Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill

I move, That the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill be now read a first time. I will nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. Christian Churches New Zealand is an association of more than 30 congregations that began in Nelson in 1844. I have the privilege, as the local MP, to sponsor this private bill, which enables these Christian churches to modernise its property trust board.

The Christian Churches movement began in the early 1800s in both the UK and the US, out of concern that the more traditional churches were too rigid and authoritarian. Their focus was on unity and teachings of the New Testament. The church grew rapidly in New Zealand from its Nelson beginnings, soon after which the nation was formed with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. New congregations were formed in Auckland in 1845, in Dunedin in 1858, and in Christchurch in 1870, and by 1885 they had grown to 25 churches across the country. I am particularly proud of the strength and contribution of the six churches in the Nelson region: the Unite Church in the city, the Annesbrook Church in Stoke, the Church of Christ in Richmond, the Alive Church of Christ in Motueka, and the Church of Christ in Tākaka.

In my work previously, as the MP for Tasman and the MP for Nelson, I have seen in person the huge contribution these churches have made in working with youth, in supporting family members in their time of bereavement and in supporting families in hardship, and that generosity has spread well beyond just those members in their fellowship. The churches have grown strongly over that time, and I have been the benefactor of some of that growth. Twenty years ago the Annesbrooke Church congregation in Stoke outgrew its premises and built a wonderful new complex in Saxton Road. I purchased their old hall and church manse for my electorate office and home. The media at the time joked that it was probably my best prospect of becoming a Minister—by purchasing a church. I do recall at that time my dealings with the church property trust members and I was impressed with their honesty and with the integrity of that transaction.

The reason for this bill is that the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929, which governs the management of these church properties, is outdated and needs modernising. It is a private bill and does not impact on any other people’s property. I have met with all of the churches concerned at their annual conference and noted their strong support for this sensible reform. The bill dissolves the existing trust, repeals the existing Act, and transfers all properties to a new, standard charitable trust under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. It ensures that all the legal obligations of the old trust transfers to the new. It also transfers all of the properties from the old to the new. It is worthwhile noting the history of the current Act in setting out the planned future governance of these church properties.

Initially, each of the church properties was vested in each autonomous congregation in the name of church elders. This was not entirely practical, and in the 1920s the conference of churches decided to have a legal entity that could own all the properties. The legal entity was incorporated as the Church Extension and Property Trust Board of Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand. There was some doubt then about the legal capacity of the board to hold all those properties vested within it, so the private Act was passed by this Parliament in 1929.

A new trust was formed after agreement at the 2013 conference of the churches, but this bill is required to execute the transfer. The new trust has interim trustees and has appointed a solicitor, Mr Viesturs Altments, whom I have worked with. I pay tribute to him for his work in bringing this bill to the House. The key difference enabled by this trust change is that the new trust has a wider reference. Whereas the 1929 Act has limited the assets to be used only for property purposes and any properties sold would be able to be used only for that purpose, the new Act and trust would enable the assets to be used for the wider mission and outreach work of the associated churches. The churches resolved in 2012 also to change their name from the Churches of Christ to Christian Churches New Zealand.

I am of the Christian faith and hold huge respect for the role churches play in our communities in the development of our society. I cannot speak for all of the 40 congregations across New Zealand, but I am a strong admirer of the work of these Christian churches in my home community of Nelson. This Parliament should support this quite sensible reform of its property governance structure. I did note, somewhat jokingly, from my colleague the Attorney-General that he would be fronting an amendment to enable the churches to be able to return to the true faith in Rome. I am hoping that other colleagues will take a more charitable and Christian perspective.

I do note the degree to which Christian Churches New Zealand is already engaged internationally with the wider family of churches, and many of the parishes in New Zealand—10 of them, in fact—are union churches involved in partnerships with other denominations. This bill is simply about letting these 40 churches more flexibly manage their own property, and I commend it to the House.

I call Stuart Nash.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, excellent choice.

A wise—actually, not—choice. Look, we support this bill. It seems like it is a very non-contentious bill. I note, as the previous speaker, the Minister Nick Smith, stated, that the bill replaces the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929. Whenever I see this sort of bill, which really is non-contentious and, basically, just changes the legal structure under which assets are held, I always have just one question—and I think the Minister answered this, but it is one that has to be asked—and that is whether all the members of all the parishes actually agreed to the change of structure. Obviously, there are legal implications from changing the structure, even though I note that the new trust, under the bill we are talking about now, will still be bound by all of the deals, contracts, and obligations of the old trust. In fact, it appears, reading through the bill, that very little will change except the actual name. Again, we just need to know that every parish member, or every parish that is part of this, actually agreed to this. I think the Minister alluded to that.

