Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeChristian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9314. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering BillSecond ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move That the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill be now read a second time. I introduced this bill to Parliament last year to enable Christian Churches New Zealand to reorganise its portfolio of Church properties across New Zealand. There are 44 Churches across New Zealand that are affiliated to Christian Churches New Zealand.I am very proud of the fact that the Church began in Nelson in 1844. A Church was opened the following year in Auckland and this Church movement grew significantly through the 19th century to the significant number of congregations that there are today. I cannot talk for other communities on the role that Christian Churches New Zealand plays but I can say that in my Nelson community the Annesbrook Church is one of the largest most progressive and very constructive Churches in my community. Its work with youth and its work in helping families is something in which my community takes a great pride. That is why it is a privilege to be able to advance this bill which makes administrative changes to the way that network of churches is managed in New Zealand.The bill repeals the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act which dates back to 1929. The core of the changes proposed in this legislation is to enable the new trust that those 44 Churches have agreed to establish to have a more modern governance structure and to be able to manage their Church properties in a more flexible way. I want to thank the Government Administration Committee chaired by Ruth Dyson for its work on the bill for those two submissions that were made to the select committee and for the relatively minor refinements that were made—in a pretty bipartisan way—to this legislation.The select committee did explore whether long-term legislation could be dispensed with altogether in transferring the 44 parish properties over to a new trust and whether it would work for Parliament for the trust to simply operate under our existing trust legislation. Although I have some sympathy to reducing the number of statutes on our books the committee on advice came to the view that because of the unique history of Christian Churches New Zealand that was not a practical option and that in fact this new law would need to stay on our books to ensure that those Churches have got the security of their property and are able to manage it into the future without any legal uncertainty.I also want to acknowledge the work of Viesturs Altments a constituent of mine who has been at the forefront of this reform. He is a person who has served in my community in so many different ways: as chief executive of the Nelson City Council; as the chief executive of the previously largest dairy company back in the 1990s; and he is a person of considerable financial nous as well as a great deal of community-mindedness. It is his endeavour working with those 44 Churches across New Zealand that has put the hard work into preparing this bill for Parliament—getting the broad consensus of those 44 parishes and enabling this more logical structure for the management of those Church properties into the future.It is worth noting that Christian Churches New Zealand those 44 parishes have met every year since 1905 and continue to have an annual conference and that at that conference the churches the owners of these properties have thoroughly debated and thoroughly supported the changes to the now old 1929 Act.I also note that Christian Churches New Zealand in a number of parts of the country is united with parishes of other denominations which is certainly true in a number of our more rural communities and the new Church structure ensures that that can continue into the future.It is also worth commenting on what brought about the growth of the Christian Churches way back in the 19th century in the UK where there was concern about the traditional Churches—and I confess to being of Church of England origin. The concern for the original Christian Churches movement was that our traditional Churches had become too rigid and too authoritarian. The Christian Churches movement which is spread around 185 countries in the world is very much based on a philosophy of all persons being able to participate in Church governance in Churches being largely independent and being part of not a top-down Church structure but rather one that is very much driven by its grassroots parishes. The architects of this bill have been very concerned about and cautious of ensuring that that Church culture which goes right back to the beginning of the 19th century in the United Kingdom is maintained with this bill.The last comment I would wish to make about this legislation is to thank the select committee members for the diligent way in which they both listened to the submissions and made the changes that they have sensibly made to the bill.When we come to the Committee stage of Parliament’s deliberations and the clause by clause analysis we will make the minor changes around the process of the dissolution of the old property management board and enable the transfer of these properties which are worth some millions of dollars over to the new trust structure. As I have indicated I am strongly supportive of those relatively minor changes that the select committee has made.I would note that probably the most significant change in this bill from the 1929 Act is that the Act put quite a narrow constraint on the property trust board to be able to spend the funds and the revenues of those properties only back on property and the view that the 44 parishes have today is that the trust board should have a wider mandate and that it should be able to spend those property funds as those united 44 Churches would want to. I think that is a flexibility that this Parliament should confer on that trust board. Any of us who are involved in churches would know they are not just about bricks and mortar. They are about people and if the parishes of Christian Churches New Zealand wish to spend their funds on things other than property that is very much their asset their financial base and their choice.Again I acknowledge Ruth Dyson and the constructive dialogue I have had with her in refining this bill as it comes back to the House. I commend the bill to the House. It is about supporting this network of churches and their parishioners in being able to have a more modern structure so that as this Church extends beyond its 165-odd years in New Zealand it can have more flexible structure for governing the properties that it owns across New Zealand. Thank you.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru):Ā tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te W’are otirā e tika ana kia tuku atu te reo poroporoaki ki te rangatira nei ki a Tākuta Ranginui Walker. Nō reira e te rangatira hoki wairua atu ki a rātou mā i te wāhi ngaro; e oki e moe ā kāti mō tēnā.[And so thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. But at the same time it is fitting that I deliver a farewell tribute to this esteemed one Dr Ranginui Walker. Therefore to you esteemed leader return spiritually to those at that place that is out of sight; rest sleep and let us leave it at that.]It is a delight to stand and speak on this bill the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. First of all I want to acknowledge Christian Churches New Zealand which I understand spent around 2 years before this bill came to the House making sure that it had consulted widely amongst its parishioners and the wider Church. This bill is not needed to create the new trust—that trust is created under other legislation—but the old board was created under the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929 and this bill is required so that property can be transferred to the new trust. So the purposes are of course to transfer those property interests and the powers and obligations from the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board to the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board. Also as the Hon Nick Smith mentioned the bill will dissolve the old board and repeal the original 1929 Act.There were only two submitters on this bill and I would like to mention both. The new board itself made a submission which was very helpful. Again the Hon Nick Smith mentioned this: there was a submitter who asked that there be a sunset clause put into the bill so that after say 2 years—2 years after this bill becomes an Act—the Act would be automatically repealed. On advice the Government Administration Committee decided not to. I just want to elaborate on exactly why. One it was because of the advice. For example the select committee was told that if one of the parishioners perhaps had left in their will a donation to the old trust board and this Act had been subsequently repealed then that donation would not be able to be actioned. There are other reasons as well but that was one reason that we took particular note of and I think it is worth mentioning in this second reading.Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board the new members also spoke about the restrictions of the old board and its ability to operate in—it was then 2015—the modern world and to deal with issues that its churches are facing. We are talking about 33 churches that are part of this collective of Christian Churches. So each one of them has its own requirements and they needed a lot more flexibility to be able to go about their business. We absolutely support the Christian Churches being able to go about their business in a modern context and not be restrained by legislation that was enacted 90 years ago. It is time for an update. As part of that update as I understand it in 2012 Christian Churches New Zealand got together and started this process. They went through a name change and began to develop what they wanted in this bill.So we come to the bill which gives the board a number of powers that any board would want in this day and age. The Hon Nick Smith also mentioned some of the other changes that we will come to in the Committee stage. There were a few minor technical changes that need to be made around dissolving the board and repealing the original 1929 Act and we support those. I want also to acknowledge the submitters the Church representatives who came to the select committee. They did make some very good points. They talked in particular about the legislation requiring the assets and the liabilities of the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board to be transferred to the new trust. They talked about the terms of the new trust being considerably wider than those of the 1929 Act. They talked about enabling the board to consider their wider mission and outreach. They also talked about not only the buildings but also using their funds for other activities of the Church. In their opinion they were also to promote the charitable purpose of promotion of the Christian faith. I think all of those things were accepted by the select committee.It was a pleasure to be part of that select committee. Also it was great that the select committee was able to get through all of its work in supporting this legislation. We too on this side of the House support this bill. We commend it to the House.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on this the second reading of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I firstly would like to acknowledge the committee that has been working on this bill. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the committee the Hon Ruth Dyson—Chris Bishop: A very hard-working chair.MARK MITCHELL: —a very hard-working chair of the Government Administration Committee; our deputy chair Invercargill MP Sarah Dowie—Chris Bishop: Even more hard-working.MARK MITCHELL: —that is right—my colleague Brett Hudson Kris Faafoi from Labour and also Mojo Mathers a Green Party member who sits on the Government Administration Committee. They worked very hard on this bill.I just want to acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith for bringing this bill to the House because it does show what a good electorate MP when an issue or problem is brought to him or her can do in advancing a bill as a private bill. This bill is in his name. He did identify that there were some loopholes that had to be closed. He has highlighted today just how important this is for the churches that it affects. So I want to acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith for bringing this bill to the House.I think it is important that I just go over it again and highlight once more the purpose of the bill. The purpose of this bill is to transfer all of the existing property rights powers and obligations of the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board to the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board. The bill also dissolves the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board and removes it from the register of charitable trust boards under the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957. It repeals the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929.We have a list here of the Churches that are affected. I think in my speech in the first reading I highlighted and noted that there were two Churches here that I know fairly well as a young bloke growing up on the North Shore. There is the Mairangi Bay Community Church on the North Shore and also the Wellsford Church of Christ in Northland which is also an area that I know very well.The key messages in relation to this bill are that the bill is about allowing the new Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board to hold properties similar to the soon to be dissolved trust. As I highlighted before when I was referring to the Hon Nick Smith there was a gap in the legislation and a private bill was required to enable the transfer of the property the rights the powers and the obligations from the existing board to the new board. This bill will enable this and fix this historical problem.The previous speaker Adrian Rurawhe referred to the select committee process. I just want to acknowledge him and say that it was a very thorough and robust select committee process. There were two submissions received on the bill. There was a lot of discussion in the committee about these submissions. As the previous speaker alluded to there was discussion around a sunset clause—the advice that was given to the committee—and after a lot of discussion it was decided not to add a sunset clause. I think that was the right decision to make.I would like to talk a little bit about the history of the bill. Christian Churches New Zealand is an association of more than 30 congregations throughout New Zealand—and literally throughout New Zealand—from the far north to the far south. The congregations are autonomous but they act together through their regular national conferences. I like the point that the Hon Nick Smith made about the changes in this bill that will allow a congregation that always comes to pray together worship together and work together to now be able to—this is going to allow a much more inclusive framework for them to be able to—carry that right through all the activities of the Church.Initially property was in the names of the elders of the congregations. There were obvious practical issues with that arrangement and in the 1920s a conference decided to have a legal entity that could own their own properties. In April 1924 in Dunedin at a convened conference of delegates from the Churches a board of trustees of certain members of the Churches was set up with the intent that the board should hold as trustees the lands of those Churches that wished to vest the land and their properties in the board and also all real and personal property for church extension purposes. The board was then incorporated under the Religious Charitable and Educational Trusts Act 1908 and was known as the Church Extension and Property Trust Board of Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand.I think just very quickly obviously as a Parliament we always work very hard to pass new legislation but actually a big part of our role is to look at old legislation. Sometimes we have legislation that is 30 40 or 50 years old that is no longer fit for purpose. It is actually really important that we are able to identify that through lots of different processes and actually make the changes that are required.As there were doubts as to the board’s ability to legally hold the properties vested in it a private Act of Parliament was enacted the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act which was implemented in 1929. That legislation contained a provision defining the trusts upon which the board was to hold real and personal property vested in it. That was section 9 of that Act. Over the years a number of Churches of Christ properties have been sold and the proceeds of sale paid to the board. Further various bequests and gifts have been made to the board for the purposes of the work that the Churches undertake. The wording of the present legislation creates doubts as to how the funds held by the board might be applied for the furtherance of the work