Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9570] 
Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee. 
Christchurch is considered the most English of New Zealand cities with the river Avon flowing through its town its Anglican cathedral and its neo-Gothic buildings including those of Christ’s College. It is not surprising because the city and the whole Canterbury province began life as a Church of England colony as envisioned by Edward Gibbon Wakefield and John Robert Godley. 
Christ’s College was part of that vision and it began in 1850 as a school for early settlers. Although it was directly modelled on the philosophies of the English public school it was on a much smaller scale being run out of two rooms in the immigration barracks at Lyttelton. It provided a classical education including Greek and Latin modern languages mathematics English history and geography. The students mostly boys were also expected to conduct scientific experiments to draw and to sing. The school was named Christ’s College by J E Fitzgerald Canterbury’s first superintendent after his old college at Cambridge. 
In 1855 the Church Property Trustees founded Christ’s College as a separate educational institution and it moved to its present site at the foot of the cultural precinct in Christchurch with 35 pupils and a staff of three. Certain land endowments were handed over to it mostly town lands. In the same year Parliament passed the Christ’s College Ordinance which incorporates the deed of foundation incorporating Christ’s College Canterbury as a body corporate having perpetual succession. Over the last 155 years Christ’s College has been subject to further legislation to address various issues that have arisen and difficulties that the college has faced regarding the administration of its property and funds. 
The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill which I bring forward today amends the 1910 Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act to authorise the governing body of the college to apply property in certain circumstances to the benefit of the college even though the property is not applied for the original purpose for which it was given or vested in the college. Over the years the college has received numerous bequests from various donors. The terms of some of them require that the annual income generated by their funds be applied to a specific purpose—for example the provision of prizes for certain subjects or sports or the provision of scholarships to pupils who meet certain criteria. Accordingly the college holds these funds on trust to be applied for those specific purposes. Although the 1910 Act gives the governing body wide powers section 5 of the Act makes it clear that nothing in this Act is to be construed to give the power to use “any moneys or property for purposes other than were intended by any conveyance transfer grant gift deposition or declaration of trust setting out the purposes for which any property was given to or vested in the College.”—that is the college must apply the funds to the purpose specified by the donor. This reflects the common law duty of trustees to comply with the terms of any trust. But let me make it clear: the college wishes to and as a trustee must ensure that to the fullest extent possible the objects of the trust continue to be met. However the stated objects of a number of trusts have over the years become largely redundant. Also some of the trusts receive income that is either in excess of or insufficient for their needs. 
The college is not alone in trying to manage this issue. The Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill has recently been passed in this House and it dealt with the same problem as did the Anglican Church Trusts Act in 1981 the Presbyterian Church Property Amendment Act in 1996 and the Roman Catholic Bishops Empowering Act of 1997. As a registered charity the college could apply for approval of a scheme under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 but as was recognised by the House in passing the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill that is lengthy expensive and impractical given the number of trusts that have to be varied. 
The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill does not confer power to use properties for purposes other than those that were intended. The board is aware that where it is possible to carry out the donor’s intention those intentions must continue to be honoured. However in certain circumstances when it is not possible to use the income for a stated purpose the governing body may use it in other ways to benefit the college. Those circumstances are when the original purposes have become wholly or in part redundant uncertain as to their application impractical to implement or the property generates income that is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for those purposes. There are many examples of the purposes of bequests becoming redundant such as funding for sons of soldiers who have suffered or fallen during the First or Second World Wars and funding for students from Christchurch orphanages that no longer exist. There are also prizes for sporting events that do not happen any longer and for subjects that are no longer taught. And nowadays the funding streams do not always work effectively. There are scholarships that are too small in dollar terms to be useful and funds that grow so quickly that they cannot be dispersed under the original rules. If the funds cannot be used for the stated purposes they just accumulate in the school’s accounts and despite the intentions of the donors they can do nothing to benefit either the school or the students. 
This change in legislation is necessary for the effective use of bequests from past donors to the college. The Attorney-General has concluded that the bill is consistent with rights and freedoms affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I seek support for this bill so that it can be sent to the Government Administration Committee to be considered and so that donated funds and property can continue to be used appropriately for the benefit of the college and its students. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will support the referral of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill to the Government Administration Committee but will not necessarily support it any further unless some amendments are made to it. 
There are three areas that I want to discuss. The first is the very broad nature of new subsection (4) inserted by clause 5 which is the circumstances clause and effectively the operative clause of the bill. In my opinion the rights to overturn the wishes of donors are much more than are necessary and there are not the protections that the select committee decided were appropriate in the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill that came before the House not very long ago. I say to the people who drafted the bill that I think it is poor drafting for them not to take into account the view of the House on what was seen to be the excessively liberal nature of the provisions of that earlier bill. I am concerned about that and there has been an attempt to take a degree of liberty with the House beyond that which was shown by way of the amendment of the Methodist Church legislation in the fairly recent past. I think a better approach would have been to take account of that; then things would probably have gone more smoothly. 
The second point I make is one of politeness. Although with a local bill there is a requirement that bills come through the local member there is not such a requirement for private bills. But I think most members of the House are aware of the fact that the normal approach is to invite the local member of Parliament to bring the legislation to the House. I say to the governing authorities of Christ’s College that the fact that they have chosen not to do that has been noted in the House. One would expect people who see themselves as important in the way of historical precedence to follow that history unless there was a good reason not to. I understand that no invitation was given to the local member to introduce this bill and that lack of politeness has been noted by this side of the House. I would expect that at some stage the authorities responsible for the bill would like to explain that to the House. 
