Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeChristian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 16 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9813. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering BillIn CommitteePreamble agreed to.Part 1 Preliminary provisionsALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I stand here on behalf of the Minister the Hon Nick Smith who is not able to be here unfortunately. He sends his apologies. He is actually at a conference on fresh water working with different iwi in consultation. I stand on his behalf in the chair during this Committee stage just to bring the remarks in.This bill has gone through the select committee deliberations. The Government Administration Committee was unanimous in its support. We can see that it is a bill that really just makes some minor technical changes and in particular I suppose in a sense there is the responsibility of perpetuity for Christian Churches New Zealand which is a body of 30 different congregations throughout New Zealand that has been in existence since 1929. Its role in particular for this bill is the investiture of assets from the association into the new trust board which in effect will still allow it to fulfil its role of stewardship in this regard. Although each of the congregations is autonomous they do have conferences that allow them to come together to discuss things in common things of interest that are important to them and especially their roles of responsibility in this regard.When we think about the roles in clause 3 where it talks about the “new board” the bill will allow the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Inc. to take on this role from the “old board” which means the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board. These properties are important. They are important because it does allow for these autonomous Churches to be able to meet some of the needs both spiritual and practical.I have previously been a pastor of a Church a small local Church that operated in that way. It was important to have a facility that could allow for the congregation to meet to exercise its principled values of faith on a Sunday. But then also on the other days Monday through to Friday and even on a Saturday Churches like this will have things such as budgeting services held on their properties. They will have kindergartens held on their properties. This is all to do with the properties at hand and the use of those properties which enable them to be able to exercise their roles of responsibility.Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s the weakest filibuster I’ve ever heard.ALFRED NGARO: Although the member over there may be talking about the weakness of this exercise having actually been a pastor of a Church I know the importance of having such a facility and the roles of that facility that allow it to be able to do that.The bill is simple in its intent. However it is important in its roles of responsibility. So we believe that this bill is important. It will allow the boards to be able to have those roles of responsibility in meeting those needs. I know that—Hon Ruth Dyson: Sit down now. You’ve proved you’ve never read the bill.ALFRED NGARO: —there have been times in which there may have been common and small things—maybe to the member who is interjecting over there they may not mean much but I have to say to the members of those congregations it means a lot. It means a lot because they can exercise some of those responsibilities. There may be small knitting groups. I know that there were groups that used to knit for young mothers whether it be little booties or little jackets and so forth. So those things are really important because the property provided a facility for them to be able to exercise this role of responsibility. So I think it is important that we acknowledge the role that the board is playing which again will still allow for the stewardship of these Churches and their congregations in the exercise of this for their properties as well.There is also a sense in the bill in Part 1 where it talks about the purpose—and the purpose is the transfer of all the existing property interests powers and obligations of the old board into the new board. That technically becomes important. I know that there are times when there are conflicts.Hon Ruth Dyson: You’re scared of members’ bills.ALFRED NGARO: People talk about politics in the House like the politicking that is happening at the moment but politics even happens in Churches where there is a disagreement about the property the roles of the property or who should be in charge. So opportunities like this become important—Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chairman we’re in Committee.ALFRED NGARO: Oh thank you to the member for correcting us. That was probably the most positive statement that the member has made during the speech and I appreciate that from that member. So I believe it is important that this bill takes its role of responsibility.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I want to say that this is a very narrow bill. I have it in front of me. It is not a wide-ranging debate and I will ask members in future calls—we are on clauses 3 and 4—to just concentrate specifically on clauses 3 and 4 otherwise I will terminate the speeches.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure for me to rise and take this short call on Part 1 of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. In some ways this is my swansong for the Government Administration Committee which this bill came to. It was referred to our committee for submissions to be heard and we had two submitters. I really do enjoy the camaraderie actually of the Government Administration Committee. It is a hung committee. It is bipartisan and it was a very very good process that we ran in respect of this bill and it is now a pleasure to have a say in the Committee of the whole House.In respect of Part 1 obviously clauses 3 and 4 cover the interpretation and the purpose of the bill. I will start with the purpose of the bill which is that it repeals the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929 an Act that came into force in 1929 and established a board a congregation of Churches that came together for the purposes of holding real property. What they found over time with the evolution of the ministry was that they needed more powers to deal with the property that they held. When they looked at the Act they found that it did not properly set out the powers that allowed them to do that—which was their obligation—and therefore they needed to change that situation in order to sell their property take the proceeds and use those proceeds appropriately in their ministry. So this bill repeals the 1929 Act and establishes a new board that allows them to do that. The new trust board is established under a charitable trust deed—which is comprehensive—under existing trust laws and gives them those wide-ranging powers to enable them to deal with their property.I want to talk about the 30 congregations across the country that belong to the Christian Churches New Zealand group. There is one in Invercargill which I am very pleased about and it too carries out different ministry programmes in Invercargill that have a good social benefit for my constituents. Whether you are religious Christian—spiritual or not—the values that they teach are very good in life and that should be acknowledged and celebrated.I myself am an Anglican. I do not belong to the specific Church that I am talking about here the Christian Churches group but certainly if you look throughout time from the 1929 Act at what these groups of Churches were doing compared with what Church