of the Churches. There is a strong presumption from the legislation that the funds received are on trust for the purposes of real estate only.A conference of the Churches in 2013 decided a new trust should be formed and the existing real and personal property held by the board be transferred to the new trust board. The new trust board has been formed as the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board and is registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. A transfer like this requires a private Act of Parliament. However as the terms of the existing legislation did not include the power to transfer the assets to a new trust board the new trust board has interim trustees and a local solicitor. It is intended that on the passing of this legislation that the Churches will elect new trustees.So this is where this enabling piece of legislation became very important. It is going to allow those changes to take place between the old board and the newly formed board. I would just like to finally acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith again for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly I have to say that it is a pity that the Hon Ruth Dyson is not here to hear the accolades—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!POTO WILLIAMS: I apologise.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member cannot refer to the absence of a member.POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you for your guidance Mr Assistant Speaker. I do also acknowledge Ruth Dyson as chair of the Government Administration Committee and the work that she has done to ensure that this bill was expedited to the House and that the mechanisms are in place in order for Christian Churches New Zealand to be able to effect what needs to happen for the board to continue with the work.Churches and religious organisations have a strong link to the history and the development of this country as a nation. In fact missionaries were here preaching the gospel to local people a long time before the establishment of many of the institutions that we now hold and they were instrumental I suggest in ensuring that relationships were forged between local people and those who came later and were also instrumental in providing pathways and opportunities for those early leaders who worked on the development of what then became the Treaty of Waitangi and the establishment of this country.It is important to note that Christian Churches New Zealand was here as early as 1844. It was here almost at the very beginning of this nationhood and it has developed over time starting in Nelson in 1844 and then over time developing more congregations first after Nelson in Auckland and Dunedin and today having 30 congregations in the name of Christian Churches New Zealand. Each of the congregations act autonomously and they have their own programmes of work and their own ways of working with their congregations but collectively through their national conference they have set up an organisation to drive the work that is needed at a national level particularly around the acquisition and the use of property the management of bequests and the like.It is through these national conferences that the structure of Christian Churches New Zealand was developed and formed. The establishment of the board happened on 18 April 1924 in Dunedin. They established the board of trustees and the intention of the trustees was that the lands that the Churches held could be used for church extension purposes at the time. So the real and personal property that was held by the Church was used for church extension purposes.Also what happened at that time was that an Act was enacted that meant the Church could then be established under the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929. But at the time there were some doubts about the ability to legally hold property under that Act. Section 9 of that particular Act dealt with what was meant by holding real and personal property.So why are we now with this legislation? The wording of the present legislation creates some doubts about how the funds that are held by the board may be applied for the furtherance of the work of the Churches and there is a strong presumption from the legislation that the funds received are on trust for the purposes of real estate only. We all know that the work of Churches around the country and this organisation in particular is around supporting not just the development of property and lands but also supporting the programmes to provide social good into their communities and their congregations. That will be working with children working with mothers working with people who may have concerns around substance or alcohol abuse—that type of thing.So it was thought that the legislation does not provide enough ability for the Church to legally act in that way and to use the property in that way. That is why in September 2013 a resolution was made to form a new trust. The trust would then use the existing real and personal property and it would then be able to be transferred to the new trust. The trust was then registered under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 which meant that it can legally establish structure that did not require the purposes of the Act. What happened then was an interim board was established to be held in place until the new trustees could be elected so that at the passage of that particular legislation it would then be possible to have new trustees elected.The terms of the new trust under the 1929 Act include the use of funds which is the most important difference between the old structure and the new structure. It actually provides the opportunity for the trust to then determine what use it can make of the funds the property and all those other donations bequests and gifts that come to the Church.There were two submissions that were made to the select committee and I acknowledge the Church’s submission made to the select committee. There was one that was completely in support of the bill as it stands and there was another submission that suggested there should be a sunset clause in place. The sunset clause was fully considered by the select committee but it was considered that if that were to stay in place because of the length of time that the Churches had been established there may be future bequests for example that would be in the name of the previous establishment and would therefore not be able to be used by the new trust in the way that it needed. The select committee fully considered the sunset clause and decided that actually in relation to the intent of the Act and the bill and what the Churches need to do it would not be in the best interests to have the sunset clause.Just in conclusion this bill will provide to Christian Churches New Zealand the ability to do what it needs to do for its congregations with the property that it holds. We commend the bill to the House. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to stand and take a call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill here in the House in its second reading. I want to make a disclaimer. I am not a member of the Government Administration Committee and also I have not sat in on the submissions. But I do stand here—I wanted to be able to say that because we all have the opportunity to speak in the House. I suppose the opportunity to be able to speak—others have spoken about the technicalities of the bill and I am sure some of my other colleagues and maybe members on the other side will fill their 10 minutes with a lot of the detail that is really important about this bill.At the heart of the bill—it is a piece of legislation that is really about the transfer of assets and liabilities. I will just put that out there—we know that. So there is the technical aspect of it. The point that I want to speak about is that—I have done a theological degree and I have actually been a pastor of a Church and worked in Churches in what they would call in Church a form of ministry which is to work through the Church into communities both to the parishioners and to the congregation that you work with on a Sunday and serve and also into your communities.I would like to take a slightly different tack and talk about the intent of this bill and what it is trying to do. So why would we look at this legislation which looks a little bit odd? Why would a Church group seek a form of Government legislation to ensure that its roles and responsibilities were carried out in a way that continued the faith of those who had bestowed that upon them for the ongoing stewardship of their roles and responsibilities?I would have to say that the intent of this and