The major point I will make—and I will be interested in the views of the Minister of Education when she speaks on this bill—is that it appears that as with legislation on other independent schools there is no reference in this bill to the question of the day in education and that is the issue of national standards. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh pardon? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well national standards I am told will run through to National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. I understand that Christ’s College notwithstanding the habits of some other people offers National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 but we see within this bill no reference whatsoever to national standards or to the willingness of Christ’s College to take on board what is seen as a far-reaching and important approach to improving the standards of education. I want to know why that has not been included in the bill. Do the proprietors of Christ’s College think that national standards are so poor and so useless that their school would go backwards if they had national standards? Because that is the view of a lot of schools. A lot of decile 10 schools and a lot of very wealthy schools are concerned about the diversion of their teachers to the testing regime that is being implemented by the Minister and about the fact that their standards will drop as a result of a removal of focus from teaching and learning. When the member who is promoting the bill speaks in reply I want to know whether she has been involved in that sort of discussion with the proprietors of Christ’s College. 
I want to know what proposals the school has to do with the excess money it has obtained as is made clear in new subsection 4(c). I am very surprised that we have had no quantification under new subsection 4(b) or 4(c) or for that matter 4(a). And I wonder whether the member in charge of the bill has been briefed as to the quantities that are involved. Seeing that the Government is so keen on national standards—and I will talk to my colleagues on the relevant select committee—it might well be that as part of the legislation it is appropriate to set up a fund to finance the implementation of national standards at Christ’s College. It would be good to see whether that is a priority for the proprietors of Christ’s College. Of course the standards go through to year 10. Christ’s College I understand has students in years 9 and 10. I am not sure whether it has years 7 and 8. I ask the member in charge of the bill whether it has years 7 and 8. 
Nicky Wagner 
: 9 and 10. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It starts at year 9. So for those years—years 9 and 10—the national standards apply to that school. 
Jacqui Dean 
: You should’ve asked your own member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No the member in charge of the bill is meant to be on top of the issues. She is the one who has been briefed by Christ’s College on the bill—quite improperly. I must say that Nicky Wagner’s answer to the question today showed a higher standard of understanding of the area of national standards that she was being asked about than Anne Tolley did earlier in the day. But I must say that that is not necessarily a high test and it does not mean that she is coming anywhere near the ministerial standard. She has not received an Achieved yet but she is showing potential and she is showing improvement in a way that is not necessarily shared by her front-bench colleague the Minister of Education. 
But I will ask the Minister of Education when she contributes to this debate to explain why it is not important for students at Christ’s College to meet national standards. Why have they been exempt from the assessment regime? Why do parents at Christ’s College not get a report based on national standards in the way that those from surrounding schools do? Why is there an opt-out arrangement for them? Are they considered to be too good for national standards? Is it because they are too rich and so national standards do not apply? What is the reason? I am sure that the member who is in charge of the bill Nicky Wagner will explain when she speaks at the end of the debate but I am also sure that it is a matter that is appropriate for the select committee to consider. I am surprised that the bill is going to the Government Administration Committee. It is fair to say— 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s an outrage. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it does not know much about education. It has a very good chairperson but then the Education and Science Committee has a good chairperson as well Allan Peachey who is full and frank on education matters. He should be the Minister of Education. I am sure that between Allan and me we could have got this bill sorted out. We will vote for the bill but there is no guarantee of our ongoing support for it. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I suspect that the proprietors of Christ’s College are watching the debate this afternoon from their staffroom as indeed are possibly the senior students of Christ’s College. If that is the case I send them the greetings of Parliament and particularly those of the member in charge of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill Nicky Wagner who gave a very good opening speech when she introduced it. I guess those proprietors staff and pupils of Christ’s College will be utterly bemused by the quality of the previous contribution to this debate where the politics of jealousy and the politics of sour grapes were on display for all to see. I think that this bill deserves better than that in this Parliament and we on this side of the House intend to deliver better than that. 
The bill is being sent to the Government Administration Committee. That is an excellent select committee which will give due consideration to the matters raised by both Nicky Wagner and the Opposition member Trevor Mallard who made a poor contribution to this debate. In particular I turn to new section 5(4)(a) of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act to be inserted by clause 5 which specifies the circumstances in which property may be applied for other purposes under new section 5(3). I will go through those circumstances. The circumstances are firstly that “the purposes for which the property was given or vested have become (wholly or in part) redundant uncertain as to application or impractical to implement; …”. When this bill goes to the Government Administration Committee members of the committee will be very interested in what is meant by that. I refer back to the speech of my excellent colleague Nicky Wagner. She notes some examples of purposes of bequests that have become redundant such as funding for sons of soldiers who had suffered or fallen during the First World War and Second World War. It is worth remembering that the school has a very proud history of sons of the school going off and fighting in those wars. I suspect that there are not any sons of those soldiers who are currently or who ever will be at the school so therefore the purpose of that bequest has become well and truly redundant. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But what about a minor amendment to make it “other wars”. We don’t need to have a general catch-all like this. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: The member opposite is asking about a minor amendment thus showing that he has not even bothered to read the general policy statement in the explanatory note of the bill which points out that any proposed amendments can be taken by the trustees to the High Court for approval. However given the nature of the number of trusts with which this school operates the trustees would be forced to approach the High Court on multiple occasions. That is simply costly—$50000 is the cost. My colleagues would rather see that money spent on educating the boys at Christ’s College. So I am sorry that the member opposite has shown such a poor grasp of this bill but I can assure members that the Government Administration Committee will be asking what the provisions of new section 5(4) of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act will apply to in particular. 
