Dyson Ruth: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14670] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I take pleasure in speaking briefly to the purpose of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill and I will pick up the point that my colleague Grant Robertson made. Bills that come before this House that are small are primarily technical and like this one have only one submitter—the board itself whose trust deed is to be amended by this legislation was the only submitter according to the report back from the Government Administration Committee—provide an occasion when the Committee of the whole House should take its responsibilities very seriously and ensure that the proposed changes do not just receive a sign-off from it. 
I have thought about this legislation quite a lot. Even though it was proposed in good faith the select committee has done good work on it and I think has amended it to restrict quite a lot the ability of the board to change the scope of bequests. If people leave in their will an amount of money to the school for a specific purpose and actually specify in that bequest the purpose for which they want to leave it we can take it by implication that they do not want it to be spent on anything else. For example people might say they would like to bequeath a lot of money to Christ’s College for political education on the ways of the labour movement in New Zealand. That is a possibility. At a future time the school might decide not to run a course on that any more; it might decide that it does not want it to operate at Christ’s College in the same way that it no longer teaches divinity in Greek. Where does the authority come from for a group of people to say that because they do not teach that any more they will use the bequest for an entirely different purpose? 
That is actually the nub of what this legislation does. When a purpose is no longer in operation is no longer fashionable or the school does not pursue it any more we as a Parliament have taken it upon ourselves to change the purpose for which a bequest grant or donation can be used. Obviously it is quite an extreme position that one would literally alter the nature of the purpose but that was actually proposed in the original version of the bill. I commend the select committee for the way that it considered the responsibility of Parliament. David Parker has contributed to the debate already tonight and I commend his chairing of the select committee and also the other members who I understand contributed in a bipartisan way—only two parties are represented on that committee—to make sure that this bill received the rigour of scrutiny that it deserved. 
Later on in this debate when we look through clause 5 we will see that unanimous amendments have been made. In new section 5 subsections (4) (4A) and (4B) are entirely new. I want the Committee to give particular attention to that area because that is where the select committee by unanimous agreement said Parliament was potentially handing over too much power and it might well be an abrogation of the responsibility that we have as a Parliament to ensure that the original intention of the donation gift or bequest to the school is carried out. The select committee has narrowed the ability of the board to entirely alter the purpose of a donation so that it cannot be used for a different purpose. It is very similar to the way that the powers of an enduring power of attorney are able to be applied: so that the specific purpose the understanding and the intent of a person—whether or not it is stated—are carried out. I commend the select committee for its diligence and I look forward to the bill progressing later on this evening. 
Clause 4 agreed to.