of these 33 or so Churches up and down New Zealand was that although they in a sense may have played a religious role on a Sunday they also played quite an important role of meeting some of the other needs inside those communities. So when the legislation actually put this association of 33 Churches together—there are times in the life of Churches where they grow and then times in one sense when they sort of fade away for all sorts of reasons. Therefore properties are sold. They are then bestowed back to the responsibility of the association.I suppose the challenge that I have seen both in my experience and in other Churches that I have seen and with this Church association in particular is how we can continue to be relevant with the intent that we have not only to serve our congregations on Sundays but also to meet the needs of our communities that are around us. You will see in the bill that the intent now is that although there is the sale of those properties and those assets which will then return that income into the responsibility of the trust what it is seeking to do—this is not just about bricks and mortar. In other words it is not just about building another church that will make a difference.A lot of these Churches are now saying that the fact is that actually there are other roles and responsibilities that we can play such as providing day-care centres or kindergartens—when I was at Tāmaki Community Church that is what we did—or providing opportunities for budgeting services. We had the East Auckland Home and Budget Service at Tāmaki Community Church. We had an op shop that ran there. There were a number of different services that came out.So I can actually see really clearly and understand that the intent of this bill is not just to enable that association of Churches to say “Let’s build more churches and let’s build more buildings.” but more important at the heart and the intent of their Christian faith is “How can we ensure that we make a difference to the communities in which we seek to serve?”.I also want to put on record that when we think about Churches people again keep thinking about these religious organisations but many of these Churches have had an important role in the life of New Zealand—in its social services in its areas of advocacy and so forth. Think about for instance the Salvation Army state of the nation report and the roles that it plays. Let us talk about the Methodist Mission. There is also Lifewise which is up in Auckland which comes out of the Methodist Church of New Zealand. Presbyterian Support New Zealand provides a number of social services—regionally in the different regions as well. Another one that people may not know is Barnardos. Dr Barnardo was a Christian who was also a physician. Back in his time he wanted to provide a provision and a place for orphans. So the role of Barnardos actually has quite a strong Christian base.Again the reason why I am mentioning these in relation to and in the scope of this bill is that I can understand the intent of these 33 Churches in their association to seek the right to ensure that the legislation that gets renewed from the previous legislation of 1929 enables them now in 2016 to continue to provide and to adapt the services that truly do make a difference in our communities.So I commend these Churches for what they are doing. I can see the needs that they have. There will be services such as as I said budgeting services. There will be after-school programmes like the OSCAR Foundation and the funding that they give that allows them to hold these programmes in their facilities. It is in the community halls that they provide.Also I have seen in the Religious Charitable and Educational Trusts Act 1908 that this trust had associated itself with the education clause that allowed it to provide education. I remember there was a time when I used to take—what do you call it—they used to call it Bible in Schools. I remember that for nearly 16 years I would faithfully go along and teach kids I suppose just about simply the values that they thought were really important. I have to say that many parents would come along. In fact just recently a young man saw me at a shopping mall. He said to me: “Mr Ngaro do you remember me?”. I said: “You look really familiar but I don’t quite remember your name.” He said: “I am one of the boys who was at your Bible in Schools classes.” I said: “Oh that is great.” and I said: “Did you learn anything?”. He said: “No I didn’t. I didn’t learn anything.” which made me feel quite interested. I thought: “Oh no. Was I not a good teacher?”. He said: “No—I can’t remember any of the words and so forth but what I do remember was the fact that you made us feel good about being who we are.”Maya Angelou said that sometimes it is not about what you say and maybe it is not always just about what you do. Sometimes what is important to people is actually how you make them feel. I suppose in a sense that part of the role of these Christian churches these 33 Churches is about ensuring that what they do—both on a Sunday and also more important what they do every day of the week in the roles that they play seeking to become relevant to those communities—is what really makes a difference in the hope that people will turn round. They may not always remember the things that they talked about or maybe even the things that they did but I do hope that what they will remember is how they made them feel. Did they feel that they felt important? Did they feel that they were acknowledged for where they were in their circumstances? Did they feel uplifted because there was a message of hope that may have been given to them at that point in time in the circumstances that they were facing or the challenges in their life whatever they may be? The intent is what I am speaking about in this bill with the 33 Churches that are seeking through Government a change in legislation that will enable them to continue to become relevant in the roles that they play inside their communities.Can I just finally round off my comments by saying that when I think about these Churches that are here everything from Mairangi Bay Community Church which Mark Mitchell has talked about on the North Shore to Invercargill the Freedom Community Centre; to the Reach Christian Centre which is in Naenae; to the Church of Christ Community in Dunedin North; all the way down to Harvest Christian Church in Te Atatū—that is actually on Swanson Road. It also holds services in the Te Atatū Tennis Club. We have got Churches down in Nelson in Annesbrook Church; Feilding Lifepoint in Rangitīkei—so thereto my colleague Ian McKelvie—and all the way through down even to Matamata Union Parish and Homestead Community Church in Point Chevalier. There are a number of them here.I think the broad reach of this Church throughout the regions throughout the different communities whether they be urban city centres or in the localised rural communities speaks volumes that the Churches are wanting to make a difference. What I would like to say in closing is that I do wish them well. I do hope that this change in legislation will enable them to continue to be relevant to the communities and the people they seek to serve so that they truly can live to the values and the principles of their faith so that people can be uplifted and have faith and hope in their lives. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this the second reading of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. With no disrespect to the previous speaker Alfred Ngaro; Maya Angelou; or Christian Churches New Zealand my contribution is not going to be a long one. The outline of this bill has already been established as has the purpose of it. For some bills that come to this House it is appropriate for them to come to this House and there are some bills as this is that are appropriate to be considered by the House that are not controversial and that are not dealing with any particularly deep issues. I would submit that this is one of those times so my contribution will be kept relatively short.This bill is a private bill that was introduced last year by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It enables the repeal of the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929 to dissolve the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board and to transfer all property powers and legal obligations from the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board to a new charitable trust which is now called the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board. This bill gives the trust the legal power to do that.Christian Churches New Zealand asked Parliament from a decision at its conference