I have given one example which relates to funding for sons of soldiers. There are also other circumstances that have been noted by my excellent colleague Nicky Wagner who is the promoter of this bill—and rightly so—relating to students from Christchurch orphanages that no longer exist. If the orphanage does not exist any longer the bequest then becomes unusable. What is the point of having funds accumulating in the coffers of Christ’s College without there being any use for them? 
I look forward as the deputy chairperson of the Government Administration Committee to having a good discussion and a good examination of this bill and I am confident that notwithstanding the politics of envy jealousy and sour grapes displayed by members opposite we will return this bill to the House with due consideration. Thank you. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and support the first reading of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has indicated the Labour Opposition is quite prepared to see this bill go to the Government Administration Committee but we have some questions about the detail. Christ’s College is a venerable institution in Christchurch. It has a proud 160-year history. It has had a number of distinguished pupils—including I think former member of this House Dr Michael Cullen—amongst the alumni of that school. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think he mentioned it in his maiden speech. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I think he did. He got a very good education at Christ’s College courtesy of others in the community as I recall. 
Christ’s College sits on the edge of Hagley Park in our city of Christchurch within my electorate of Christchurch Central. The world has moved on since Dr Cullen was a pupil and the school is left with a number of trusts that have purposes no longer fit for current pupils hence this amending legislation. I was very pleased to visit Christ’s College last year with Phil Goff and I noted that the school had in place perhaps the best broadband and information and communication technology infrastructure in the country which is a feat that I am sure every other school in New Zealand would like to emulate—and one day soon maybe. The point is that trusts have been established for purposes that are no longer appropriate. I should imagine that things like Greek and Latin might be supported by some of these trusts and with all due deference to my excellent parliamentary executive assistant I say that Greek is not the highest priority order today in New Zealand. 
This bill has parallels with another bill that I was very pleased to see pass through the House. That bill was for another institution headquartered in my electorate of Christchurch Central the Methodist Church of New Zealand. Last year we passed the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill which had a similar issue in that a number of trusts had been left by legacy and bequest that were no longer appropriate—in that instance it was around the issue of orphanages which that church no longer runs. So instead of having to go to the High Court for an amendment on each of those numerous trusts an all-purpose bill was introduced in my name. This bill has the same approach. It will be authorising the governing body of the college to apply for changes to trusts and to use those trusts for more appropriate and fitting purposes while staying in keeping with the original intention of the donor or bequeather of the moneys. 
There are some concerns around exactly how those trusts will be wound up and how those funds will be passed across. Those concerns were at the core of some considerable discussion and debate in the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. In that instance we passed amendments; I recall that the member opposite from Selwyn was quite instrumental in insisting that there should be considerable vetting and change in relation to making amendments to trust deeds. Obviously a very very important principle is at stake: when somebody has defined a particular purpose for a trust to amend it is not something that one would traverse lightly. In the case of the Methodist Church firstly all changes needed to be referred to the Attorney-General and secondly where changes were being proposed trustees were to be consulted. That is the sort of change we might be looking at in the select committee process to be absolutely assured that while we are providing for increased flexibility for Christ’s College the original purpose and intent is indeed maintained by the changes being introduced. 
I pick up on the comments that my colleague Trevor Mallard made around national standards. He is correct: Christ’s College is exempt as a non-State school from the introduction of national standards. That is a curiosity. Does it mean that the school does not believe that it needs to meet national standards or does it mean as I think may be the case it believes that it is already well above those standards? Whatever it is the exemption raised a question about why other schools cannot have exemptions; why we do not go down the line of looking at a trial as the New Zealand Educational Institute and other good organisations are suggesting; and why the Government is so adamant that it will introduce these standards across the board except in private schools and in kura kaupapa Maori. It begs the question as to why they should get exemptions. 
Nonetheless with reference to this bill the Labour Opposition is very prepared to support its being referred to select committee for some fine-tuning. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to comment on the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill but I will start by acknowledging a loss to this country—and indeed to Christchurch as well as to the rest of the country—with the passing yesterday of Bevan Tipene-Matua of Ngai Tahu Ngati Kahungunu Rangitane and Raukawa. Bevan was a Green Party member but also a passionate educator who worked for many years in Christchurch before he went back to his home in Porangahau. He was also the first Maori research fellow at the Crop and Food Research agency with a special interest in intellectual property plant variety rights and tikanga Maori. Bevan’s death is a huge loss to education to his hapu and whanau and to the country as a whole. Our hearts go out today to the whanau at Porangahau. It is a loss for the Green Party and it is indeed a loss for us all especially for his whanau and his tamariki. 
However returning to the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill I rise to speak on it because we are actually voting against the bill based on our view that it is not well drafted and lacks sufficient checks and balances when it seeks to change the trust deed. In the past we have supported private legislation to expedite the handling of trusts held by the Anglican Presbyterian Catholic and Methodist Churches and in all of the previous cases we supported that legislation through the House. The tests contained with that legislation closely resemble those found within Part III of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 except that any change does not require High Court approval and is therefore considerably cheaper to implement. Those tests are sufficient. However unlike previous legislation this bill does not contain significant checks and balances when changes to trust deeds are made. For example sections 10 to 13 of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Act 2009 provide significant public accountability measures including in section 12 oversight by the Attorney-General. This bill has no similar protective checks or balances. 
