Dean Jacqui: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9573] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I suspect that the proprietors of Christ’s College are watching the debate this afternoon from their staffroom as indeed are possibly the senior students of Christ’s College. If that is the case I send them the greetings of Parliament and particularly those of the member in charge of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill Nicky Wagner who gave a very good opening speech when she introduced it. I guess those proprietors staff and pupils of Christ’s College will be utterly bemused by the quality of the previous contribution to this debate where the politics of jealousy and the politics of sour grapes were on display for all to see. I think that this bill deserves better than that in this Parliament and we on this side of the House intend to deliver better than that. 
The bill is being sent to the Government Administration Committee. That is an excellent select committee which will give due consideration to the matters raised by both Nicky Wagner and the Opposition member Trevor Mallard who made a poor contribution to this debate. In particular I turn to new section 5(4)(a) of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act to be inserted by clause 5 which specifies the circumstances in which property may be applied for other purposes under new section 5(3). I will go through those circumstances. The circumstances are firstly that “the purposes for which the property was given or vested have become (wholly or in part) redundant uncertain as to application or impractical to implement; …”. When this bill goes to the Government Administration Committee members of the committee will be very interested in what is meant by that. I refer back to the speech of my excellent colleague Nicky Wagner. She notes some examples of purposes of bequests that have become redundant such as funding for sons of soldiers who had suffered or fallen during the First World War and Second World War. It is worth remembering that the school has a very proud history of sons of the school going off and fighting in those wars. I suspect that there are not any sons of those soldiers who are currently or who ever will be at the school so therefore the purpose of that bequest has become well and truly redundant. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But what about a minor amendment to make it “other wars”. We don’t need to have a general catch-all like this. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: The member opposite is asking about a minor amendment thus showing that he has not even bothered to read the general policy statement in the explanatory note of the bill which points out that any proposed amendments can be taken by the trustees to the High Court for approval. However given the nature of the number of trusts with which this school operates the trustees would be forced to approach the High Court on multiple occasions. That is simply costly—$50000 is the cost. My colleagues would rather see that money spent on educating the boys at Christ’s College. So I am sorry that the member opposite has shown such a poor grasp of this bill but I can assure members that the Government Administration Committee will be asking what the provisions of new section 5(4) of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act will apply to in particular. 
I have given one example which relates to funding for sons of soldiers. There are also other circumstances that have been noted by my excellent colleague Nicky Wagner who is the promoter of this bill—and rightly so—relating to students from Christchurch orphanages that no longer exist. If the orphanage does not exist any longer the bequest then becomes unusable. What is the point of having funds accumulating in the coffers of Christ’s College without there being any use for them? 
I look forward as the deputy chairperson of the Government Administration Committee to having a good discussion and a good examination of this bill and I am confident that notwithstanding the politics of envy jealousy and sour grapes displayed by members opposite we will return this bill to the House with due consideration. Thank you.