in 2013 to do this to enable it to be able to be more flexible on the use of its property or the proceeds from the sale of that property because the existing Act on our statute book from 1929 gives an impression that the trust is restricted to use the money or the proceeds from the sale of property only towards other property and the Churches want to be able to use it for other charitable Christian purposes. So it is actually incredibly simple.The one matter of possible discussion or dissent that was considered at the Government Administration Committee was whether there should be a sunset clause to this bill so that there would no longer be an Act—there would no longer be any standing in terms of a statutory Act. There was a decision made consciously by the Government Administration Committee to reject the idea of the sunset clause even though it is a good idea to have as few pieces of legislation on the table as possible because if somebody left money in their will to this organisation as it was written in previous legislation and then we repealed the legislation that money would go to the Public Trust when the intent of the person bequeathing it was for it to go to the Christian Churches. So the only way at the moment to be sure that that money would get to them in the future would be to keep the legislation on the books. It seems pretty simple to me. So we are very happy to support it.The explanatory note of the bill has some really fascinating history in it. I just note that for people who are interested in the contribution to New Zealand of the Christian Churches and the reason that they were set up which was I guess as an act of rebellion in some ways against the divisions in the churches. They were hoping to bring together a lot of different Churches under the one banner with the reference to the Bible rather than the differences of the Churches. I did notice though when I was looking up a bit more detail on that on Wikipedia that actually there was still another split after that point between the Churches that used musical instruments and those that chose to sing a cappella which seemed an interesting note to me in the history.But this is an organisation a Church that has been in New Zealand as part of our landscape and our social fabric for a very long time. The first was established in Nelson in 1844. So it is not such a bad thing I guess that the legislation is still on the book at least for the reference to that continued thread of history. We support it.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First has no objection to this bill and we take some pleasure in noting that there is multiparty support for it as of course there should be. There has actually been quite a long history in terms of how Church property is held in trust in this country and initially the property was held in the individual names of the congregation members. Of course that is a little bit impractical when you come to think of it so a solution had to be found and as a result special legislation was passed in 1908 which was called the Religious Charitable and Educational Trusts Act 1908. All that did was establish a board for the holding of the Church property but it did not really do much more than that.So there were still problems in practical terms as a result and it did not take long for a new call to be made for legislation and that happened in 1929 with the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929. And that actually did take the step of setting out what the trusts were under which the trustees would hold the church property. But it still really concentrated on the retention of land and buildings—other property as well but especially land and buildings. So that was the theme of the early legislation—holding on to those things.But obviously over time things have changed and I agree with Alfred Ngaro that the attitudes and the roles of Churches have changed over time. They are less concerned now with holding on to property and more concerned with investing the resources they have and applying them for social purposes in the community and we in New Zealand First applaud that as I am sure everybody else in the House does. Other things have happened as well of course. Being from Christchurch I know that as a result of the earthquakes a lot of Church buildings did get either destroyed or severely damaged and it is clear that not all of those are going to be replaced or repaired. So the effect has been to accelerate what was happening anyway which is the rationalisation and probably the reduction in the number of Church buildings and land held for Church purposes and an increase in other demands—investments of different kinds and ways to apply those investments especially for social purposes. And so that has been the trend up until today and I think really the driving force behind this legislation.So we do see that a number of Church properties have been sold and invested in other ways and yet the definition of the powers in the current legislation are really still quite narrow and inappropriate for today’s needs. Clearly that needs to change. So we need to solve the doubts that exist currently about what the trusts are how wide they are and what powers the trustees have to do the new things that are required of them in this day and age; and that is really what this bill addresses. The Churches had a conference back in 2013 and I applaud them for that. They have got their act together they know what they want and they have come to this Parliament for assistance in rectifying the current situation.The new bill really does just two things. One is to enable the transfer of the property from the existing trusts to the new trust established by the Churches; there are inadequate powers to do that currently so this bill is absolutely necessary for that reason alone. And in addition to that there are new and broader powers to be given to the trustees to do the new things that I have spoken of. It will allow the Churches to consider a wider mission not only in terms of buildings but in using their funds for the other activities of the Churches that they now wish to indulge in. New Zealand First thoroughly approves of both of those things: the updating of the trusts and the broader powers that the trustees will have. This bill more than adequately addresses those needs. I commend the Minister Nick Smith and also the Government Administration Committee for the work they have done to make sure that the new legislation will be fit for purpose in the future. New Zealand First will have no hesitation whatsoever in continuing to support it.CHRIS BISHOP (National): What a pleasure it is to stand and take a call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. Just at the outset of my speech I want to acknowledge the very hard-working Government Administration Committee. It is fair to say that this is the select committee of the Parliament that deals with somewhat odd pieces of legislation—the ephemera of the Parliament: things like fireworks; things like private bills like this; but also things like marriage equality which went to that very important committee chaired I know by the Hon Ruth Dyson and deputy chair Sarah Dowie—they do a great job. It is fair to say that it examined this bill in some detail. The committee had only two submissions on this bill but it has recommended that it be passed and I am sure from the support that the House has indicated tonight it will indeed pass into law and so it should.The history of this bill has been well canvassed and it is actually a fascinating history. I am not on the Government Administration Committee very sadly but I went back and I read the first reading speech from the Hon Dr Nick Smith and read about the history of the Christian Churches of New Zealand and indeed it is a fascinating history. And it is not a history that I am familiar with. I was brought up a Methodist and in fact just the other day I went to the Wainuiōmata Coast Road Church’s 150th jubilee out there in the Hutt where one of my—I have got to get this right—great great great grandfathers used to be a lay preacher. He was a peripatetic evangelist. He used to journey from Pētone over to Wainuiōmata. It would have been a tough journey back then.Stuart Nash: Do you think he voted National?CHRIS BISHOP: No. I think it is safe to say Mr Nash he was not a National Party voter. On my mother’s side of the family they were certainly not National Party voters. I think it is fair to say that you had a monopoly on their political support my friend. They would have been very great fans of the late Norman Kirk no doubt about that and Mr Nash as well.My faith—or my faith growing up anyway—was very much of the Methodist