Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5201] 
Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill 
Second Reading 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill be now read a second time 
. I am delighted with the work done on this short bill of long gestation by our Commerce Committee. I am pleased to be able to commend the bill as now amended back to the House. The legislation has a simple purpose: to consolidate and modernise the legislation relating to the property of the Anglican Church in the diocese of Christchurch. As such it really is a successor to a number of provincial government ordinances and 10 Acts of Parliament ranging from 1854 through to 1990. 
The bill has three key features—to consolidate and amend the enactments relating to the Church Property Trustees to widen those trustees’ powers of investment and to apply the variation of trust provisions in the Anglican Church Trusts Act to trusts under the Act. The select committee focused on what one could regard as the modern elements that we need to look at in any piece of legislation. It proposed a series of amendments all of which have the support of the sponsors of the bill. Firstly the definition of the term “spouse” is changed in order to ensure that it includes a de facto partner secondly there is an amendment to exclude the bishop of the diocese from meetings where matters in which the bishop has a personal interest arise and thirdly clause 51 is amended to acknowledge that the Church Property Trustees continues to be an authorised trust board. I thank the committee for its work and on that basis I commend the bill as reported back from the Commerce Committee to the House. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I rise just to say that the National Party will support this bill through its stages. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this legislation. It is quite lengthy for a private bill; I see that it goes on for 54 clauses and 6 parts. I thought that the member’s speech was a little short. Perhaps in reply he could answer my question and indicate precisely why such a lengthy bill could be dealt with in such a short almost pre-emptory manner. The House should be entitled to a little more information about it. 
Jill Pettis 
: Procrastination is the thief of time. 
DAIL JONES 
: I say to that member that sometimes there is a reason for it. I am also concerned that in a bill in the name of the Anglican diocese of Christchurch church property trust obviously a Christian organisation we should want to insert a definition of spouse that includes a de facto partner as defined in section 2C of the Property (Relationships) Act. I note that that was not in the bill originally. It seems to me that originally the Anglican diocese of Christchurch which must be very well briefed in these matters did not want that definition. I ask whether the Commerce Committee imposed that definition on the Anglican diocese of Christchurch in keeping with the minority Labour Government’s views on such matters and its support for such things as de facto partnerships in the Property (Relationships) Act. The House is entitled to a fuller explanation from some member. If that explanation does not come from the member who introduced this bill because he may not have been on the select committee maybe it will come from another member who was on that committee. 
I ask why a Christian organisation that is asking the leave of this House to have a private member’s bill should want to insert a type of definition that I am sure was never ever in the contemplation of the people who originally set up the various trusts. I would be staggered to believe that when these trusts were first set up—and I think I am correct in saying that there is a Church Property Trust Ordinance 1854(C) in the sense of a number or is it 1854 in the sense of a year and also the Church Property Trust (Canterbury) Act 1879—in 1854 or in 1879 there would ever have been the contemplation by what were regarded as Christian people in those times of what is now commonly called a de facto relationship but which may have been given other names in 1854 and 1879. I would be staggered to believe that those people would have ever contemplated a de facto relationship as coming within a church property trust. 
We in the House should be very careful before we amend such trust deeds which are set up by people who want to make money available to the community. A matter before the House a little while ago was in relation to St Kentigern College which was set up as a boys college and then in the fullness of time has now been changed by a private bill in this House to a boys and a girls college. I understand that the people who set up St Kentigern College would probably be turning in their graves to think that their original idea should have been changed in that way. I take the view that a similar situation would probably arise in this case—that is the people who set up these endowments in 1854 and 1879 would be turning in their graves to believe that this type of definition could be included in the legislation. 
 Part 2 “Church Property Trustees” sets out the membership of that body the various functions of the trustees and the way in which the trusts are administered. That part also refers to secondary trusts. This legislation is very complicated. We have primary trusts and secondary trusts. Just reading this bill as a lawyer I believe that we need more clarification from the member as to what is meant by the primary trusts and the secondary trusts and the flexibility that seems to be given in terms of this legislation. 
