Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill

I want to take some time to talk about the purpose clause of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill, because this is where the Government Administration Committee did the majority of its work. As previous speakers have outlined, we certainly understood as a committee why Christ’s College had come to us. It was in a position where it was not able to undertake a number of the activities it wanted to undertake. Money was locked up in trusts that the college was not able to use for the purposes it wanted to use them for, or, indeed, the trusts had generated significantly more income than they needed to achieve their purposes. It was difficult sometimes for the committee to work through the reasoning behind that, and I will highlight a couple of the trusts as examples.

There is the T H Lowry gift, which was to be applied for the encouragement of athletics and athletic sports in connection with the college. Obviously, athletics is still a sport, and it is still a sport that is competed in at Christ’s College, so it would perhaps seem odd not to be able to fulfil the purpose of that trust. But the college was able to tell us that it has a lot of other income and funds available for athletics and the income from the trust was exceeding what it could spend in a reasonable way. This is the area that the committee struggled with, because we felt that, presumably, there would be purposes related to athletics where the trust could be used in the future, but perhaps not at the levels mentioned.

A different example of a similar concern was the Ben Masefield Memorial gift, which is an annual prize for the most promising under-17-year-old member of the cadet corps or air training corps as at 31 December in a particular year. Cadets are probably completely off the scene in high schools in New Zealand nowadays. Certainly they are in respect of Christ’s College, so it would be very difficult to spend the—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Air training cadets.

Are air training cadets still going? Which schools still have the air training cadets?

💬 Jacqui Dean: Ōāmaru.

I ask the member whether that is in a school.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Yes.

I stand corrected by the member for Waitaki. Air training cadets are still in schools. The question is not so much whether air training cadets exist but whether schools still have them. I think we will find that Waitaki Boys High School and St Kevin’s College down there are probably not providing them, just as Christ’s College is now not providing them. But we could check, and I would be happy for Ms Dean to take a call at some point and let us know. I know she followed this bill extremely closely at the select committee, so it would not surprise me if she would like to take a call.

Those are just two trusts where the committee grappled with the fact that although we understood—

💬 Jacqui Dean: I think the member has covered the issue.

I thank the member for that.

The committee felt that we needed to make some changes to the purpose clause to be able to accept Christ’s College’s point but also to ensure that integrity was kept in terms of how money was distributed. The way in which the committee did that was to replace subsection 4 in new section 5—which is set out in clause 5—which lays out the criteria by which the college can change what it is doing with these trusts.

Subsection 4 states: “The circumstances are that—(a) it is impossible, impracticable, or inexpedient to apply the property for the purpose for which it was given to, or vested in, the College; or (b) the available amount of the property is inadequate to carry out the purpose for which the property was given to, or vested in, the College; or (c) the purpose for which the property was given to, or vested in, the College has already been carried out.” That was pretty much what the board of the college wanted when it came to us, but we wanted to add into that some more criteria, more guidance, for the college. So we added subsection 4A.

Subsection 4A states: “If the governing body is satisfied that the property given to, or vested in, the College is more than is necessary for the purpose for which it was given or vested, the governing body may apply any excess property for charitable purposes for the benefit of the College …”. The key phrase is “for charitable purposes for the benefit of the College”. So this is to keep it inside the same boundary by saying that the property will still be used for charitable purposes and for the benefit of the college.

The committee raised the question of what would happen one day if Christ’s College ends up with a commercial arm as part of its operations. Schools are evolving in all sorts of ways and that is possible. We asked whether we be comfortable with some of the proceeds of these gifts going into that kind of area. The committee decided that it was not and that the provision would be consistent with the Charities Act, and we put it in that kind of language. So that was an important addition to this part of the bill.

We also added subsection 4B, which states that in exercising the powers I have just outlined: “the governing body must apply the property for a purpose that is as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which the property was given to, or vested, in the College.” Again, we were trying to make sure that although it is quite clear, as David Parker said earlier, that there is not much Greek, divinity, or other such things being taught—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Divinity?

Divinity is probably still taught but not in Greek; that is the issue. We certainly understood that it would not be possible to do that, but we thought that it was in the spirit of the gifts that were given to the college that we should have a clause that obliges the college to put the gifts to purposes as close as reasonably possible to the original purpose.

So those are the amendments we made to new section 5(4), in clause 5. I think it is worthwhile outlining them, because, as I think I said in my second reading speech on this bill, private bills often sail through. This is an example of the committee taking its job seriously and recognising an issue. The governors of Christ’s College were extremely cooperative and understood what the committee was trying to do, and therefore they have gone along with this change. Private bills will not necessarily be waved through the House, and the amendments made are an example of that.

I take pleasure in speaking briefly to the purpose of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill and I will pick up the point that my colleague Grant Robertson made. Bills that come before this House that are small, are primarily technical, and, like this one, have only one submitter—the board itself whose trust deed is to be amended by this legislation was the only submitter, according to the report back from the Government Administration Committee—provide an occasion when the Committee of the whole House should take its responsibilities very seriously and ensure that the proposed changes do not just receive a sign-off from it.

I have thought about this legislation quite a lot. Even though it was proposed in good faith, the select committee has done good work on it and, I think, has amended it to restrict quite a lot the ability of the board to change the scope of bequests. If people leave in their will an amount of money to the school for a specific purpose and actually specify in that bequest the purpose for which they want to leave it, we can take it by implication that they do not want it to be spent on anything else. For example, people might say they would like to bequeath a lot of money to Christ’s College for political education on the ways of the labour movement in New Zealand. That is a possibility. At a future time the school might decide not to run a course on that any more; it might decide that it does not want it to operate at Christ’s College, in the same way that it no longer teaches divinity in Greek. Where does the authority come from for a group of people to say that because they do not teach that any more, they will use the bequest for an entirely different purpose?

That is actually the nub of what this legislation does. When a purpose is no longer in operation, is no longer fashionable, or the school does not pursue it any more, we as a Parliament have taken it upon ourselves to change the purpose for which a bequest, grant, or donation can be used. Obviously, it is quite an extreme position that one would literally alter the nature of the purpose, but that was actually proposed in the original version of the bill. I commend the select committee for the way that it considered the responsibility of Parliament. David Parker has contributed to the debate already tonight, and I commend his chairing of the select committee, and also the other members, who I understand contributed in a bipartisan way—only two parties are represented on that committee—to make sure that this bill received the rigour of scrutiny that it deserved.

Later on in this debate, when we look through clause 5, we will see that unanimous amendments have been made. In new section 5, subsections (4), (4A), and (4B) are entirely new. I want the Committee to give particular attention to that area, because that is where the select committee, by unanimous agreement, said Parliament was potentially handing over too much power, and it might well be an abrogation of the responsibility that we have as a Parliament to ensure that the original intention of the donation, gift, or bequest to the school is carried out. The select committee has narrowed the ability of the board to entirely alter the purpose of a donation, so that it cannot be used for a different purpose. It is very similar to the way that the powers of an enduring power of attorney are able to be applied: so that the specific purpose, the understanding, and the intent of a person—whether or not it is stated—are carried out. I commend the select committee for its diligence, and I look forward to the bill progressing later on this evening.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Procedure