groups do now you can see that the ministry has evolved. I myself have certainly enjoyed learning about theology and the faith and the values that are taught throughout biblical study and learning on an academic level almost about that faith and how you can apply it to your life and work it into your values as you walk through life.Moving back to Part 1 clause 3 “Interpretation” is a very clear interpretation clause which narrows down the definition of the “new board”. It means the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board. The “old board” refers to the board established under the 1929 Act which is the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board. Then it goes on to define the property. So the property that we are talking is real property money and also any land registered under the old board’s name.BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. In Part 1 as my colleague has mentioned under clause 3 “Interpretation” we see here that a core part if you will of this bill is the definition of “property”. What we are doing here is we are simply defining it as meaning every type of property and that will include as set out in 3(b)(i) “every type of estate and interest in property; and … (ii) money; and (iii) all land registered in the name of the old board under the Land Transfer Act 1952:”. That really comes to the heart of why we are having this legislation.Chris Bishop: Why is that?BRETT HUDSON: Well the challenge that we now are faced with in a world that is so many decades after the initial trust and powers were put in place is that originally the value and assets of the trust were all in property and it was thought that was the only real value of those assets that could be used—that it was all about providing property and facilities for the works the Christian Churches New Zealand does. The trust now finds itself some many decades later having to face challenges in today’s world where if it has got some property—some building or some facilities somewhere—that may be all well and good in that they have a monetary value but if it cannot actually realise that monetary value that monetary asset in some way it can find itself constrained from actually delivering the services to the constituents that the trust actually existed for in the first place. So with this interpretation we will make it clear that property for the purposes of this legislation is any form of property in the name of the trust. By doing so—as the other provisions which we will get to will permit—it will mean that no longer will property have to be physical real estate or buildings and therefore the trust will have the power to change one asset to another form of asset.For instance the trust could sell property and gain a cash asset. As we know on this side of the Chamber that is a very powerful ability. This Government in its forward-thinking views took the same approach into the last election through the mixed-ownership model and said that it is better for New Zealand in some instances to convert a physical property asset into a cash asset and then use that cash for things that are more meaningful for New Zealanders today and into the future through the Future Investment Fund. It is one that is seeing schools built hospitals built and ultra-fast broadband and the Rural Broadband Initiative.What we saw was that if you simply limited property to physical property and plant and machinery in the case of those particular mixed-ownership models then you constrain choices—you can constrain the services you provide and the good you can do. By taking such a broad definition of “property” what we are permitting and enabling in this legislation is that the new trust will be in a position to make decisions today and into the future that will permit it to deliver the best-possible outcomes and services to its constituents. We are actually empowering a new trust to be relevant today and into the future.Along with this in clause 4 we are also making it clear to help give effect to this that the purpose of this enabling legislation is to “transfer all of the existing property interests powers and obligations of the old board;” dissolve that board and repeal the old property Act. What we are basically saying is that anything that was held by that trust will now come under the auspices and authority and power of the new trust along with any associated obligations and we will dissolve the old legislation.One point I would make because I think it is relevant to the idea of repealing the old Act and indeed of dissolving the old board is that the Government Administration Committee questioned the officials as we went through the consideration of this bill. We asked: if we have come to a point where old legislation is no longer valid how do we ensure that the new legislation doesn’t suffer the same fate at some point in the future? Why do we not just use general law general trust law to manage this new trust and incorporate it in? Why do we not have a sunset clause so that this particular empowering bill would just cease after a period of time and the new trust the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board would just be completely under the auspices of the Charitable Trusts Act? Unfortunately we did not really get the answers we were seeking but I think it was a very valid question for the committee to ask. It shows that we are taking a forward look—PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. In this Committee stage debate on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill I just want to start by saying that clause 3 is a very very sensible clause.This bill updates the framework that the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board will operate in to make it far more relevant to the 21st century environment. Clause 3 “Interpretation” clarifies the meaning and the difference between the new board and the old board. This is important because there have been changes in the real world that make some of the previous legislationmeaningless. For instance the Associated Churches of Christ no longer exists and this is laid out very clearly. The old board the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board no longer exists. That institution changed its name some time ago. It is now the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board and it will be regularised as my colleague Brett Hudson referred to bringing the arrangements for governing the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 like what the vast majority of other Church-held property would be registered under. In fact the vast majority of charitable trusts—full stop—are regularised under that general law rather than requiring their own particular individual legislation. That does to some extent futureproof the organisation against the changes that it will face in the coming years.The very practical example of how this will play out was given by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he spoke about this bill in its first reading in the House. In his own area of Nelson he is now the proud owner or I suppose the landlord of property that was once part of the Church of Christ Property Trust Board—the Annesbrook Church which now forms his electorate office—and in fact it was outgrown by its congregation. So that was a positive sign for the Church of Christ. It actually managed to outgrow the buildings in which it was based allowing them to be disposed of to Dr Nick Smith so that he could put his home and his electorate office into that property. It moved to a new complex in Saxton Road.This particular clause of the legislation does clarify that every type of property and real estate in particular that is held by the Churches is able to be transferred—to