faith but it was fascinating to read about the history of the Christian Churches of New Zealand. I note that one of the Churches that is affected by this bill is in the Hutt. In fact there are two Churches in the Hutt but the one Church that is in the electorate of Hutt South is the Hutt City Link Church which is of course on Laings Road. I am not familiar with this Church but I was reminded this afternoon that I used to go to events at that Church and I know that it plays an important role in the community. It is just around the corner from the Laings Road Methodist Church which was—disgracefully I have to say—demolished in 2002. That Church sat on the site in Lower Hutt for 75 years before it was demolished for a private development—I think it was a Briscoes—in 2002. My parents got married there and I think it should never have been demolished.This is an important bill for the Christian Churches and in some ways it is slightly odd that Parliament has to sit on a Wednesday afternoon to pass a private bill to become a private Act to give effect to what is a very sensible change to the trust deed. So as the sponsor of the bill said so very succinctly in the first reading the bill dissolves the trust repeals the Act transfers all of the property of the trust into a new trust and basically allows it to manage its property more sensibly. I think as Jan Logie said in her contribution that is actually pretty much it. There is a lot of history behind the Churches and their trust. There is a lot of long and important history and a lot of important work that they do in the community but the bill is actually pretty simple and that is probably why it has got unanimous support and it is probably why only two submissions were made.In closing I do have to wonder for the House whether there is a better way of Parliament dealing with things like this bill. You know we are sitting here on a Wednesday on a members’ day. It is a non-controversial very small change to something that affects a very important group of people in our community that is actually a very small subset of the community. Private bills you could argue are actually anachronistic in this modern age. The fact that we have to every now and then—and I looked it up actually. Since the modern parliamentary website was developed there have been 20 private bills that Parliament has passed so on average that is about two a year. They were things like the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill on which Parliament spent a lot of time to require the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages to basically change the birth certificate of a particular person and things like the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill and the Westpac New Zealand Bill. You have got to wonder whether there is a better way of dealing with non-controversial private bills that affect incredibly small subsets of people and I just leave that for the House to ponder. This is an important bill. I look forward to its passage and I wonder whether there is a better way.PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I relish the opportunity to rise and take a short call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. Members across the House have spoken well on the bill. They have detailed the history and can I echo the sentiment of thanks towards the sponsor of the bill and of course the Government Administration Committee which heard all of the two submissions on the bill.What I like and what I sense from the discussions in the House today on the bill is the collaborative nature of this particular entity. We know that it comes from the Christian background but can I take us back to 1814 and the beginning of the Christian faith here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The first sermon was given by Marsden Te Matenga in the Bay of Islands and it is neat to see that despite the differences between the Churches that transpired post-1840 to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi we see pretty quickly after the signing in 1840 that this particular organisation has come together because it sees the sense in working together on particular issues. If one of those is to simply join up the property that the Churches hold I think that is a good thing.If there is one thing I would like to offer here today it is that I hope that some of the other churches that might not be part of this particular group would maybe like to consider that collaborative approach in some of the dealings they have with the properties that they currently hold. I want to point the finger in this instance towards the Churches that administer the Māori schools. We know that the Māori schools are struggling and I have said for a long time now that I think it is now time for the Churches to actually work collaboratively with these schools to make sure that they get the best use out of their assets—which this particular bill is hoping to do with this group—and also the best educational outcomes for Māori for the students of those schools.So I want to applaud the approach taken by this particular group. I also see in this bill a very pragmatic approach. It has already been spoken about in the House how the original legislation provided too small a scope for the trust to move forward and now this particular bill will allow that scope to broaden out and empower it to run its social agenda.Something that we have already heard in this House today is that the Churches are heavily involved in our communities—in particular in the great electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau where I have been fortunate to work alongside some of the Churches—and it is amazing to see the good work that they do. It is not an easy thing to do in my opinion to change legislation just willy-nilly like this to make sure that the powers of this particular organisation gain a broader scope in its social agenda. It is something that Parliament I am sure does not do lightly which is why I am at ease that the bill went through a robust process in the select committee and that the submissions given were heard and members have already spoken about them in the House today.So moving forward we look forward to seeing the social outcomes from the social agenda that this bill will empower the group to do. I am sure that all members across the House will endeavour to support it where they can to make sure that Christian New Zealanders—and indeed all New Zealanders across the country—will gain from that social agenda. It is sensible it is pragmatic and it clearly has the support of members from across the House. I do not want to go on too much longer because it has been well canvassed. I hope though that the sermons and the services in the many Churches across the country certainly have a bit more vigour and add a bit more life to the debate than is happening currently on this particular bill. It has been a little bit hard hearing everyone drag out every single word that you see in the particular papers in front of us but what I do want to just finish on is how excited I am to see the scope of the social work that I hope the organisation will be able to do to benefit all New Zealanders.The bill as I have already said is pragmatic. It will be the job of politicians and indeed this House to make sure that that particular agenda is fulfilled because as I have already mentioned it is not very likely or too common that we change legislation like this just at the whim of a particular group—and we want to make sure that it fulfils its particular part of the process and this empowering bill will allow it to do that moving forward. So in closing I stand on behalf of the Labour Party and offer our support for this bill. Kia ora.