues around the House who are on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I commend the previous speaker for his speech earlier. I am sure a certain gentleman would have been very pleased at the way that speech was put together. It was very similar to the speech that I was going to make. I am being quite truthful here. I guess the way to look at this bill is in an economic sense if you like. We are talking about stranded assets of the church. It is interesting and it gets one thinking that when one looks at the explanatory note of the bill suddenly these words “orphanages” and “children’s homes” come up. I had not considered orphanages and children’s homes for quite some time. I agree with Mr Burns that it is a good thing that we do not have those places any more. Obviously the need for them is still there but society has found other ways to tend to that need and hopefully to provide better solutions to some of the unfortunate problems these trusts were originally set up to deal with. We have to acknowledge that the intent with which they were originally set up was mostly for the good of children whom unfortunately for whatever reason circumstances led to be put into an orphanage. I presume that quite a few people in New Zealand working amongst us—possibly even in this House—have been through those orphanages. I thank the Methodist Church for its good work there. I am happy to be helping the church to get this bill through. 
I mentioned stranded assets which simply means that there is value and wealth but it cannot actually be used. This bill is a good way of basically bringing those together to allow the church to extract the value that is already theirs. The funds are on its balance sheet but with the very many small amounts of funds and the various trustees around the place they are actually stranded. The church cannot utilise its funds or assets. As we all know in good times and bad churches generally find it hard to fund their way through and to do the good work they all do—or intend to do—in our communities. I think we are all grateful for that work. I often wonder where our communities would be if was not for people from the various churches doing good work or just good solid people overall doing good work. 
The bill sets out some changes. I was quite impressed with the rules in and around the conference. The conference basically sets all the rules and can appoint the trustees or remove them from any of the associated trusts of the church. That is a very good part of the bill. It is quite refreshing. It allows grass-roots members and activists within the Methodist Church and who have an eye on the long-term well-being of the church to have some say in the betterment and use of the assets that were once intended for the good of children. As we see in the bill many parts of it state that any funds should be used for the process they were originally intended for: for the good and welfare of children but in a more modern context. As the previous speaker noted the bill was based on existing legislation. We have seen that already. There have been similar issues in and around the amendments to the Presbyterian Church Property Act in 1996 the Anglican Church Trusts Act 1981 and the Roman Catholic Bishops Empowering Act 1997—all of which dealt with the same issues. I find them interesting maybe because they are all private Acts. Maybe another member can answer the question of given that the problems exist for those particular churches whether they exist for other entities. If they do I am sure that perhaps there could be a reason for further discussion and discovery of other entities with similar problems. Perhaps that is something this Parliament or one of its committees might seek to address. I think that would be a good point. 
The process under the Charitable Trusts Act which with this bill the church will not have to go through requires an application to the High Court. As we all know that process can be lengthy expensive and very uneconomic and given the number of trusts and the amounts involved they all attract some fixed costs. At the end of the day as I said earlier lawyers would probably do quite well out of those applications to the High Court which would be to the detriment of the children. I say well done to Mr Burns and his colleagues who have helped put this bill together. The bill also ensures that all the proposed changes are accompanied by a statement setting out the reasons for the proposed change. Again that is good law good transparency and of course good accountability and is a bow to the integrity of those who originally donated funds for good purpose in those times. This bill will allow that process to continue and that there is always borax or sunlight on any decisions that are made. 
The alternative process in the bill allows the funds in the trust to be utilised for their purpose—being the welfare of children of New Zealand—rather than sitting in limbo. Once again it is another way of pulling out or de-stranding stranded assets. It allows the management of trust property to be passed on to one board therefore ensuring more economic and cost-effective management. To me particularly as a National Party member and with my economic and finance add-on that makes eminent sense. Perhaps there might be a purchase officer or something on that board to make sure that the rules are adhered to and that the members of the church get good value for their funds. Thank you.