It is unfortunate that the school needs to move legislation through the House which is itself an expensive process merely to better expedite the use of property entrusted to it. Christ’s College has a highly specific mandate when compared with the mainstream churches but the powers entrusted to the board must nevertheless be balanced by good process. Is this legislation in the best interests of the school’s beneficiaries? Yes mostly it is. But this is bad law and we will have had little opportunity to improve it because we have no one on the select committee. 
We are also concerned that the Government gave $35 million to private schools at a time when there have been cuts right across the board to the public education system. Even worse is the national standards debacle link with private schools. Private schools such as Christ’s College have resources that many public schools can only dream about. The risk of league tables from national standards may help the private sector schools because they may look good to some parents who can afford to abandon struggling public schools. However this reduces the community to individuals buying education if they can afford it rather than maintaining and building social equity through a strengthened public system. The Green Party firmly opposes any undermining of the public school system in favour of the private system. The entrenchment of educational inequity and the measuring of schools against a rigid educational standard will not address this problem. 
Another question we have with regard to this bill is a deeper question about the benefits to mana whenua. How many impoverished tamariki from local hapu benefit from this school being sited within their rohe? Given that there are major questions around the Kemp purchase in Te Wai Pounamu we can never assume that all land sales to the Crown and then to the churches for private schools—as in this college’s case—can be described as being without the slightest taint of inequity. And have mana whenua been consulted on this bill? 
So although Christ’s College and some other private schools may benefit from issues such as league tables we are not concerned about protecting their business. We are committed to protecting vulnerable children for whom education is a struggle and to supporting schools that do their best with very little. I will never forget when I was a lecturer in many schools visiting a wealthy private school where the students were provided with wetsuits as a matter of course in order to do kayak training in heated swimming pools and it had a library DVD screen that took up a whole beautiful wall whereas last year I visited some students at a public high school near Wellington where the students asked me whether some schools actually had a swimming pool. The gap is already big enough in terms of resources between public schools and the wonderfully resourced private schools that I have referred to. We do not need to increase that gap. 
Although we are not supporting this bill we are taking this opportunity to say we challenge the private school system in terms of the benefits and privileges it confers on those who have access to it. We demand that the Government puts its energy into and emphasis on maintaining and strengthening the public school system. We have raised legal and technical points that may be addressed at the select committee although we will not be there to raise those concerns. But at a deeper level we want to stand for a public education system— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki):  
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora tatau katoa. Ko taku i te tuatahi he whaiwhai haere i te korero a tenei na mo tera kua riro ki tua o te pae. Ko Bevan Tipene-Matua tera a he uri o nga waka o nga iwi e korerohia ake nei; a Ngati Kahungunu ko Ngai Tahu ko Rangitane Ngati Raukawa. He tangata ngakaunui ki te ahuatanga o te matauranga o te tangata i noho tahi ia i roto o Te Wai Pounamu i Otautahi tonu. No reira e aroha atu ana ki a ia mo tona whanau e rongo nei i te ahuatanga o mokemoke o pani. No reira ko ia tera. 
Kati ka hoki mai ki te putake o tenei o nga pire kia whakatakotohia ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Paremata mo tona panuitanga tuatahi. Ko taku ko te ki atu ki te Whare Paremata kei te tautoko ake te Pati Maori ki tenei ahuatanga i tona tuatahitanga. Penei i te kura i haere nei maua ko te Shane Jones matou ko Hone Harawira he kura e hia ke nei nga tau e noho nei i te mata o te whenua. I a au e rongo ana i te korero a te mema nei a Nicky Wagner ahua orite me ki te kaupapa o te kura ki ta te Kura o Tipene i te wa i a ia e ora ana ko te whakapono ka mutu ko te matauranga otira nga ahuatanga o te matauranga. No reira kai te waia kai te mohio tonu au ki te ahuatanga o enei momo kura. 
Engari tera pea ko te nuinga o te Whare Paremata ka mutu o te motu ka pohehe nei kare he paku wahanga o te Ao Maori i roto i tenei momo kura engari he whakaaro he tena. I a au e rangahau ana i nga korero mo tenei o nga pire i puta te korero e kua puta mai tetahi mema o te Whare Paremata i tera kura tonu. Na ko te nuinga pea kare i te tino mohio ko tetahi o nga mema Paremata mo te me ki mo te takiwa o te turu Maori ki te Rawhiti ko Jack Ormond tera a ko ia tera i haere ki te kura o Christ’s College. Ko ia tera i haere ki tawahi ki te pakanga tuatahi o te ao i roto i te me ki a Tumatauenga. Ka mutu i haere ki roto o Ratana a ka mutu ka hara mai ia ki roto i te Whare Paremata nei i te tau 1946. Ka noho mai ki konei mo nga tau e rua tekau. I muri mai a ko ia tetahi he tangata toa mo te whutuporo. Ka haere ia ki tawahi ki Wiwi ki Ingarangi i muri mai o te pakanga tuatahi o te ao i raro i te marumaru o Aotearoa. Me ki i noho ia hei mema o te tima o Aotearoa i te tau 1923. 