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is an honour and pleasure to rise and speak in support of the second reading of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. Just to pick up where Peeni Henare the last member left off I am hoping that we are not sounding like we are giving sermons but rather debating and talking to the issues at hand. There are probably several members who could claim to know what it is like to do the work of God but it is great to stand here in support of a worthy cause.I just want to acknowledge that I have not been involved in the select committee process having not been a member on the Government Administration Committee. But first I would just like to acknowledge the Hon Dr Nick Smith for the private bill that he has brought here and also the Hon Ruth Dyson as the chairperson and a fellow Canterbury MP who has done well in shepherding this bill through the legislative process. There are also a couple of other select committee members I would like to acknowledge for their hard work Brett Hudson and Sarah Dowie. Obviously they are two strong MPs from the class of 2014 who are doing some great work on the Government Administration Committee.I have had a look at this bill and for me really the bill is about change and it is facilitating that change for this organisation Christian Churches New Zealand. Actually there are a few background points I want to put on record. It is no surprise that this Church seems to take the lead in change. When you look at the background of this Church it is pretty much a globalised network—it operates in about 185 countries. When you trace back its history in the UK and the United States it was very much around the Enlightenment period. And when you think about what the Enlightenment period was it was a movement where people moved away from the control and the conformity of religion and moved to a more rationally based outlook on life around science. We all know of the astronomer and scientist Copernicus at that time who proved that Earth was not the centre of the universe; it was the sun and Earth moved around it. Why that is important to this bill is that if Christian Churches can trace their history to the Enlightenment period it shows their ability to move through different phases and to change.That is what Christian Churches have identified in this bill—that the current legislation the current structure of the board is now needing a change to drive it forward. I thought that was very important—it is predominantly based on change. What we know with this organisation as it focuses possibly less on bricks and mortar is it moves out to its outreach approach and supports people in the communities that it serves. I suppose being brought up somewhat in the Christian faith I know and understand the ambition as well of getting out and serving the people. I think it is only right that we are supporting this legislation to go through and help Christian Churches.It is also interesting when you look at the history of Christian Churches in New Zealand coming over here about the Treaty of Waitangi time. I noticed—being a Christchurch-based MP—it said they arrived and set up around 1870 in Christchurch. It is great to hear the stories about the rich tapestry of history that the Christian Churches brought to a city like Christchurch—I mean it has been claimed to be the most English city outside of England. A few days ago in my electorate of Waimakariri I went to the Woodend-Pegasus Anglican Church—it was the induction of a new vicar. When you stand in that church you take in the art and the tapestry and the culture of those organisations that have been around for a very long time and also appreciate the people who have been in that church and the sense of community—the sense of wanting to go out and make a difference in other people’s lives.I think that is probably why the MPs around this House can relate to this bill because it is about an organisation that wants to make a change in people’s lives. We can see that the legislation contained a provision defining the trusts upon which the board was to hold real estate and personal property vested in it. That is very much the crux of this legislation and the bill.We know that in the select committee process there were only two submissions and one of those submissions was made by Christian Churches itself—the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board. What that trust went on to do was a bit of a cost-benefit analysis looking at different options of how it would like to move in a board structure. It looked at retaining the status quo and it said in its submission: “The board concluded that the constraints imposed by the 1929 Act were significant and the benefits of increased and more flexible powers in respect of the use of the funds both capital and income well outweighed any costs of seeking to change.” I suppose that comes back to the point around change We are moving away from the bricks and mortar and understanding how Christian Churches can best use their resources to serve the communities they are in because when you look at the range of locations where they are there are quite a number. I did notice that they are not in the Waimakariri the third-fastest growing electorate in the third-biggest district in the South Island so I would urge Christian Churches that that would be a place of growth to come to as well.When you look at the option 2 the trust board provided around a new property trust board it explored the options for the select committee there and I think this is why it was helpful for the select committee to understand how it had landed with the proposed bill. Finally it landed on option 3 around the charitable trust. It went on to say: “A more modern charitable trust concept was considered to provide the best vehicle for the trust board to be able to operate efficiently and meaningfully in 2015 and beyond.”I will just follow on from Mr O’Rourke who as a Canterbury-based MP referenced the earthquakes. We see the parallels in this change of legislation to reflect the needs of Christian Churches just like as the city of Christchurch—the change in the legislation as well to support it to grow but ultimately to go out and connect with the people whom the organisation is trying to support and make a difference in their lives. We see that whether it be health care services or social care services but in the case of Christian Churches it is around pastoral services and how they can go out and capture those resources because currently under the old legislation which this new legislation will repeal and amend it allows for the resources to be spent only on real estate. With this new bill it will allow Christian Churches and the board to then make decisions not only on real estate but on how they can allocate their resources according to the needs of the communities they are serving.One thing I just wanted to finish on was the acknowledgment of what Christian Churches have done not only in New Zealand. I noticed in their background notes that they have churches over in Zimbabwe and the support that they have given over in Third World countries I think needs to be acknowledged as well. Overall I think it is fair to say by the support around the House that this bill is well supported. It is a well-intended bill that ultimately is about change and what we are doing here is supporting a traditional historic organisation like Christian Churches and allowing it to think forward about how best to serve its needs and those of its parishioners. It is great that Parliament and this Chamber and all MPs around this House are able to facilitate that and support it. I commend this private bill in its second reading to the House.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I rise to take a call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. But before I do I think there are a couple of comments by previous speakers that deserve just a little bit of rebuttal.Mr Doocey suggested that perhaps these Churches need to come to his electorate in Waimakariri. I ask: is that because of the growing number of disenfranchised people whom the Government has forgotten about and the member refuses to advocate on behalf of and because there is a growing underclass in “Waimak” and therefore the Church is needed there to pick up the slack where the Government has slacked off?The other thing I also note is that Mr Bishop wondered whether we could do this bill better or whether there are private bills that do not need to come to Parliament. I would like to remind Mr Bishop that in fact democracy is not confined to large corporates or social housing providers. This is a House for all New Zealanders and I believe that private bills do actually play a very important part in democracy. It is important that they do go through the robust processes that Parliament affords. I would be loath to see any change to Parliament hearing private bills.The other thing is I listened to Alfred Ngaro’s speech—he is a National list MP—and do you know what I thought? I thought that is a speech from a Labour member. That is a speech from someone who understands community values. [Interruption] No no not only understands community values but champions community values and principles. Alfred Ngaro spoke about the intent of this bill. He talked about his role as a lay preacher. He is not the first to hold that esteemed position in this House. In fact there are a number who have been lay preachers within their communities who have come here to make a difference. In fact two Labour leaders—Walter Nash and Arnold Nordmeyer—were also lay preachers. In fact common consensus is that the first Labour Government was not a social democratic party; it was actually a Christian democratic party because it preached the Christian values and principles at the heart of its philosophy let alone its drive to create a better society.