be disposed of. Their existing powers remain. But there is another important word here that I want to refer to. In clause 4 “Purpose” it also talks about the “obligations”. My colleagues have focused primarily on the property rights and interests of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board but actually there are obligations. So for instance where debts may be owing on properties where there are other conditions that need to be abided by by the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board those obligations will continue to remain. By defining that very clearly and outlining that those obligations of the old board are transferred to the new board we will not end up with the problematic situation where the assets are moved across but the liabilities are kept with the old board once it is dissolved.The powers of the board—this is also important. The board must be able to conduct its business. It must remain the master of its own destiny. So it is retaining the existing powers—not adding any additional powers and not removing powers but retaining the existing powers of the board—along with the obligations and along with the interests in the property whilst it does. transfer to the new board which I think is particularly important. Just on a technical level that land will be registered in the name of the new board under the Land Transfer Act 1952. So effectively the name on the title will transfer across—that is in clause 3(b)(iii) of this particular part of the legislation. It is very well drafted. It is very clear. It is short and crisp but excellent.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am very happy too to take a call on Part 1 of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I am disappointed. I would have expected the chair of our Government Administration Committee Ruth Dyson to take a call and speak about this because I noticed that when the member in the chair Alfred Ngaro was standing and giving an introduction on the bill there was some strong interjection. There appeared to be a lot of emotion. It appears that she is upset about something. I would encourage her to stand up and take a call. I think that is important.I would like to acknowledge the member in the chair. I think it is very appropriate that he is in the chair covering for the Hon Nick Smith. I want to acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith. He brought this bill to the House in support of his constituents. Of course it has a far-reaching effect because we have Churches from the far north to the far south including the member’s own electorate that are affected by this bill. So it is a very good one. I also want to acknowledge the member in the chair because he has got personal experience of having run his own Church and ministry inside both west Auckland and South Auckland. So he has got real-life experience of the work that these Churches do—the important work that these Churches do—in their communities.Thank you Mr Chair if you will bear with me I will come back to Part 1—you are right. I just wanted to very quickly talk about the effect that this bill has from the far north—and I have said in earlier speeches and have referred to the Mairangi Bay Community Church. The reason why this one is special for me is that I was born and raised in Mairangi Bay. I have personal knowledge of the Church and I have personal knowledge of the work that it does in its community.Actually to have a bill like this that is—and my colleague Brett Hudson made a very good point. To be able to enact legislation like this will allow the board to be able to manage its assets much better and it is actually very very important to allow it to be able to actually deliver the important projects that it sponsors and that it works on in our communities.Hon Member: It will make a real difference.MARK MITCHELL Actually it will make a real difference. Being able to manage those assets properly is very very important. He referred to the mixed-ownership model. That is actually a really good example where this Government was able to convert assets that we felt that we did not need to have—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No clauses 3 and 4.MARK MITCHELL: Oh you are right—you are right. So if we come back to Part 1 the interpretation in this bill is the context that “ ‘new board’ means the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board”—as I have said—“incorporated as a board under Part 2 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957”.Chris Bishop: What part?MARK MITCHELL: That was the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957. That is where it was originally incorporated. The “ ‘old board’ means the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board” and “ ‘property—(a) means every type of property and (b) includes—(i) every type of estate and interest in property; and (ii) money;”. That is actually very important. What I was alluding to and what I was trying to get to is the point that Mr Hudson made around the use of assets and that is the fact that sometimes it is actually prudent to liquidate assets that are maybe not achieving the return that the Church may want and it might be better to actually liquidate them and realise that in cash and be able to manage the asset as cash instead.So that is a very very important part of Part 1 in the preliminary provisions. It also includes “all land registered in the name of the old board under the Land Transfer Act” and that is actually under the Land Transfer Act of 1952 Mr Bishop in case you were wondering.Chris Bishop: We’re reforming that Act as well.MARK MITCHELL: That is right—that is right. We are reforming that Act—very good point. We are going to modernise the Land Transfer Act 1952. The purpose of this bill is to transfer all of the existing property interests powers and obligations of the old board to the new board and dissolve the old board and remove it from the register of charitable trust boards under—ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call—and I know that there has been a little bit of goading from the other side there. I actually want to acknowledge the Rev. David Clark whom I hope will take a call on this bill. Having been a minister of the Church and having actually served a congregation he knows everything about the property and the purpose of the Church and its roles of responsibility and I look forward to the member being able to stand up to talk about this.But we are talking about Part 1 of the bill and we are talking about the purpose. I know Mr Chair that your wise counsel would be for me to look at new things that we maybe can add to this debate in the Committee stage and what I would like to add is in clause 4 “Purpose”. The submission that was brought forward by what was the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board—and I want to acknowledge its chairperson who is Mr Steve Baigent and also its secretary Mr Viesturs Altments. In their submission they talked clearly about the purpose of this bill and I want to acknowledge them. They are probably at home in Nelson now and may be looking at this debate with a sense of anticipation—Hon Phil Goff: Wondering why they’re spending money on your salary.ALFRED NGARO: But what they—well no they did not pay for my sermons Mr Goff. No no—not at all. The people came willingly as volunteers to hear the good news—to hear the good news. So hopefully this bill is good news. It is not the gospel—I will not say that—but it is good news for the Church in this regard.But what the board members put forward in their submission was quite clear which was that the old Act of 1929 meant that it had inhibited the trust board. What it did was it meant that when we talked about