Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) ChurchProperty Trust Bill

I move, That the Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Bill be now read a second time. I am delighted with the work done on this short bill of long gestation by our Commerce Committee. I am pleased to be able to commend the bill as now amended back to the House. The legislation has a simple purpose: to consolidate and modernise the legislation relating to the property of the Anglican Church in the diocese of Christchurch. As such, it really is a successor to a number of provincial government ordinances and 10 Acts of Parliament ranging from 1854 through to 1990.

The bill has three key features—to consolidate and amend the enactments relating to the Church Property Trustees, to widen those trustees’ powers of investment, and to apply the variation of trust provisions in the Anglican Church Trusts Act to trusts under the Act. The select committee focused on what one could regard as the modern elements that we need to look at in any piece of legislation. It proposed a series of amendments, all of which have the support of the sponsors of the bill. Firstly, the definition of the term “spouse” is changed in order to ensure that it includes a de facto partner, secondly, there is an amendment to exclude the bishop of the diocese from meetings where matters in which the bishop has a personal interest arise, and thirdly, clause 51 is amended to acknowledge that the Church Property Trustees continues to be an authorised trust board. I thank the committee for its work, and on that basis I commend the bill as reported back from the Commerce Committee to the House.

I rise just to say that the National Party will support this bill through its stages.

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.

United Future will be supporting this important bill on both its second and third readings, and this will be the only call that we will take on the bill. I have worked for an archdiocese myself for about the last 18 years, so I am pretty familiar with matters of church property and with church trusts. I think the bill makes very good sense, and I am sure it will enable the Church Property Trustees to continue their important work on behalf of the Anglican diocese of Christchurch, and to ensure that its funds are well invested. The bill generally updates the existing legislation and, if one likes, modernises it to represent the conditions that exist in 2003. All of that I am very, very happy with.

The only real comment I would make on the bill relates to a paragraph in the commentary on the bill as reported from the Commerce Committee that deals with the definition of the term “spouse”. The commentary states: “We recommend that the bill be amended to ensure the definition of ‘spouse’ includes a de facto partner as defined in section 2C of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.” I think that is complete and utter nonsense. We are talking here about the wife or husband of a bishop, of an auxiliary bishop, or of another member of the Anglican clergy designated by the bishop to benefit from the operation of this trust. I think that that amendment is an example of politically correct madness.

The Anglican diocese need not be intimidated if it wants to put the word “spouse” in this bill. The word “spouse” is used in many current Acts that have been enacted by this Parliament. I have no particular problem with the suggestion of putting that amendment in, but the trustees should not be intimidated by that, and if they want to used the word “spouse”, then that is great. I will continue to use the word “spouse” in this House while I am here. It has a meaning that is well defined; it relates to marriage. I think that particularly when we are dealing with a church bill, we need to remember that marriage has two factors. One is the civil union of a man and a woman. The other meaning is the sacramental dimension of marriage. One would therefore expect the Anglican church, of all people, to want to use that word, because it conforms not only to the civil law of this country but also, if one likes, to the canon law of the church itself and the high regard in which it holds marriage—defined clearly to mean a lifelong union between a male and a female.

That is my only comment on the bill, and I say United Future will support it.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading