Mallard Trevor: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14661] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will speak to the preamble to the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill as my colleague David Parker did. I am not referring to his absence at all but I see that he has spoken and run away in a way that other people have done every now and again in the past. I will go backwards through the preamble to this bill after I have made some preliminary comments. 
The first of my preliminary comments is one of some regret. Traditionally Christ’s College has been known as a school that goes with form and takes a proper approach. I regret the fact that this bill is in the name of Nicky Wagner and not Brendon Burns who is the local member of Parliament. On the basis of form and an appropriate approach the bill should have been in his name. I accept that with one or two notable exceptions Christ’s College is the National Party at school and therefore—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh I accept that not all National Party members went to Christ’s College. 
Grant Robertson 
: Tell the Michael Cullen story. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not think I am allowed to use all the words that Michael Cullen has used in relation to Christ’s College. He is an old boy but I think it is fair to say that the member is wearing a colour that is more appropriate to the political background of Christ’s College old boys than— 
Grant Robertson 
: You’re not referring to the Minister? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am referring to the member in the chair Nicky Wagner. Blue is the colour that they tend to wear. I think it is a pity that National could not see past a political bias in order to do what was good form and the proper thing and what was the generally expected thing and ask the local member for the school’s area to be the sponsoring member for this legislation. As people could see from the first of at least five contributions made by Brendon Burns in this debate he is absolutely across the issues in this legislation and has made a lot more sense of the bill than I have heard from others. 
My second point is that I am not at all convinced that the requirements of the preamble are met. The member for Christchurch Central has convinced me not to oppose this bill; he had to do some work in that direction. But if we look at subclause (5) it is clear that that subclause is not correct. It has been clear from the debate we have heard from the member in charge of the bill Nicky Wagner on the introduction of the bill and from David Parker as he has just discussed it. There is an alternative route and that is by a variation in the High Court. The suggestion that the objectives of this bill cannot be achieved without legislation is just wrong. I am not saying it is not appropriate occasionally—and we have done it in the past with I think Anglican and Methodist trusts—to use the House to vary trusts but I am not sure we should get in the habit of doing it. It means that Parliament is tipping over arrangements that have been entered into by people in the past when there is a method of doing so through an approach to the High Court—an approach that has not been taken up in this particular case. 
The next point I make is to have some discussion around subclause (2) of the preamble which suggests that “Over time some of those purposes have become redundant uncertain as to application impractical to implement or the income derived from the property is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for the purposes for which the property was given to or vested in the governing body:”. I think the only “in excess” area I heard about was in relation to sports that were no longer part of the games played by the boys of Christ’s College. But I did not hear very good arguments right at the edge other than arguments of convenience. I am not sure that it is appropriate for Parliament to be the vehicle to tidy up trusts that are inconvenient to a particular school. I think it is fair to say that there is not much debate that these things need to be tidied up. We know as indicated here that some of the funds do not have enough money and some of them have too much money for their purposes. 
I sat on the Government Administration Committee on three occasions when the bill was being considered. On the second occasion the governing body of the school was brought back to have a discussion with the committee because at the time we were concerned that the bill as introduced was broader than it needed to be. I must say that like most people representing Christ’s College they were exceptionally polite they were well informed they had good legal advice and good legal advisers and they made a case that on balance convinced the select committee to proceed with the bill but to make amendments which I think were made unanimously. 
Mr Hayes took a leading role for the Government on this legislation and we thank him for the work that he did. We hope that he is not doing it in an attempt to line up one of his own schools for this sort of legislative change. It occurs to me as we consider the preamble that maybe as part of an education amendment bill we could work towards some sort of arrangement whereby if there is a big group of these schools we could consider them as a job lot. I do not know whether there would be a total level of trust. Scots College and Christ’s College might be a bit scared of being amalgamated as a result of that sort of legislation. If I were in charge of the bill there might be more danger of that but probably not quite as much as is indicated in the preamble. 
Returning to the preamble which is important I think it is fair to say that subclause (4) is absolutely accurate. In fact it could well be described as an understatement. It states: “The governing body wishes to have the authority to apply property in these circumstances to provide more appropriate and enhanced benefit to the College:”. I would say that from the school’s point of view there is no doubt at all that they want to have an increase in power of that type. It is also fair to say that subclause (1) is entirely accurate: “The governing body of Christ’s College holds property given to or vested in it for various purposes:”. There cannot be very much debate about that. Unlike subclause (5) it is a matter of fact. 
Sandra Goudie 
: You would think there couldn’t be much debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry what was that? 
Sandra Goudie 
: I’m fine; carry on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member is happy to carry on. The cat has a tongue. The member is very good at contributing. She appears to be able to sit down— 
Grant Robertson 
: Stand up. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —to stand up and to talk but not to do both at the same time.