Mark Ron: Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5203] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a short call to indicate that New Zealand First will support the passage of this bill. But I do wish to remind the House and the Anglican church—and as an Anglican myself I think I am perfectly entitled— 
Dail Jones 
: And Mr Speaker. 
RON MARK 
: Yes Mr Speaker is an Anglican as well— 
Dail Jones 
: Myself as well. 
RON MARK 
: So is Dail Jones as he informs me so we are in good numbers here. But I do wish to take the opportunity to put on the record again a concern that I raised when this bill came to the House. 
I had hoped that between the time that this bill came to the House for its first reading and the conclusion of some activities down in Christchurch and particularly in Rangiora involving some Anglican church property we might have seen a little more consideration being paid to the spiritual concerns that many Anglican people had down there in respect of what was happening in the cemetery in Rangiora. Although at the end of the day the Anglican church did move to take on board the concerns of the members of that particular church in Rangiora its approach to the management and the use of that cemetery to the subdivision of a property that lay beyond that cemetery and to the decision that was made to put a road through the cemetery was absolutely appalling. It does not matter how many times I read this bill because I say that while the Anglican church may well be legally tasked with being—[ 
Interruption 
] I did not hear that but the member might like to take a call and to say something sensible. 
What concerned me about the management of Anglican church property in Rangiora was that the members of that church protested their concerns to the Anglican bishop and to the Christchurch City Mission that the part of the cemetery they were choosing to run a road through would mean the road would go straight over the top of a whole lot of children’s graves. A lot of those people who had lived there all their lives and were descendants of parents who had lived the bulk of their lives in that part of Canterbury were simply dismissed. It was one thing for those people to be dismissed by the councillors of the local district council who could not find any evidence or records to back up the claims being made by them but it was something totally different for them to be dismissed by the leaders of their own church. 
The property behind that cemetery was gifted to the Christchurch City Mission so that it could put an alternative school on it but of course because it was a landlocked section approval and support were then sought to put a road through the cemetery. The concerns of those Rangiora residents were voiced loudly and clearly. This issue did not involve Maori people; it involved non-Maori. But Maori understand people who say they know there are no records but there is an oral history. The members of that church told people that they knew for a fact that children were buried there some of whom had been stillborn or had died in infancy. They believed there were also a number of adult graves there—graves of paupers homeless people or people who were not considered well off at the time they were buried and therefore did not have marked graves. Their views and concerns were dismissed. 
What happened then? When the bulldozers went in there scraped off the topsoil and started digging they unearthed 13 graves. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis is becoming a little “lemon-ish” on occasions. She sneers and snarls across the House. That issue might not be significant to her but if that sort of thing had happened to a Maori cemetery an urupa this House would not hear the end of it. Maori people would most definitely voice their disgust and anger. But I guess that is the society we live in these days. Because the people concerned about that cemetery in Rangiora were Pakeha no one cared and I find that very very sad. 
If that is an example of how the Anglican church will manage its property and real estate and the concerns of its own people under this legislation I think maybe Parliament should rethink its support for it. Maybe Parliament should rethink the amount of responsibility that it discharges to the Anglican diocese if that one example is to be the example its property management is moulded on because the diocese did a lousy job. The only point at which the diocese started to reconsider the situation and went back into the community to talk to the people from the local Anglican parish was after there had been a lot of bad publicity. That was not the right reason to address the spiritual concerns of the members of that parish. That was not an appropriate mechanism for kicking into gear actions that demonstrate that as an administrator one clearly does take into consideration the views of the members of one’s parish. On that issue the Anglican church failed and it failed abysmally. 
I am grateful that much later—regrettably after we had had the whole issue aired in the local community papers after there had been meetings in halls and after there had been a plethora of letters written to the bishop—the Anglican church moved to redress its errors. Unfortunately the graves were dug up the remains were reinterred and the road is there now. But quite frankly the very concerns and objections raised by the members of that parish—not by other people—should have been taken into account right from the outset not after the Anglican church had been given some bad press. I just want to have that recorded in  
Hansard 
 as a warning. Nobody expects that the Anglican church will manage its property in that manner and I sincerely hope that that is the last time we will ever see such action on the part of the church. 
Bill read a third time.