Burns Brendon: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14657] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take part in the Committee stage of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I note that Christ’s College is an iconic institution at the heart of my electorate of Christchurch Central. It has a very proud history through somewhat challenging times over the decades including two world wars the Great Depression very recently the quake of 4 September and even more recently the severe aftershock of yesterday. Pupils and teachers at Christ’s College were among the many thousands of people who were rattled by yesterday’s force 5 quake but Christ’s College like Christchurch and Canterbury is coming through the quake and the aftershocks. Although we are shaken we are not stirred. 
Christ’s College as some members may know has around 150 trusts and about 20 or 30 of those trusts are at the heart of this bill. They deal with causes that may have been appropriate in the past but are no longer appropriate. To give an example a trust in the past may have donated funds towards the teaching of Greek but now there is not a large numbers of boys at Christ’s College who feel the same need to learn Greek. Such trusts were there to provide assistance to such boys should they wish to do so. I suppose it could be argued that we might use such funds and such trusts to send boys off to the Greek Islands and Athens to study Greek but that would raise a question as to whether that was a charitable purpose as the original trust deed intended. The bill is explicit on this issue and amendments are made to reinforce the fact that there should only be use of funds for charitable purposes. 
The point is that those purposes are not always easy to define. For instance if there were a trust to encourage democratic participation trustees might use that money to hire the Christchurch Town Hall at considerable cost to allow major public discussion on an issue of some public consequence such as say the Christchurch earthquake. The trustees would need to be sure that that was not only a charitable purpose for a particular individual but also a wise use of those trust funds. I guess trustees would also have to ask when after considerable expense that democratic purpose they were funding attracted only 100 people whether that would be a wise use of trust funds. Would it be a charitable purpose being served? If an intended beneficiary of those funds advised people in Christchurch who had quake claims that had not yet been addressed that perhaps they could resubmit them to the Earthquake Commission would that be a wise use of those funds when 100000 claims had already been lodged with the Earthquake Commission? Is that just a double up or is that double Dutch? 
So quite wisely the board of governors of Christ’s College has come to Parliament seeking a solution for a law change so that funds held in the 20 or 30 trusts covered by this bill which may in the past have been used for something like Greek or double Dutch—some language or strange practice that has been left behind by time or by wiser heads—can now be better spent. That is really the thrust behind this bill. I am pleased and the Labour Party is pleased that there have been changes made at the Government Administration Committee to tighten up the purpose of the trusts. This bill is about increasing flexibility for Christ’s College which is of course a private school in Christchurch. It is about making sure that there is better use made of the funds and better use made of the property than how they might have been used in the past and for what it is still vested for. That is at the heart of this bill. 
We are very keen to see that the bill allows trustees to vary the purposes of the charitable trusts in particular circumstances. Obviously at the select committee there was consideration of the wording of the legislation in the Charitable Trusts Act under which the trusts operate to describe the particular circumstances in which a governing body may vary the purposes of charitable trusts. This is an issue familiar to me because last year the first bill I had the privilege to introduce through this House was for the Methodist Church. It was in a very similar situation to the Christ’s College board of governors where trusts had been established back in the mists of time for particular purposes mostly relating to the care of orphans that were no longer a concern for the Methodist Church but the trusts were locked into those purposes. 
The only way to amend those trusts unless there is an Act of Parliament like this is to approach the High Court which can cost tens of thousands of dollars for a trust. As has been said when Christ’s College has 20 or 30 trusts locked up with assets and funds and it can no longer use those funds for something like teaching Greek it needs the flexibility to apply those funds across. The select committee was concerned about making sure that the governing body while it may vary the purposes of those funds would make sure that they were still used for a charitable purpose. The select committee reported back and recommended inserting into clause 5 in subsection 3 a requirement for trust property only to be used for charitable purposes even when there has been a variation. That is a welcome change. 
It reinforces the intentions of the original trustees those who set up the trusts who might have done so because they had sons at the school and wanted to recognise them or their sons had been lost in war. There is roll of honour for the two world wars and other wars for the former pupils to be remembered by their families and the trusts were established. That is quite a usual circumstance for the establishment of such trusts. So a particular purpose was defined and now as time moves on the board of governors wants the capacity to vary those trusts. That is why we have this bill in front of us. The actual bill is amending things that have been made redundant by the passage of time things that have become uncertain as to their application and things that have become impractical to implement. Clearly where a property is generating income that is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for the purposes sometimes we want to see the amalgamation of particular trusts’ funds into one fund and the devotion of that to new purposes. Although they will still be charitable purposes as amendments before the House suggest the trusts are able to change from their original purpose. That is important. 
This bill authorises the governing body of the college to apply property in certain circumstances for the benefit of the college but where there is still going to be some change. That is a very welcome move. I think there is flexibility carried through in this bill to make better use of property that has been vested in the board which is a very fine board. Christ’s College is a good school. It has a proud record and it has a number of former pupils who are familiar to this House. There is one well known to this side of the House in the form of one Michael Cullen. The school has a proud record and this bill gives it the flexibility to vary the purposes of those trusts in particular circumstances. I am pleased to see that the changes brought forward by the select committee and suggested to the House make sure that where there is variation to the purpose it still comes back to only charitable purposes. That is very very clear. There was a residual concern that although the purpose of the original bill was to devote benefits for the benefit of the college even with some extraordinary set of circumstances the benefits of the college were not in line with charitable purposes. That is why we have seen that amendment come through. So that is a very very welcome change by the select committee. 
The bill is now back before us in the Committee stage. It gives us the final chance for some scrutiny and that is important. I remember through the Methodist Church legislation some considerable scrutiny both at the select committee and back in the House and we made considerable changes to that legislation just to make sure that the intents of the original trustees were being honoured. This is very difficult legislation to deal with. We are dealing with issues from decades and decades before where people had a particular purpose and had very very carefully prescribed what that purpose would be and how it would be served by the establishment of a trust. We need to tread very carefully as a House when we begin to make amendments in that respect.