the transfer of funds they could be used only for property use. When we talk about the purpose of this bill that is the real intent.What the association wanted to do by renewing this trust at its conference in 2013 was try to give itself the ability to have greater flexibility—and those were the key words that were used.So the purpose of this bill is actually not just about the transfer of the asset as a property; it also enables the trust board to be able to use the funds to have a flexibility in particular and what it calls a wider outreach of ministries which it could use to then actually engage with and serve its local communities.In their words—Mr Chair if you will allow me the indulgence to just quote a very small part of their submission. It states on page 2 paragraph 3 of the submission under “Background”: “In particularthe 1929 Act limits the ability to apply any of the funds held by the Trust Board to other than property purposes”—and here is the aspect of this particular clause clause 4—“except by way of loan. In the view of the Boardthe limitations in that Act are an obstacle to the effective use of part of the significant funds the Board holds for the wider outreach community and kingdombuilding purposes of the Christian Churches of New Zealand movement.”I would have to say that that actually is the heart and purpose of this bill. It is to ensure that it is a fact that the board has the flexibility to be able to ensure that it can use those funds not just for the use and the procurement of property and maybe its repairs and renovation but in particular so that the board can now utilise those funds to be able to engage in other forms for the purposes and wider forms of outreach. That again goes to the heart of clause 4 of the bill which is the reason for the change in this form of legislation for the trust board.I will not say too much more about that but I will just say that I think it is quite clear that the association has established this purpose so that it allows it to be able to minister in various ways. I will not go through the 30 different churches in the 30 different areas; one of them probably will be down in Dunedin. I am sure that Mr Clark there—I can see him getting his notes ready. He is ready to take a call. I look forward to that. I hope it is not the brief call that may call for the end of the debate.But I do want to acknowledge the board for coming and making its submission and for its commitment to seeing this through. There were not a lot of submissions—there were only two. In this part in particular the purpose of the transfer of this board is not just for the issues of property but also for the extension of—I will not say “the extension of the kingdom” although in the association’s eyes it is the extension of the kingdom.It is for the extension of its services—its ministry—of outreach into the wider parts of the community. So I acknowledge the submitters; I thank them for that. And I acknowledge the opportunity to be able to speak on this part of the bill about the property and purposes at present. Thank you.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I move That the question be now put.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Thank you for allowing me to take this brief call and it will be a brief call because we have kicked Part 1 around the Committee quite significantly. There is a particular word in clause 4 that I want to perhaps bring into the debate and add some clarity to because for those of us from different religious traditions from the Church of Christ it is a loaded word. It is a significant word to us. We have here in this Chamber members of the Roman Catholic tradition. Some of my ancestors were Catholics and the word “dissolve”—“dissolution”—is a loaded word.I am talking about clause 4(b). The first words in clause 4(b) are “dissolve the old board”. I just think it needs to be clarified that we are not carrying out a dissolution in the sense of Henry VIII dissolving the monasteries. We are not talking about assets being broken up and carried off. We are not talking about gargoyles being removed statuary being taken down or walls and windows being misappropriated. We are not talking about beautiful artwork being painted over. When we are talking about dissolving the old board we are actually meaning that we are making it a legal nullity although its assets its property its moneys its powers and its obligations are transferred over to the new board.I think this is an important point because for those of us from different traditions—my own family are a mixture of Anglicans Catholics Presbyterians and Open Brethren actually—the word “dissolve” will mean different things to all of us. You know the word “dissolve” is quite loaded and we are talking about simply a legal dissolution so that those existing properties interests powers and obligations are dissolved in the old board and are transferred through to the new board under the new name the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board rather than the Churches of Christ—Dr David Clark: This speech is dissolving into the ridiculous.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Well I would be interested in hearing a call from the minister of religion on the other side of the Chamber Dr David Clark. I know that this is not the tradition that he comes from. This is a very different tradition because this is a laity-based ministry rather than ordained ministers conducting services in their church halls. I appreciate that Dr Clark may have a different set of experiences that he wants to bring in when he is reflecting on the wording of Part 1 of the bill and I would be interested in hearing from him. I just thought it was important to rise and to take a brief call around that particularly loaded word at the start of clause 4(b).Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Transfer of property rights and obligations from old board to new boardSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): As I said before this is a swansong for me. Let us go over that one more time and pay homage to the Government Administration Committee which I am leaving. Last night I referred to the Government Administration Committee which heard this bill as the heavy lifters of this Parliament. I think that that is still true and certainly members on this side of the Chamber are putting in some effort in respect of the debate on this bill—and very admirably I might say.Grant Robertson: I’m losing the will to live.SARAH DOWIE: It is very pleasing to move on to Part 2 of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I know that Mr Grant Robertson is very sad that we have had to move on at this stage as are the other members but alas we do and we will continue to debate this.This part is the meat and bones of the bill.Mark Mitchell: Totally.SARAH DOWIE: It is totally the meat of the bill.Brett Hudson: It’s an important bill.SARAH DOWIE: It is a very important bill because as we alluded to prior the trust board does a lot of very good work in the community and the congregation of 30 churches that unite different religions range from the top of the North Island in Whangarei right through to Invercargill in the deep south which is my electorate.You know it is important that we hear the Christian Churches when they say that the old Act did not empower them to deal with their property appropriately and that we need to repeal that Act allow them to re-establish under existing charitable trust law and give them wide-ranging powers—and obligations—to deal with their property appropriately so that not only can they hold real property but sell that property take the proceeds and put those into different ministry projects which are so valuable to the