Hudson Brett: Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHudson Brett: Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 06 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:10278. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a privilege to be able to rise in support of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill in this its third reading. It would appear from the contributions that have been made across both sides of the House that this has unanimous support across the House. As another member Ms Logie mentioned just a little while ago that it is actually a very good thing to be able to sit in this House and contribute in these debates where we are united and each as she said is looking to work together to find a solution a solution to what is a real and genuine problem for particular people or groups in New Zealand. In this case of course it is Christian Churches New Zealand an association of more than 30 congregations throughout New Zealand. I would make note of the Tawa Union Church in the electorate of Ōhāriu which will be affected in a positive way when—with the confidence I have and I think we all share—this bill in enacted.If we look at the history of this which I think is really important when a group of Churches comes together with a notion to do good across their communities inside any well-formed and particularly any well-functioning democracy the idea that people or groups will coalesce and provide services and assistance to people in need is something actually that underpins that well-formed and well-functioning democracy. We had a case here that dates back I guess around 90 years if we look at the history of this where these Churches saw a need or a desire to do good in their communities and they coalesced around a notion that if they had at the time—they were thinking in terms of property; assets—they could put those assets to good purposes to benefit perhaps those who might share similar views but certainly those who were perhaps a little less fortunate a little less privileged or with certain needs.If we look back—I think it was in April 1924 in Dunedin—a conference of these Churches came together and agreed that they should have trustees who would be certain members of the Churches and that they should form a trust to hold and manage the real estate assets that they would settle and to make sure that they were used for the works they wanted to do. The reason that had come about was that initially when they started these works under the use of these assets or the shared approach they held the property in the names of the elders of the congregations. In many respects you would look at that and say that was not perhaps unusual for the nature of Church operations of the time but actually I would suggest that the need for change or the identified need for change in the 1920s was underpinned by a changing society. If there is anything of course that we have witnessed in our time and throughout human history it is the evolution of our societal groups and the way that they change the way societies operate the way they govern themselves the way if certain people are going to work together you do that effectively to deliver the outcomes you want in a way that can be adequately managed.In 1929 the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act was enacted. That Act created the trust—which we will in fact be disestablishing it once this bill is passed—that could administer the joint assets if you will the assets owned by this congregation of Churches and could ensure that those assets were put to the use to the purpose that the assembled congregations had. Just as that Act was born of perceived need for change in governance to make sure that there was a better structure for the works that the congregations were doing we see now if we fast forward approximately 80 years the same need arise. If we look at the operations of the congregations today the way that they might best use the assets they hold and the constraints that the current trust and empowering Act place upon them it actually creates a situation where the congregations together might hold sufficient assets to do a great deal of good work across the country but they cannot always use those assets in the way that they feel would provide the best and most good to those in most need.For instance although there is held to be some ambiguity around the language of the empowering legislation as it currently stands the wording does create doubts as to how the funds held by the board might be applied for the furtherance of the work of the Churches but there is believed to be a strong presumption from that legislation that the funds received are on trust for the purposes of real estate only. If we consider that as we have done through the stages of this bill including the select committee process and the Committee of the whole House and have canvassed it that actually can—and I think it is a perception across those congregations—present constraints on the works that the board and the Churches can do for those people whom they are looking to serve. There was a parallel drawn in the Committee of the whole House I recall which said that where you hold an asset and you are simply looking to convert that asset which might be—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Brett Hudson has 3 minutes and 56 seconds remaining if he wishes.BRETT HUDSON: I have to say there is so much to say and so little time. Just before the break I was drawing the parallel that had been raised in the Committee of the whole House about constraints when you have a certain fixed asset that you can use and yet your desires and needs might better militate towards a different form of asset. If one is in a position to transform an asset from one form into another you can unlock all sorts of good potential. This is the issue that is currently the case with this trust which we will address through the passage of this bill.The parallel that was used in the Committee of the whole House was actually an item that this Government this party campaigned for in 2014 and then executed once re-elected and that was the mixed-ownership model principally but not exclusively with our utilities companies. So the assets in many cases were fixed. They were generators machinery the ability to produce electricity and yet there was a feeling as a Government that we could deliver services to our citizens in other forms if only we could convert those assets from physical assets like real estate into other liquid assets like cash which is precisely what we did by converting 49 percent of those physical fixed machinery assets into cash which is now being used for schools ultra-fast broadband and for roading—things that are providing services to citizens and unlocking potential across New Zealand.That is precisely what this bill will enable the new trust to do with the assets—not only with the assets they own today but also with assets they convert if they choose to into some other forms. Today we said there was a very very strong presumption that the funds they had had to be held in real estate. This bill will enable them should they choose to to convert some or all of those into other assets and they could be cash assets they could be other forms of machinery they could be assets that will help them to deliver the services to their constituent parties to the people in need to the people that they have existed to serve for so many decades.I think that is an extraordinarily powerful thing. It is something that I wholeheartedly endorse. I think the whole House is unanimously supporting it. I was hoping that there might just be an epiphany on the other side of the House and that in doing what we are doing with this bill—Simon O’Connor: A religious term.BRETT HUDSON: —thank you—and permitting them to convert an asset into a more usable form they might realise that what this Government did with the mixed-ownership model was indeed a very powerful and enabling thing.I will just move on to another part of this bill because I think it is very very important. When we are changing one structure to another it could potentially introduce risks. So while we are transferring all of the properties the rights and obligations within that we are being very careful to ensure that any actions that are under way or could otherwise have been placed under the old trust structure are either still going to be continued or still be available to parties who might wish to bring them under the new structure. So in that sense nothing will have changed.That has a couple of very important consequences. It does mean that the new trust will not be able to exit unfairly from agreements it might have in place with suppliers—agreements that those suppliers are relying upon. It will not be able to introduce new performance criteria but equally the trust itself will be protected because those suppliers cannot use this change as a vehicle to exit their contractual obligations to the previous trust. I think it is an absolutely wonderful bill. I am glad it is going to be enacted.