No reira ara noa atu nga hitori o tenei kura he kura me ki matua he kura tuakana o te motu. He kura motuhake nei i Aotearoa roa nei a ka mutu i puta mai ki taku mohio tekau tau pea i muri mai o te hainatanga mai o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Penei taku e korero nei ko etahi ka pohehe kare kau he paku mea o te Ao Maori i roto i tera kura engari i puta te korero kua whakaaetia kua whakamanahia ta ratau tono kia tuku me ki i nga tikanga Maori ara Maori performance ki te taumata tuatoru i raro i te ahuatanga o te New Zealand Qualifications Authority. No reira tera pea he korero ohorere tera ki a tatau katoa. 
Me ki ko te putake o tenei pire he whakatikatika i te ahuatanga o te pire Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 me ki kia whakawatea mai nga uauatanga mo te whakahaere i nga whenua i nga rawa kua tukuna ki roto i nga ringaringa o te kura. Ka mutu ko te putake o tenei pire me ki he tuku i te mana whakahaere ki te poari ki te tuku kaupapa ke kia kaua ratou e herea e nga tikanga o tera pire matua. 
No reira ehara i te mea he nui nga korero mo tenei pire hoi ano ko ta matau ko te whai i wa matau whainga matua i roto i te korero “He aha te mea nui” ara ta matau kaupapa korero ara ko te tautoko i nga hapori ki te whakahaere i nga rawa kai roto i o ratou ringaringa. He ahua rite tenei ahuatanga ki tera pire o nga watene Maori na te roanga o te wa a kua rereke te ao kua rereke nga whakahaere kua rereke me ki nga whakaaro o tenei wa ki tera i te wa me ki i puta tetahi kaupapa i mua noa atu i nga tau e hia ke nei kua hipa. No reira ahua penei tonu tenei pire. Ehara i te mea he nui nga awangawanga kei te ki atu te Pati Maori tukuna ki tona panuitanga tuatahi ka mutu waiho ake ma te komiti whaiti e whakatikatika nga korero a te Minita a ka hoki mai ki te Whare. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all. The first thing for me is to follow on from the previous speaker who paid a tribute to that person who has passed beyond the veil namely Bevan Tipene-Matua a descendant of the canoes of the aforementioned tribes Ngati Kahungunu Ngai Tahu Rangitane and Ngati Raukawa. He was a person committed to the education of people and lived in communities throughout the South Island particularly Christchurch. So my sympathy goes out to him and his family left lonely and bereft. That then is Bevan Tipene.  
So I return to the focus of this bill that has come before the House of Parliament for its first reading. The Maori Party supports the bill emphatically at this stage of the process. The college is very much like the one that we and the Hon Shane Jones and Hone Harawira attended. It is an institution that has been around for quite a long time. As I listened to the address by the member Nicky Wagner the college’s philosophy appeared to be very much like that of St Stephen’s College when that school existed. Religion and education and all aspects of it were paramount. Therefore I am familiar with and aware of the circumstances relating to these kinds of schools.  
Most of Parliament and indeed the country may mistakenly consider that there is not a shred of Maori association in this kind of school but that is not true. As I researched material for this bill it came to light that a member of Parliament had attended that college. Many may not be aware that he held the seat of Eastern Maori. That was Jack Ormond who went to Christ’s College. He went overseas to the First World War with the Maori Battalion. He joined the Ratana movement and came to Parliament in 1946. He remained here as a member of Parliament for 20 years. He was a former champion rugby player. He toured France and England after the First World War as a New Zealand representative.  
So this college has a long history. It is the oldest independent school in the country. To my knowledge it was founded just 10 years after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. As I stated earlier some have mistakenly thought that there is not a shred to do with Maoridom in that college but it should be noted that it has an accreditation to level 3 in Maori performance. Now that might startle us all.  
The focus of this bill is to amend the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 and remove any difficulty in administering property invested in the college. Basically it provides the governing body with the power to apply property vested in the college for some other purpose for the benefit of the college and not be tied by any agreement in that primary Act. 
It is not as though I have a great deal to say about this bill but suffice to say that it is consistent with the main aim in our policy “He aha te mea nui” in that we support communities by trusting in their own locally developed solutions. This is similar in context to the legislation for Maori wardens where changes occur over the passage of time in the fabric of society the world and present thinking. Therefore legislation governing functions is now redundant. This bill is like that. Because there are not many concerns we the Maori Party endorse this bill through its first reading. Any amendments by the Minister should be considered by the select committee and then reported back to the House 
.]  
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
:  
Te mea tuatahi maku e tautoko ana i nga mihi ki tera o nga mate kua ’hakahuatia e te Ropu Kakariki mo tera o nga tohunga o te ao matauranga. Na reira tautoko ana i nga whakaaro mo taua rangatira. 
[ 
The first thing for me to do is to endorse the tributes made by the Green Party about one of the experts in the field of education who has passed away. So I support the sentiments expressed about that noble person 
.] 
Labour supports the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill’s referral to the Government Administration Committee. As stated in the explanatory note the bill amends the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 to “remove difficulties in administering property vested in the College where the intended purpose or purposes for which the property was given to or vested in the College have by the passage of time become redundant uncertain as to application impractical to implement or the property generates income that is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for those purposes.” In other words it is tidying up little parcels of land so that the college has the flexibility to do what it wants with that land in terms of supporting the education for the boys of the college. 