community. So Part 2 is entitled “Transfer of property rights and obligations from old board to new board” and that is quite clear setting out exactly what clauses 5 6 7 8 and 9 do.I think it is important to note what my colleague Mr Brett Hudson raised which is that the committee did consider a sunset clause. We asked officials for advice on having a sunset clause. It was raised in one of the submissions that we should be considering a sunset clause to get the Act once the transfer of property had occurred off our books. But the advice came back that this was a risk to the savings provisions because although we are giving the new board the powers to deal with property and invest in their ministry it does have obligations and it will have contracts that it has entered into and it needs to be able to continue with those contracts. Third parties other parties to those contracts need to feel secure in the fact that because the new trust board is coming into play those contracts will see the test of time and will see the test of the obligations and service to whatever is set out in that agreement.So as I said before we did consider having a savings provision. It was thought inappropriate to use it. The other side of that too—not just in respect of obligations—is that obviously the Christian Churches do receive bequests and wills and it was thought that that could be somewhat of a risk. If somebody had died and left a bequest in their will to the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board that bequest could in fact fail if the sunset clause was in the Act and reference from the old board to the new board was not in place. So although we considered having a sunset clause it was felt inappropriate to put that in the new bill and therefore the bill from the first reading has been reported back to the House unchanged.It was a pleasure to hear from the two submitters on this bill. Even though it is a small bill it is a very—[Bell rung]Alfred Ngaro: Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If you go for the call you get the call first because you are in the chair. You must call out louder than you did. So it is Alfred Ngaro.ALFRED NGARO (National): I did hear a comment from Mr Robertson that he is losing the will to live and it is appropriate that this bill is actually talking about the Christian Churches. Mr Robertson help is on its way and if you do need a defibrillator the power of prayer from these Christian Churches may be of some help to you in your time of need so do not lose the will to live. Listen on and I am sure that these speeches will help.Returning back to Part 2 of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill which deals with “Transfer of property rights and obligations from old board to new board” I refer back to the submission that was brought by the board by Mr Baigent and Viesturs Altments who is the secretary of the old board. In its wisdom what the board has also seen fit to do in anticipation of the change in this legislation is ensure that a new trust deed has already been formed. A trust deed has already been prepared and agreed to by all the churches as to the purpose powers objectives and other key clauses. So when we talk about clause 5 “Transfer of property rights and obligations” it has been foreseen—the hope is—that there will be unanimous support for this bill and with that there has been some preparation for that as well. In sight of that this trust deed has also been registered under the Charities Act 2005. So when the transfer in clause 5 happens then it will be in line with the Charities Act 2005 and with the Charities Commission on 9 September 2014 under number CC51021 as the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board.One of the things that has also been important which was on page 4 of the submission was the key points which clause 5 and clause 6 talk about in a sense—the rights of obligation. It has got a transfer process. So in the succession of development from the old board into the new board page 4 of the submission talks about the key points in relation to the transitional provisions of that trust deed which are: “first that the Trust Deed appoints initial Trustees whose sole purpose is to manage the transition from the old legislative regime to the new charitable Trust regime.” Clause 5(1) also talks about this: “On and from the commencement of this Act the property rights and obligations of the old board are vested in the new board.” So it is important that in anticipation they have started to prepare that too.The submission also goes on to talk about the fact that it involves the appointment of the trustees in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed: “The preferred option was for the existing Trust Board to be the first Trustees and then continue on until new appointments are needed in terms of the Trust Deed.” That is provided for in the bill. What that means is that as was spoken about in Part 1 previously regarding using the word “flexibility” this will then allow them to engage with that new trust board which will give them rights and responsibilities to fulfil the obligations around the flexibility for wider forms of outreach of the Church into their selected communities as well.Clause 7 talks about the dissolution of the old board and on the commencement of this bill the old board will be dissolved. As I have talked about in part (b) of the submission page 4 it declares that “At this point in time pending the passage of this legislation the new Trust is a legal entity able to exercise all the powers provided for in the Trust Deed but does not own any assets. These assets are still to be held by the old Trust Board in its role under the Associated Churches of Act until this Bill is passed and the 1929 Act is repealed.” So this provision here is important. The trust itself has prepared for the transactional change that will happen and the transfer of property rights and obligations from the old board into the new board. So that preparation is important.Finalising my contribution to Part 2 part (c) of the submission where it talks about the reconstitution of the trust board as a charitable trust says that “would the new Act legislate the existing Trust Board out of existence and it would then transfer all the property and assets from the old Trust Board to the new Charitable Trust. There is still a process to be undertaken once this Bill is passed in relation to the transfer of the properties and titles to the properties held by the Board. The specific provisions in the Bill provide for that” and will be referred to on presentation of the submission to the Committee. So we see that those provisions in the legislation are important to the transfer of property rights and obligations.CHRIS BISHOP (National): This is my first opportunity to speak on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill and I want to pay tribute to the Government Administration Committee because my good friend and colleague Sarah Dowie has up until I think today—is that right Ms Dowie?Sarah Dowie: Today.CHRIS BISHOP: She has been the deputy chair—Brett Hudson: Yeah she was rolled today. She was rolled.CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! My colleague Brett Hudson says she was rolled today. It is a real shame for Sarah Dowie but for the last 18 months she has been a very good deputy chair of that committee. I think as other colleagues have noted it is a reasonably robust environment on the Government Administration Committee—I have sat on it once or twice—Carmel Sepuloni: Talk about the bill.CHRIS BISHOP: —but she has done a good job. Well I am talking about the good job that the Government Administration Committee did on the bill and I want to talk about Part 2. I