Robertson Grant: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Robertson Grant: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14674] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 The previous speech was a bit disappointing in some ways because Jacqui Dean was such a contributor in the Government Administration Committee to the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I say in all sincerity that she certainly made a contribution in starting to ask some of the questions about whether we were— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I think I said it all in my speech. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well we did not hear from the member in the Committee stage apart from an interjection here and there. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I said all I needed to say. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: She appears to want back the call that she gave up so quickly just before. 
I am very pleased to rise in the third reading of this bill. The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill came before the House because the governors of Christ’s College had a problem. They had an issue in relation to trusts and as they say it “property” vested in the college. Either the purpose for which the property was vested was redundant they were uncertain about how to apply it it was impractical from their point of view to implement it or the property was generating income that was either inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for those purposes. We took that request from Christ’s College at face value when the board came to the committee; they wrote a reasonable letter and we began our deliberations. 
In beginning our deliberations we began to wonder. We thought we were giving quite sweeping powers to the Christ’s College board because really as my colleague Ruth Dyson mentioned in the Committee stage we were giving the board carte blanche to take what someone had given for a very specific purpose and then do something quite different with it. As anyone knows who has been part of gifting money to institutions it is extremely meaningful. In my own case at my old high school my family has given a leadership prize. My father who was the chair of the board of governors of that school thought we should do that. He has now passed away and if my old school were to say that it did not think it really needed to give that prize any more because it had lots of other ways of recognising leadership I would find it difficult. I think in all seriousness that we have to recognise that the families who have given this money have given it for a particular purpose. 
In many many cases it was not possible for Christ’s College to actually contact the benefactors—or the settlors as they call them in legal terms—to find out whether they were comfortable with the change. I respect the fact that the Christ’s College board was not going out of its way in any way whatsoever to cause discomfort to those who had given money but we should bear that factor in mind when people give money. 
The committee began its work to find its way through how we could create an environment in which we were able to allow Christ’s College to sensibly and appropriately use the money that was given to it but also to retain the integrity of the original settlors. That led us to amend the bill. Basically we amended the bill to ensure that it was consistent with the Charitable Trusts Act. We took the wording directly from the Charitable Trusts Act and placed it within what was subsection (4) of new section 5 when we debated it at the select committee. The amendment was really about making sure that the board had to fulfil certain criteria with regard to things that were redundant or inappropriate and I think that that was a useful addition by the committee. 
The committee obviously also recommended inserting the new subsection that allows the governing body to use for another purpose excess income from trusts that generate more income than required for the donated purpose. Again that is useful and important because a number of the trusts that have been mentioned today generate excess funds. 
We also wanted there to be a new requirement for the purpose of the trust to be as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which it was given. I will give one example that I think is interesting; my colleague Mr Parker referenced this particular gift in one of his interventions earlier. The Barker memorial gift was for a scholarship for a boy of New Zealand Maori ethnic origin who is resident in Gisborne or any of the counties of Cook Waikohu Uawa Waiapu or Matakoa. The board of Christ’s College came to us and said that the last act of the trustees in setting this scholarship up was to prescribe very narrow residency requirements and as a result the trust had more income than was required to satisfy the narrow purpose. When the board says “more income” it means it: $245000 currently sits unspent in the trust. 
As my colleague Mr Parker said members of the committee really did feel that it would be possible to meet the requirements of the trust as they are written and find someone in the Gisborne or East Coast area who fulfilled these criteria. It may be that we have some form of shorthand there and in fact the gift is extremely specific about the regional arrangements. But I hope that now that the committee has made these changes it will be possible for the college to apply this scholarship perhaps to someone from the North Island or simply to Maori students because that was the original purpose. If it is not possible to use the funding for exactly that purpose any more we now have a requirement placed in the legislation through the select committee process for the new purpose of a trust to be as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which the property was given. 
In this House National has been making new policy to provide for more places in private schools for people on scholarships. There are mixed views I would have to say on this side of the House about whether that is a priority use of money but here is an example of a college that has a gift that can specifically be applied for by people from the Gisborne area who are of Maori origin. It may well now be possible with the change that we have made to expand that gift slightly and still keep to the purpose of that particular trust. 
The committee regarded that change as one of the most significant things that we did. We wanted the college to be able to continue to apply the trusts and the gifts it received for sensible and appropriate purposes but not for just any purpose. As I have said in earlier interventions the governors of Christ’s College were very amenable to this. They were not setting out in any way to use the money inappropriately; they wanted to make sure that they could have some more flexibility in the use of those trusts. 
In some of the time remaining to me I will reflect on the broader matter—and I seek your indulgence on this Mr Deputy Speaker—of members’ bills coming to this House. There are two points about this matter. One is the fact that this member’s bill is in the name of Nicky Wagner who is obviously an MP resident in the Christchurch area. It is convention as I understand it that bills like this come to the House in the name of the electorate MP for an area. My colleague Brendon Burns has supported this bill and I think that that is good but it is interesting to note that this has happened; obviously as time wears on we will watch out for that. 
The second thing I mention in relation to members’ bills is the question of how we treat them when they come into the House. I think that from time to time when they come in we think that they are just bills from an organisation and we ask why we need to put them under the kind of scrutiny that we would perhaps put a Government bill under or some of the other bills coming up later on the Order Paper in the name of members. This bill indicates to us that we must be vigilant— 
Hone Harawira 
: We must be diligent. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —and that as well—and make sure that we look at each bill on its own merits and suggest and make the appropriate changes regardless of whether it is for a private entity or as part of a Government bill. 
With that I say that I am pleased to have been part of this process. I am glad that the college will now be able to use these gifts for appropriate purposes with some flexibility whilst still retaining the integrity of the gifts.