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am now going to interrupt the member and say that as with a number of other members he has given a good run-around history but 3 minutes into his speech it would be good to refer to the bill.STUART NASH: Have I spoken for 3 minutes already? As mentioned—I think by every speaker—this bill does replace the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929. But whenever I see a bill like this which is as everyone has mentioned non-contentious and basically just changes the legal structure under which assets are held I always have one question. I think it was answered by Minister Smith but my question is whether all members of all parishes actually agree to the change of structure. I think they do; that is the impression I have had.Obviously the legal implications from changing the structure alter but it is still bound by all the deeds contracts and obligations of the old trust. In fact it appears through reading the bill that very little has changed except the actual name. Again we just need to know that every parish that is part of this actually agreed to it. That is why actually it is so important that members’ bills do go through a robust process so that we make sure this is not one large group sort of steamrolling over a group of smaller ones.I also note that things change over 85 years. Back in 1929 who knew what was going to happen in 2015? They set up this structure 85 years ago to meet the needs of the times and times have changed. It is quite interesting to reflect on this. Obviously back in 1929 the country was in the grip of recession. There was record unemployment. People were worried about their jobs their future their children and their families. Although some things change in 85 years I think that if we reflect some things do not.Eighty-five years later the Labour leader gave a speech in this House today about child poverty about the minimum wage about the Kiwi Dream about jobs about homeownership about education about a future because today people are still worried about their future. The Labour Party has a Future of Work Commission because we do not know what work is going to look like. The same issues that were around in 1929 when the first bill passed through Parliament are still as relevant today. The thing about the Churches is that they are still there picking up the pieces of a Government that has lost touch with the community. This is the case today.I think the Churches do a fantastic job and I applaud them. I think the Churches do a necessary job. But what we are seeing more and more is Churches picking up the slack where the Government has dropped the ball. This is absolutely the case today. It is one of the reasons why I am proud to speak about this legislation because anything that gets the Church structure to a point where it is best utilised to serve the needs of the parishioners of the people—in fact if we are honest about this the vast majority of people whom Churches serve these days are not actually their parishioners; they are members of their community whom they have taken in and cared for. This is what Churches do because that Government has failed a whole lot of people in our community.I do support this bill. Why would you not? But I would also like to say congratulations to the Churches on the wonderful work they do in our communities. Thank you.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I too rise in support of this bill. I will refer to the two trusts as the old trust and the new trust. This bill the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill refers to the obligations of the old trust being the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board and what I will refer to as the new trust being the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board.I would like to acknowledge the work of the Hon Dr Nick Smith in bringing this bill to the House but also acknowledge the Church that we are referring to for making the initiative for being forward-thinking and for thinking about the future for the people it serves in its communities.This bill is really an evolution as has been referred to already—an update a change in the rules governing the trust to adapt to the times that we are in. The reason this bill has been brought to the attention of the House is the restriction that the existing Act places on the board trustees. There is some concern that the Act requires them to focus on and reinvest in bricks and mortar and we know that the Churches of today are much more than that. We know that the Churches of today are much more than bricks and mortar. They are there to serve the community.The Salvation Army for instance spends and invests money and time and effort on its state of the nation analysis which was recently released. Churches invest in food banks. They might subsidise a driver who helps people in the community. Churches have always done this and they will continue to do this. Churches are particularly important in rural New Zealand where for example some bus services public transport may not exist because of the population base. These Churches have a very important role in our rural communities.When a Church is restricted or feels that it is restricted to invest in bricks and mortar there is a problem. We also have a problem when there are bequests made to the Church. The bequestor—is that the right term—intends the money to be used for the purposes of the Church rather than for the purposes of the Act which talks about bricks and mortar. The bequestor is quite keen to see more food banks more petrol subsidies to drivers and so on. So the trustees have the intentions of the bequestor but—and this is the dilemma that the trustees would have—they are restricted by the Act. This bill transfers the obligations of the old trust to the new trust. The obligations as far as contractual obligations commitments liabilities and assets are concerned are exactly the same so when one contract refers to the old trust it will automatically refer to the new trust. That is a nice clean transition.The next bill that will be brought to the House is in a similar vein in that it is an evolution of legislation in the same way. I would like to pick up a point with which I concur made by Mr Henare regarding the Māori Church schools. I commend again Christian Churches New Zealand for being forward-thinking. I think we have to continue to evolve and rethink where we are in the community and what our real purpose is. I commend Mr Henare for challenging Māori Church schools to rethink their purpose with the assets that they have available to them in much the same way as Christian Churches New Zealand has done today.I would just like to point out what I thinkis at the least quite an interesting irony in the discussion that we have had today in that all the members of the House have spoken in support of enabling the board’s trustees to have greater flexibility in the management of their assets so that they can focus on the things that matter. The things that matter of course are the people. We have all talked about the importance of enabling the trust to do what it wishes with its assets with its buildings with its bricks and mortar—to perhaps sell as the Church shrinks or even if the Church is growing to perhaps sell a property for the benefit of supporting community services to focus on the people.My point here is that that is what this Government is doing in the social housing sphere. It is ironic I find that the opposing benches support this bill but do not support the freeing up of the social housing sector vis-à-vis focusing on the people and the needs of the people. I find that interesting and I think this bill is quite an interesting parallel to what we are doing—what the Christian Churches have done with their assets and what this National Government is doing with the Government’s assets in the social housing sector.This is a very tidy and evolutionary piece of legislation that is going to enable the new trust to focus on the people. It is going to enable the new trust to not be concerned about breaching the Act if they were to invest in something other than houses and bricks and mortar. I commend Christian Churches New Zealand for the initiative it has shown in bringing this to the attention of the Hon Dr Nick Smith so that we can progress this through the House and so that they can do and continue to do the good work in the community. Thank you.Bill read a second time.