Jones Dail: Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5201] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this legislation. It is quite lengthy for a private bill; I see that it goes on for 54 clauses and 6 parts. I thought that the member’s speech was a little short. Perhaps in reply he could answer my question and indicate precisely why such a lengthy bill could be dealt with in such a short almost pre-emptory manner. The House should be entitled to a little more information about it. 
Jill Pettis 
: Procrastination is the thief of time. 
DAIL JONES 
: I say to that member that sometimes there is a reason for it. I am also concerned that in a bill in the name of the Anglican diocese of Christchurch church property trust obviously a Christian organisation we should want to insert a definition of spouse that includes a de facto partner as defined in section 2C of the Property (Relationships) Act. I note that that was not in the bill originally. It seems to me that originally the Anglican diocese of Christchurch which must be very well briefed in these matters did not want that definition. I ask whether the Commerce Committee imposed that definition on the Anglican diocese of Christchurch in keeping with the minority Labour Government’s views on such matters and its support for such things as de facto partnerships in the Property (Relationships) Act. The House is entitled to a fuller explanation from some member. If that explanation does not come from the member who introduced this bill because he may not have been on the select committee maybe it will come from another member who was on that committee. 
I ask why a Christian organisation that is asking the leave of this House to have a private member’s bill should want to insert a type of definition that I am sure was never ever in the contemplation of the people who originally set up the various trusts. I would be staggered to believe that when these trusts were first set up—and I think I am correct in saying that there is a Church Property Trust Ordinance 1854(C) in the sense of a number or is it 1854 in the sense of a year and also the Church Property Trust (Canterbury) Act 1879—in 1854 or in 1879 there would ever have been the contemplation by what were regarded as Christian people in those times of what is now commonly called a de facto relationship but which may have been given other names in 1854 and 1879. I would be staggered to believe that those people would have ever contemplated a de facto relationship as coming within a church property trust. 
We in the House should be very careful before we amend such trust deeds which are set up by people who want to make money available to the community. A matter before the House a little while ago was in relation to St Kentigern College which was set up as a boys college and then in the fullness of time has now been changed by a private bill in this House to a boys and a girls college. I understand that the people who set up St Kentigern College would probably be turning in their graves to think that their original idea should have been changed in that way. I take the view that a similar situation would probably arise in this case—that is the people who set up these endowments in 1854 and 1879 would be turning in their graves to believe that this type of definition could be included in the legislation. 
 Part 2 “Church Property Trustees” sets out the membership of that body the various functions of the trustees and the way in which the trusts are administered. That part also refers to secondary trusts. This legislation is very complicated. We have primary trusts and secondary trusts. Just reading this bill as a lawyer I believe that we need more clarification from the member as to what is meant by the primary trusts and the secondary trusts and the flexibility that seems to be given in terms of this legislation. 
There is a reference in Part 5 to cemeteries as well. There is yet another amendment in clause 51 about the Church Property Trustees continuing to be an authorised trust board. There are some amendments to that clause and perhaps we need a better explanation of them from the member who is in charge of this bill and who is doing a very good job with it. I have no criticism of him at all; I would just like to know a little more about the bill. As members of this House we are often asked to support something from a totally different area than our own that we know nothing about and if we take our positions responsibly we should find out a little more about such issues. 
I see that in schedule 2 there is a specific alteration to the bill about matters in which a bishop has a personal interest. That seems to be a fairly sound amendment but perhaps an explanation should be given for that as well.