was interested in Ms Dowie’s comments about how the select committee considered potentially introducing a savings provision and also a sunset clause into the bill. They are funny old things sunset clauses because of course sunset clauses are clauses in bills that provide that after an expiration of a particular period of time the legislation will cease to be on the statute book. Parliament does not like to legislate for sunset clauses it is fair to say so it was very interesting to hear from Ms Dowie that the Parliament—or at least the committee in this instance—had considered putting a sunset clause into the bill. [Interruption] Thank you Mr Mark Mitchell.I was also intrigued about the savings provision and I was going through the bill—it is only a short bill it has two parts and this is the chunky part as somebody has mentioned—and I was trying to think about what particular savings provisions you would include in the bill and whether you would actually need them because savings provisions of course are parts of bills that protect and carry forward pieces of legislation that you may be repealing. It is just a simple way of keeping I guess the best bits of legislation and making sure you throw out the bad bits.Of course in this particular instance what we are doing is—the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill is a long bill title but this is certainly a short bill. So this is repealing a particular piece of legislation and dissolving a particular board but it is simultaneously transferring all the property and the powers and the obligations from one particular body—that is the Associated Churches of Christ Extension and Property Trust Board—to a new charitable trust the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board. That happens simultaneously upon the commencement of this legislation and that comes into force the day after it receives the Royal assent.So I was sitting there as Ms Dowie was speaking just pondering in my mind what particular savings provisions you might need in this bill and of course Ms Dowie rightly pointed out to the Committee in the forthright manner with which she has become known in her time in Parliament that no savings provisions were required. That is why in Part 2 the chunky part of the bill we do not have any savings provisions.So what do we have in Part 2? Well we have the transfer of property rights and obligations. So from the commencement of this legislation the property rights and obligations of the old board are vested in the new board. That just harks back to what I mentioned a few moments ago which is that simultaneous transfer from one body to the new body.I particularly want to pick up on clause 5(2) of the bill which is about how the proceedings that could have been commenced or continued against the old board before the commencement of this legislation can be commenced against the new board. That is particularly important because what that means is that anyone with standing who is taking suit against the old Associated Churches of Christ Extension and Property Trust Board can take action against this new body. That is really important because we would not want to deprive people with standing of their rights under the law just because Parliament was passing a private bill.They are funny old things private bills. In the second reading I was considering how many had actually been passed over the years and it turns out that in the last decade—since the modern-day parliamentary website has gone live—there were actually nine. So you know on average we pass about 1.15 or 1.2 a year. They are odd things private bills and they tend to deal with very very small private obligations for people. It would be fair to say they are more historical quirks—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Back to the bill.CHRIS BISHOP: —but they are funny old things.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Interesting history lesson but back to the bill.CHRIS BISHOP: Clause 7 of this part is very important. This is the important point that the old board is dissolved and that of course is part of the purpose of the bill. It is very important. I just want to also refer to—MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Mr Chair I noticed that you looked over at Grant Robertson. He has been following this debate intently throughout and I am surprised that he has not taken a call on this bill. I am very happy and pleased to take another call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I was referring to some of the Churches that are actually involved in this group and are going to be affected by and empowered by this very important change that we are debating in the Committee tonight. I said that there are churches from the far north to the far south. I spoke about Mairangi Bay Community Church which I know personally and I want to acknowledge it. I want to acknowledge the work that it does in our communities and I also want to acknowledge its member of Parliament the Hon Murray McCully.Carmel Sepuloni: Acknowledge Part 2 of the bill.MARK MITCHELL: No I think it is important actually that I go through some of the Churches that are part of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. We have got the Freedom Community Centre in Invercargill which I am sure the outgoing deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee Sarah Dowie who is the very good member of Parliament for Invercargill would know very well. And of course her predecessor Mr Eric Roy was also heavily involved in the community as a Christian leader as well. The Reach Christian Centre in Rimutaka and the Church of Christ community in Dunedin North—I want to mention them and of course I want to mention the very good list MP for Dunedin North the Hon Michael Woodhouse. I want to mention the Unite Church in Nelson because this is really important—Brett Hudson: Can you tell us about that church please?MARK MITCHELL: Well the thing is this bill of course was brought to the House by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Unite Church—Brett Hudson: The local member.MARK MITCHELL: —that is right—is in Nelson. I do not know why the Opposition has got a problem with me actually highlighting some of the Churches and the areas that they operate in. Like I said I would be very keen to hear from Mr Robertson because he appears to be very engaged in the debate but he does not want to take a call. I would also like to hear some more thoughts from the member in the chair Alfred Ngaro because I do not think there is another member in the Chamber who has got more experience and more background than him. And actually—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to intervene now. It is all very well talking about where the churches are located and that is fine—that is within scope of the bill. But accolades about every member who happens to be associated with the Church within that region is really stretching it I would have to say. I am happy that you include Churches because that forms the basis—they are the Churches involved. That is fine but then to have the accolades about how your colleagues are actually associated with that region is really stretching it too far. So I ask the member to come back and be more focused on where the churches are but not then give a précis of the member who happens to be representing that particular area.MARK MITCHELL: That is a good point Mr Chair. I guess I did get a bit carried away in wanting to highlight the great work—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes that is right. I have made a ruling now and if the member just concentrates—you cannot comment on a ruling I have made. So just focus on what I have suggested you do on Part 2 and the clauses associated