There is a reference in Part 5 to cemeteries as well. There is yet another amendment in clause 51 about the Church Property Trustees continuing to be an authorised trust board. There are some amendments to that clause and perhaps we need a better explanation of them from the member who is in charge of this bill and who is doing a very good job with it. I have no criticism of him at all; I would just like to know a little more about the bill. As members of this House we are often asked to support something from a totally different area than our own that we know nothing about and if we take our positions responsibly we should find out a little more about such issues. 
I see that in schedule 2 there is a specific alteration to the bill about matters in which a bishop has a personal interest. That seems to be a fairly sound amendment but perhaps an explanation should be given for that as well. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will be supporting this important bill on both its second and third readings and this will be the only call that we will take on the bill. I have worked for an archdiocese myself for about the last 18 years so I am pretty familiar with matters of church property and with church trusts. I think the bill makes very good sense and I am sure it will enable the Church Property Trustees to continue their important work on behalf of the Anglican diocese of Christchurch and to ensure that its funds are well invested. The bill generally updates the existing legislation and if one likes modernises it to represent the conditions that exist in 2003. All of that I am very very happy with. 
The only real comment I would make on the bill relates to a paragraph in the commentary on the bill as reported from the Commerce Committee that deals with the definition of the term “spouse”. The commentary states: “We recommend that the bill be amended to ensure the definition of ‘spouse’ includes a de facto partner as defined in section 2C of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.” I think that is complete and utter nonsense. We are talking here about the wife or husband of a bishop of an auxiliary bishop or of another member of the Anglican clergy designated by the bishop to benefit from the operation of this trust. I think that that amendment is an example of politically correct madness. 
The Anglican diocese need not be intimidated if it wants to put the word “spouse” in this bill. The word “spouse” is used in many current Acts that have been enacted by this Parliament. I have no particular problem with the suggestion of putting that amendment in but the trustees should not be intimidated by that and if they want to used the word “spouse” then that is great. I will continue to use the word “spouse” in this House while I am here. It has a meaning that is well defined; it relates to marriage. I think that particularly when we are dealing with a church bill we need to remember that marriage has two factors. One is the civil union of a man and a woman. The other meaning is the sacramental dimension of marriage. One would therefore expect the Anglican church of all people to want to use that word because it conforms not only to the civil law of this country but also if one likes to the canon law of the church itself and the high regard in which it holds marriage—defined clearly to mean a lifelong union between a male and a female. 
That is my only comment on the bill and I say United Future will support it. 
Bill read a second time. 
Third Reading 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
:  
Mr Speaker— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is there no Committee stage? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the House has agreed that there will not be one. We took the leave of the House earlier today. 
Dail Jones 
: But did we take the leave of the House to waive a Committee stage? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
TIM BARNETT 
: I move  
That the Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill be now read a third time.  
This is the fourth member’s bill that I have sponsored in this House in the last 6 years and sometimes it can seem like quite a lonely furrow that one ploughs on those issues so I was delighted in the last few minutes to hear a comparative explosion of interest in these issues from Dail Jones and Gordon Copeland. I am delighted and gratified about that; it makes the issues useful to discuss. 
I will very briefly respond to the comments that were made. The bill is of such length because it is effectively a rewrite of a constitution of a complex organisation. The issue of the definition of “spouse” is one that the Anglican Church had not been alerted to prior to the bill coming into the House. However prior to the first reading I was made aware that there was a human rights—a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—issue. I think it is very proper that we should respond to those things. In my first reading speech I made it clear that the church was supportive of an amendment to the bill and that is what we see before us today. In terms of Mr Jones’ concerns about Anglican bishops living in de facto including same-sex relationships I wish to say only that time moves on the law improves and even the Anglican church accepts the reality of contemporary relationships. It is important that new legislation going through this House now should reflect that. On that basis I thank those in the parliamentary structure who have helped the Anglican church to get this bill together and I thank the Commerce Committee. Again I commend the bill to the House. 
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.