However this is not the only flexibility that Christ’s College will receive under this Government. Like all private schools Christ’s College has the flexibility to either implement national standards or not implement national standards as it deems fit. It is a flexibility that is not granted to State schools in the country and we have to ask why it is that State schools are not granted the flexibility to implement or not implement national standards. I would like to know how many private schools in New Zealand will implement national standards. I would say that the answer is zero or a number very close to zero. That is because private schools know that there is no evidence and no research to back national standards. In fact every time we ask the Government to provide the body of research and evidence that supports the implementation of national standards we get no answer. I suggest that the National Government either front up with that body of research and evidence or be quiet about it. Unless schools can see that there is a body of research and evidence to back up the implementation of national standards the policy will not win any favour. 
I was surprised to hear Louise Upston in the House last night talking about a decile 1 kura kaupapa Maori school in her area. She said the kids there are very very successful and they are doing really well. Then she kicked an own goal by saying that the school is not implementing national standards yet. I was blown away that she would be so naive as to stand up and talk about a school that is highly successful is full of Maoris and is decile 1 even though the school is not yet implementing national standards because it does not have to for 12 months. That tells me that national standards are not actually necessary because schools are doing really well without them. I wonder whether Louise Upston will stand up and apologise to that school if when it has national standards are imposed on it its achievement goes down. Will she apologise to that kura kaupapa Maori in her electorate for forcing this one-size-fits-all approach—national standards—on it? 
There is no principal or teacher in New Zealand who is opposed to high standards or opposed to giving parents the information that they— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. E toru pea nga kaikorero i te ahiahi nei kua korero mo tenei mea te national standards 
. 
 Kei konei au e noho ana me te whakaaro ake he aha te paku tikanga o te national standards ki te pire e korerohia ake nei? He korero whenua he korero rawa? Kei hea te wahanga o te national standards i roto i tenei o nga kaupapa? Ko taku i whakaaetia atu kia tu era kia korero engari ko tenei te mea tuatoru ko taua kaupapa ano ra. Ko taku e ki nei e kua rongo i nga korero me hoki mai ki te putake o te pire. Aroha mai. 
[ 
Mr. Assistant Speaker there have been perhaps three speakers this afternoon who have spoken about national standards. I am sitting here wondering what relevance national standards have to the bill being addressed here. Is it referring to land or resource? What part do national standards have in the matters being debated? For me particularly I allowed to other two speakers to have the call but with this the third one it is the same thing again. I have listened to the tenor of the address; the member must come back to the point of the bill. My apologies to the member. 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I apologise to the member for not being able to respond in te reo to the point of order. The point that members on this side of the House have been making—and it has been accepted by the House—is that this legislation could have included national standards for this but has chosen not to do so. It is something that could have been included in the bill if the promoter of the bill decided that it was an appropriate thing to do. The view on this side of the House is that if national standards are so good then they would have been included. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We will not relitigate that. By their nature first reading speeches are a little more general than just a bill’s purpose. But in a case like this—and I think that the Hon Trevor Mallard has made the point—there are some differences between a private school and a public school and I accepted the debate in that capacity. However the current speaker Mr Davis has got himself into a general attack on national standards. If he wishes to continue to speak about national standards he should draw his comments to the bill in some capacity. There was a more general debate earlier in the afternoon and those sorts of points could have been made then. The member should draw some kind of comparison or desist from a general attack on national standards. The point is well made. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Christ’s College I am sure is a school that sets high standards and I think that we should not be afraid to debate on every front the fact that we are searching for excellence in schooling. 
This bill talks about parcels of land. I am sure those parcels of land would be used to enhance the education that is provided at Christ’s College. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is there a Minister in the House? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Yes there is. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: This bill is about high standards. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: The purpose of this bill as stated in the explanatory note is “to amend the principal Act to authorise the governing body of Christ’s College to apply property in certain circumstances to the benefit of the College even though the property is not applied for the purpose for which the property was given to or vested in the College.” Basically that means that little pockets of land were given for a reason but that reason is no longer practical. Fair enough; the college is saying “That was then; this is now.” It thinks that it can use the land in another way in order to raise achievement. The Labour Party has no issue with that. The issue I have though is with the Maori Party’s standing up and chastising me for not sticking to talking about those little parcels of land— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot refer to a point of order that has been dealt with. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: OK; fair enough. However I want to say that when Te Ururoa Flavell stood up he spoke a lot about old boys. He spoke about the school that he Hone Harawira and Shane Jones went to—a school that no longer exists. He spoke about someone who went off to war. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 This bill the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill as Kelvin Davis so eloquently explained is to amend the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 to remove difficulties in administering property vested in the college where the intended purposes have now been made redundant. I listened to Te Ururoa Flavell’s speech very carefully and he spoke very proudly of his time at St Stephen’s College and that of Shane Jones and Hone Harawira. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Stick to the bill. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I will get to the bill and I will get to it faster than did Te Ururoa Flavell. But I can also speak very proudly of my school because it actually has some relevance to this issue. In my maiden speech I made the mistake of saying I joined David Lange as the second MP from Otahuhu College in this Parliament. It was pointed out to me subsequently that I was wrong; Warren Freer preceded David Lange and now there are three MPs who went to Otahuhu College: Warren Freer David Lange and me. 