with that.MARK MITCHELL: Thank you Mr Chair. Like I said I am very happy to have another call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I have got a list of about 30 churches here. I might come back to them in one of my future calls. I think it is important to name them but I am going to come back to Part 2 and the transfer of property—Carmel Sepuloni: The member was never at Part 2. What do you mean “come back” to it?MARK MITCHELL: Well I would like to if you give me a chance. I would love the member to take a call. Please take a call because I can see how engaged you are on the bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come on. Let us start on Part 2.MARK MITCHELL: Yes. Sorry Mr Chair—you are right. Back to Part 2 “Transfer of property rights and obligations from old board to new board”. I want to acknowledge my colleague Chris Bishop who had some insightful comments to make around this. Clause 5 is headed “Transfer of property rights and obligations” and subclause (1) states: “On and from the commencement of this Act the property rights and obligations of the old board are vested in the new board.” Mr Bishop made a very good point: this is going to be a seamless transition. That is important because obviously the new board cannot begin operating making decisions and managing its assets until the bill has the Royal assent and the new board is vested and has the authority to do that. So that was a very important point that he highlighted and raised in his contribution on this bill.CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will hear from Brett Hudson. He spoke on Part 1.BRETT HUDSON (National): We move on to Part 2 and I will absolutely focus on this part of the bill. Just to recap as I did say in Part 1 when we were on that the purpose of the bill is to transfer all the existing property interests powers and obligations from the old board to the new. Here we are under Part 2 which talks specifically of that transfer—the rights the property and the obligations—from the old to the new. I think when we are making this change we can appreciate that it is about a seamless transition.Actually the bill is about giving the board—which is a new board—greater flexibility to do the right things for its constituent members by removing some of the constraints that exist under the existing legislation. It is very important in doing that that we do not abrogate any rights and that we do not actually leave someone in a worse position than they would be or remove rights particularly rights of challenge by creating new legislation that may remove an ability for a party to take action against the old board because of course the old board will no longer exist.So if I draw your attention to clause 5(2) it notes very clearly that “Proceedings that could have been commenced or continued by or against the old board before the commencement of this Act may be commenced or continued by or against the new board on and from the commencement of this Act.” This one subclause will ensure that the transition to the new board will ensure that that board retains any of the obligations that existed with the previous board under the legislation that shall be repealed and will also not prevent any parties—so a party may have a contract with the old board. It may maintain property. It may provide a service to the board—maybe a cleaning service. There are any number of services for which individuals or companies or sole trading businesses may have some form of express or implied contract with the old board.So it is very very important that in making this change that we do not suddenly wipe out the rights that those parties have to enforce their own contract provisions and to ensure that they have a means of redress a means of having issues heard with the new board. It would be quite frankly an injustice I think in terms of the intention of this bill if we have created a situation where old legislation was repealed and a new board constituted and all of a sudden people did not have rights to take action for historical issues or services. So I think it is very very important that we are taking that action and I think it is something that can give a great deal of confidence to existing service providers to the board the trust as it exists today.Along with that we have to make sure that in doing so we do not create issues that were not there to begin with. We have clause 6 with matters that are not affected by the transfer of those rights obligations and those properties. The very clear and express provision there in clause 6 for instance notes “The dissolution of the old board and the transfer of its property rights and obligations to the new board—(a) are not to be treated as placing a person in breach of or default under any contract or in breach of trust or in breach of confidence or as otherwise making the person guilty of a civil wrong;”.It goes on to say that the dissolution and transfer “are not to be treated as entitling a person” to terminate a contract to “enforce or accelerate the performance of an obligation;” or to “require the performance of an obligation …”. Those areas together are saying that if the first subclause of clause 5 was making sure that no one had their rights quashed by the creation of a new board then in the process of constituting this new board people could not use that as some sort of clever leverage to create an issue where none existed previously. The new board cannot be made to suddenly provide a different level of performance or to face an unsubstantiated allegation of an issue that did not exist—or in fact someone could not use the switch the transition as a vehicle or as an opportunity to terminate an agreement.We are protecting rights and obligations on both sides if you will—the trusts and the members of the board but also the providers of services to those trusts. I think there is still a lot more to be said on Part 2 but if we look at Part 2 the part that is giving effect to these transfers and creating the sort of necessary protections that we like to see—PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Part 2 of this bill the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill is where the real meat and substance of this measure lies.Grant Robertson: Hang up I thought you said that earlier.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: There is a local example that I want to bring into this which brings some relevance in particular to what clause 6 sets out—the positive aspects that are outlined in clause 6. There is a relevant local example that I am sure the local member Grant Robertson will be aware of. Here in Wellington Central we have a Union parish church.Grant Robertson: A couple of them actually.