The reason I say that that has some relevance is that my father the late Owen Boscawen was a principal of Otahuhu College and following the 1981 school reunion a sum of money was left over. With that sum of money he established the Otahuhu College Foundation. That foundation was set up to administer the scholarships and bequests given to Otahuhu College. Some 30 years after he established that trust I today sit as a trustee on that foundation and I can appreciate the problems that Christ’s College has. Some of the money that was bequeathed to Otahuhu College goes back to the 1940s and 1950s—sums of £100 and £200 that were designed to provide scholarships ad infinitum. Of course the challenges for the trustees of Otahuhu College Foundation are exactly the same sort of challenges that the trustees of Christ’s College have—that is that circumstances change inflation does it work and money that is bequeathed certainly in pounds shillings and pence over time is devalued. So I think there is clearly a need for this bill. 
I was not intending to take a long call but I would like to comment on the speech made by Kelvin Davis. He asked why private schools should be granted the flexibility as to whether they implement national standards. That was the question: why should private schools have that flexibility as to whether they should have to implement national standards? I think that Kelvin Davis asked a very good question. I would like to ask the House what I think is a more important question: why can ordinary New Zealand pupils not have the flexibility to decide what school they go to? Why can they not have that flexibility to choose between a State school and a private school? My party the ACT Party recently led an inter-party working group on school choice and it was a recommendation of the Maori Party the ACT Party and the National Party members on that working party that the bottom 20 percent of students should in actual fact have that choice. The flexibility should not be only for those at private schools but the unanimous recommendation was that all students—certainly the bottom 20 percent—should have that choice. 
The ACT Party will be supporting the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. From my own personal experience as a trustee of a school foundation a school trust I understand the need for flexibility and this party will be supporting the bill. Thank you. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to support the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill brought to this House by my wonderful colleague Nicky Wagner. People have spoken lots about the various issues around this bill and one of the things we should think about is that this school has a very long and proud history. I was not a student of Christ’s College but some wonderful members of this House were including Sir Arthur Guinness a former Speaker of this House back in the early 1900s and of course Dr Michael Cullen. The other key people I remember vividly who went to Christ’s College were Robbie Deans and his brother from Christchurch. 
My experience of Christ’s College is that I have actually visited one of its bits of land. The college has bits of land all over the place in Canterbury which many runholders and farmers have given to the school in many ways. It owns some ski land with a ski lodge; in various forms it owns bits of land all around the city of Christchurch. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
AARON GILMORE 
: I find the laughing hysterics from the people across the House just hilarious. 
One of the interesting things is that this bill is very similar to the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill and to other bills that have been before this House previously about tidying up. The Maori Trustee Amendment Bill was another example in that little bits of assets with multiple owners or with complicated trustee arrangements needed to be tidied up. This bill allows that tidying-up to happen. 
The Christ’s College board had the option to resolve its problems via amendments through the High Court and earlier today Mr Mallard asked why the board did not just go ahead and do that. Well it would cost about $50000 per action to take those actions through to the High Court to get those various trusts or bits of property changed and that would eat up very quickly the capital and assets that exist in these small bits of assets across the board. Despite the best aims and wishes of the original donors I believe that this bill will not harm the initial intent for the sums of money we are talking about and the amounts they bequeath will actually still go to a good cause in terms of the students of that fine institution. 
Unlike Mr Boscawen I went to a school called Shirley Boys High School and I was the first member ever of my school to be elected to this fine House. I am very proud to be the first ever member of my school to be before this House. I have many proud memories of encountering Christ’s College students during my time at school. 
Hone Harawira 
: Did you bash them? 
AARON GILMORE 
: Oh exactly! The interesting thing about this bill is that some concerns have been raised by the Opposition although I note that most of those members do support it and those concerns can be resolved very easily I believe in the select committee. We had a similar issue with the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. A number of concerns and issues at the first reading were resolved through the select committee process and my colleague from Selwyn the very capable Amy Adams did a very good job on that particular bill by amending some of its clauses to make it work in a much better and more sensible fashion. I have the utmost confidence in the Government Administration Committee to be able to do that; that committee is chaired of course by David Parker. 
I think that a lot of work will be done on this bill. It is a very simple bill but members opposite have pointed out some particular problems and issues. This bill is simply about the transfer of property. It is not about some treatise on national standards issues; it is nothing to do with that. This school is a very fine school and a very fine institution and the bill will allow it to do what it really wants to do in terms of its assets. I believe that the concerns that have been raised will be easily resolved. Dr Cullen as a former pupil of the school may have been a beneficiary of one of these existing scholarships. He may have been the child of a Second World War veteran; I do not know. I know that he received a scholarship to Christ’s College and he made a very fine point about that in his valedictory speech when he left this House. Some of the funds that exist are used for scholarships for the children of World War I World War II and Boer War veterans. 
I reiterate the importance of this bill to the school and the wonderful work that the member from Christchurch Nicky Wagner has done to bring this bill to the House. Accordingly I look forward to its progressing through the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow on from Aaron Gilmore. It is quite interesting that he has referred to the transfer of property because a young friend of mine contacted me on my Facebook page a couple of days ago. He said he was talking to Aaron Gilmore at an event here in Wellington recently and Aaron Gilmore had told him that I had sold my property and was moving out of the electorate. That is really bizarre. So it is very strange to stand in the House and have a debate about the transfer of property when in fact that is the sort of nonsense that that person has succumbed to in his desperate attempts to win a position as an electorate member of Parliament. But of course he cannot manage to get to the point where he is standing in Christchurch East. 
It is my honour and privilege to have been the union organiser for Christ’s College’s boarding house. Everyone is looking for a personal connection to Christ’s College and that is my connection. I used to be the Canterbury Hotel and Hospital Workers Union organiser. I helped to organise the boarding school workers— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The kitchen workers. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes the kitchen workers and those who cleaned the dorms. I helped them to organise a campaign that saw their wages and conditions of employment improve dramatically in the mid-1980s. I am very proud of the time that I spent representing those workers at Christ’s College. I always had a very good working relationship with all of the schools that operated under the boarding schools award. They were I think quite genuinely supportive of improving the wages and conditions of employment for a group workers largely women who had seen themselves as being in a situation where increasing the minimum wage was the only mechanism by which they would improve their pay and conditions. 
I have visited Christ’s College on many many occasions. I was there again last year in my role as the Opposition spokesperson on justice to talk to young people about the changes that were being proposed in terms of the Law Commission report on the sale of liquor. I took the discussion document along with me. I gave a briefing to the students and we had a very very lively debate on the issue of the sale of liquor. This school is actively engaged. I come from Christchurch and have found that my old school that I went to is now a drug and alcohol rehab centre. This makes things a little difficult because the first question someone who comes from Christchurch is asked is which school he or she went to and in those circumstances I am left with the embarrassment of having to confess that the Catholic girls’ school that I went to is now probably appropriately a drug and alcohol rehab centre. 
The point that I want to make is that there is a divide in Christchurch. The Catholic schools produce the lawyers for the Catholic law firms; the private Anglican schools produce them for others. It has always been that way. Of course that has changed a lot since the early years and we have seen much less emphasis on where one went to school. But there is no question that the old school tie is important in Christchurch. I think that there are three members of Parliament here at this time who are old boys of the school where all my brothers went which was St Bede’s College. Of course in terms of the old school tie as far as St Bede’s College goes the House has Gerry Brownlee Peter Dunne Clayton Cosgrove and Damien O’Connor. Four members attended that school. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: David Carter. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: And David Carter. So there are five old boys from St Bede’s College in the House and Christ’s College has really has missed out on that benefit. But there is no question that the old school tie is still alive and well. 
We are happy to support anything that we can do to assist Christ’s College with regard to any difficulties that it has in administering its properties. I think that a select committee will have a bit of work to do to make sure that the technical detail of the bill is right. I know that several of my colleagues have mentioned how lucky the private sector—the independent schools—is in not having national standards imposed on it by the National Government. But that is OK; on this occasion the issue is about whether the administration of the property vested in the college is such that it is able to meet the originally intended purpose. That is why we will support this bill being referred to a select committee. We look forward to working on it. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I want just to recap. As we have heard Christ’s College is one of the oldest schools in New Zealand. It was established to provide education for the sons of settlers of the Church of England colony of Christchurch. In 1855 Parliament passed the Christ’s College ordinance which incorporates the deed of foundation incorporating Christ’s College Canterbury as a body corporate having perpetual succession. 
The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill that we have been debating today will amend the 1910 Act to authorise the governing body of the college to apply property in certain circumstances to the benefit of the college even though that is not the original purpose of the bequest. I will go through those circumstances: if the original purpose has become wholly or in part redundant if it is uncertain as to application if it is impractical to implement or if the property generates income that is inadequate to or in excess of the amount necessary for those purposes. We heard from John Boscawen how difficult such circumstances are for boards of governors to deal with. 
Let me make it clear: the board wishes to ensure that the objectives of the trust continue to be met unless they are impossible. We have heard tonight that many bequests can no longer be used effectively for their original purposes. The interesting and most common example given by the college is a bequest by an old boy to make sure that left-handed guns were available for cadets in training. Obviously the old boy was a left hander who had trouble with the right-handed guns at cadets and he wanted to make sure that no other boy had to put up with that. Nowadays of course there is no cadet training at college. Other examples include the 1919 gift—so the gifts go back right to the establishment of Christ’s College; Maria Somes was the first benefactor of the college—to provide bursaries for the sons of soldiers. I noted that the bursaries were for the sons of those who had fallen or suffered as part of the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces in World War I or World War II or for the sons of the members of various forces of the British Empire who had served in the Great War. 
We have talked about orphans and about Christchurch orphanages that no longer exist. We have talked about sports events that do not happen anymore and subjects like Latin that are no longer taught. It has become virtually impossible to meet the criteria of many of these funds. In the trusts where there is too little or too much money stipulated the board would like to have the power to adjust those figures so that purposeful scholarships as close as possible to the original may be awarded. 
Under present legislation where it is not possible to use bequests the money continues to just accumulate in the college’s accounts without being spent. This does nothing to benefit the college or the students despite the donors’ intention. Several speakers tonight have sought additional safeguards in the management of these requests but I remind them that under the 1910 Act that we are seeking to amend Parliament gave the board wide powers in relation to the administration of those funds—far more significant college funds and assets than those we are asking for the power to administer tonight. In that debate in 1910 the Hon Mr Jones said he hoped that “the gentlemen entrusted with the charge of these endowments would realise the responsibility that rested on them.” 
One hundred years on we can see that Parliament’s trust has been well rewarded. The gentlemen of the board have governed prudently and well and the college has prospered. Today a century later I ask for similar support from this Parliament. This time I believe that there is even more reason to trust the governing body which will have a far lesser responsibility. In 2010 the warden of the school is the Bishop of Christchurch the Rt Rev Victoria Matthews and the chairperson of the board is Mrs Mary Ross. I believe that they and the other lady members of the governing body can with the gentlemen of the board be absolutely entrusted with the managing of the school’s funds successfully for the next 100 years. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.