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: It is St Anselm’s Union Church at 30 Mākara Road and I am sure Grant is very familiar with that. So its property its assets and the services that it provides using those assets to the community from that base in Karori will be safeguarded through this legislation. This is an important point.Just to give you the background of St Anselm’s Union Church it is a small Christian community in Karori West. That is a beautiful part of town yet it is one of the less affluent areas of Wellington if you were to look at the Habitation Index for instance. It is important that the Church maintains a strong property basis so that it can continue to offer a ministry and a community service to its flock in that area. That is also a liberal community—a liberal Christian community—and I say so because in 2014 it expressed concern that the General Assembly of the New Zealand Presbyterian Church had voted to disallow members of a partnership that was not a traditional marriage to act as ministers. This comes back to the Church’s tradition of having a focus on laity ministry rather than ordained priests but that tells me that this is not only a valuable community asset but also a liberally minded one that it sent that signal to the Presbyterian Church.In terms of the assets that will be safeguarded under clause 6 it has a hall that is available to the community to rent for not-for-profit-style functions and community events. It has something called the Bell Room and I can assure you that there is no familial connection there with the Bell Room—it is so-named because there is a bell involved. But it is a nice room with tables and chairs. It is a small room that can host meetings of maybe eight to 12 people. There is a coffee room and a kitchen for those sorts of social gatherings where the grandmothers of the community might like to get together and sit around a coffee to discuss the issues of the day. And there is of course the chapel.These are the sorts of properties that clause 6 does give some very clear advice around how they are going to be transferred to the new board and also says that there will be protections there. It will protect the board from becoming guilty of a civil wrong because it has undertaken actions despite the fact that its legislation is so significantly out of date. It does not entitle a person to terminate cancel or modify contracts or arrangements pertaining to properties such as the one that I have talked about that are valuable community assets.Just to give you another example of the sorts of things that the Union parishes offer recently they had Professor Lloyd Geering member of the New Zealand Order of Merit and also of course one of the very few people to be convicted in a blasphemy trial by the Church—in a canonical church court actually not by the State of course. Professor Geering gave a series of lectures on what we owe to ancient Iraq and what we owe to ancient Iran giving the historical and archaeological background to how the modern Christian faith has been influenced by those ancient cultures in the Holy Land.Those useful community events and services and opportunities that are offered out of the properties controlled by this property trust board do need to be safeguarded—they do need to be protected. So I think it is a very positive thing that clause 6(b)(iii) very clearly states that the legislation will not entitle a person to “require the performance of an obligation not otherwise arising for performance;”. Essentially it modernises the arrangements that are in place protecting those properties without introducing a new or onerous obligation or even in some cases impossible obligations upon the trust board. That will give great assurance to members of the St Anselm’s church community—that small but very positive liberally minded church community at Mākara Road in west Karori. For that reason I think it is highly positive.ALFRED NGARO (National):My colleague Paul Foster-Bell talked about Part 2 being the meat and bones. I heard Mr PeeniHenare say: “Is it not pork bones?”. I am not sure Mr Henare but you could say that this here could be pork bones. This is the substance of the bill here in Part 2. Mr Chair I do thank you for your wise guidance in saying that in a sense all speeches especially in the Committee stage should add some relevance some new information and so I do stand with some new information that I can add to Part 2. Maybe this can be the pork and the bones for Mr Henare in this regard.We are talking about Part 2 “Transfer of property rights and obligationsfrom old board to new board”. When we talk about the old board the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board it was set up to unite Churches and to bring together the various denominations under one banner. That was the intent. So that is the sense of the old. It is an evangelical missions-based Church which is the reason why having all funds tied up in property runs counter to its reason. We talked about the flexibility of that—so that is the old sense of what it was.The laity-based tradition means that people in the pews take the lead in the service—so there are a lot of lay preachers who are actually the ones who deliver the services and preach the sermons and distribute the ordinances that are there. In other words they take communion for people as well. Each Church is an individual being and the collective is known as an association because the various congregations span the divide of the Christian expression from the Pentecostal to the conservative. My colleague Mr Mark Mitchell talked about the 30 congregations. We will not name all 30 congregations as that could take up some time but their history in New Zealand saw them seed many congregations starting in Nelson but now extending to Invercargill and Whangarei.Here is a bit of information that many may not know—again talking about Part 2 and transferring the old into the new. The forebears their ancestors the tūpuna of Minister Finlayson the Hon Annette King and also the Deputy Speaker the Hon Chester Borrows were the founders of congregations in Richmond and Spring Grove in Nelson. This included the Rev. Roger Russ who ministered in Dunedin Whanganui Onehunga and Matamata and Mr Cliff Russ—Carmel Sepuloni: How is this relevant to Part 2?ALFRED NGARO: —who was the minister in Newton St Albans in Christchurch and in Ōāmaru. In fact since I know that Ms Sepuloni would like to know the 30 churches in the 30 areas—I will not name them all but I will name a couple of churches in particular. I want to acknowledge Annesbrook in Nelson. That is where the Hon Chester Borrows was actually married. This is one those churches.Carmel Sepuloni: Is that in Part 2 of the bill?ALFRED NGARO: That is Part 2 of the bill because this is in a sense transferring the old moving into the new.In Part 2 the bill is talking about the transfer of property and the rightsobligations but we are talking about transferring the old into the new. As I have said before this is to allow the flexibility. The intent of the old legislation was that it would establish an umbrella association that would bring all the denominations from Pentecostal to those that were more conservative together but still focus on what they had in common. What they had in common was to be able to outreach into their communities. But since 1929 until where we are now it is obviously agreed that the fact is that this transfer—not just of property but of rights and obligations—is to ensure that they are then able to administer their roles of responsibilities of ministering into those communities in particular.I think it is important in the rounding up of my speech and in my contribution to this part to acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith who has brought this bill forward. I want to acknowledge the board which came and made its submission to the Government Administration Committee. There were only two submissions but I want to acknowledge Mr Altman who was the secretary and also Mr Steven Baigent who is the chair. I think they will look forward to the eventual outcome the Royal assent and the gazetting of this bill which will allow them to fulfil to perpetuity their stewardship of the Christian ministry in those churches right throughout the whole of New Zealand.I want to acknowledge that in the area of west Auckland in Te Atatū there is one of those Union churches there the Te AtatūUnion Parish but it meets at the old Te Atatū tennis club. It meets there for prayer and for services which is really important. I round off my speech and I acknowledge the role and responsibilities of the Government Administration Committee and thank it for its work.Part 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.