I also note that things change over 85 years. Back in 1929 who knew what was going to be happening in 2015? They set up a structure 85 years ago to meet the times, and times have changed. It is quite interesting, and I have reflected on that. Obviously, the country was in the grip of a recession in 1929; there was record unemployment, and people were worried about their jobs, their future, their children, and their families. Although some things change a lot in 85 years, some things do not change either. We are still in a period, 85 years later, where we have record unemployment, where we have a global financial crisis, where people are still worried about their future, where we have a commission for work because we do not know what work is going to look like. So although much changes, a lot does not change.

We are supporting this bill. It is a non-contentious bill. It is sensible. I doubt that all the property is going to be returned to Rome. Is there such a thing as a true church?

💬 Tim Macindoe: Your great-grandfather would have liked it.

Yes, Walter was a lay preacher, actually. He believed in this. In fact, he was what you would call a Christian democrat, as opposed to a social democrat.

💬 Tim Macindoe: He’d be proud of you.

He would be very proud—a lay preacher; there is no doubt about that. He was in Parliament in 1929, so he probably spoke on this very legislation all those years ago. Minister Smith, you can nod if you like—you are not concentrating. I sort of expect that from Nick Smith. We support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to rise in support of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill, and what an empowering piece of legislation it is. I would like to start in the same vein as the Hon Nick Smith and acknowledge the work that the associated churches do. Whether you are Christian or not, their work in the ministry and bringing people together and engaging in their community is admirable and it deserves commendation.

As we have heard, this bill is a tidy-up bill. The existing legislation is terribly old and is not a vehicle that is fit for purpose for the associated churches. It is out of date, it has old language, and, basically, the churches cannot manage their resources appropriately in this modern-day world. They are more than just a venue—churches—albeit that churches still have a place in our communities as a venue, but they need to be able to deal with their resources appropriately in order to deal with the programmes that they have with regard to helping youth to engage in communities and to engage with people, to make them feel hopefully more loved and more integral in a community that can sometimes be quite a lonely place when you live in an age of TVs, the internet, and things like that, and you just crave some human contact. This bill will dissolve the old board and transfer the property to the new board. As part of that, the bill gives the board the power to use its resources appropriately and enrich communities.

There is an associated church in Invercargill, which is the Freedom Community Centre, in the Glengarry area. The building is well known and plays an integral part in the Glengarry-Richmond community. I too praise the work of the trustees at that church in building a community and enriching the lives of children, mothers and fathers, and the elderly. It is integral in that community and has done some extremely good work.

As for matters that will not be affected—although the bill provides for the dissolution of the old board and transfer of its property, the obligations to the new board are not to be treated as placing a person in breach of, or default under, any contract or in breach of any trust, and are not to be treated as entitling a person to terminate, cancel, or modify any contract. So these are administrative things that will not occur. The transfer will not entitle a person to enforce or accelerate the performance of any obligation of an existing contract, require the performance of an obligation not otherwise arising for performance—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Can I remind the member that just reading the bill out is not actually debating it—OK? Thank you.

Back to the purpose of the bill, anyway—it is to enrich the lives of people, through the vehicle of the new bill, to allow the trustees to deal with their property more appropriately and to invest in activities that are not just at the venue of the church.

So, with regard to that, I think this is going to be an excellent bill, given that the previous Act is old. They need this vehicle to make the change, to move on into the 21st century in dealing with their property. We support this bill. With regard to the Freedom Community Centre in Invercargill, I know it will be very pleased to have this in place. I commend this bill to the House.

I am pleased to take a very brief call on this bill. I suspect I am one of the many people in the House who perhaps were not aware of the existence of this organisation. It is perhaps one of those interesting little statutory anomalies that pop up from time to time. Clearly it now appears to be necessary for a legislative instrument to rename, I guess, to remake, a trust board that has existed since about 1929.

It was interesting reading the history behind this bill. Genuinely, I have recently been reading a book called Bible & Treaty: Missionaries Among the Māori—A New Perspective, which talks about the influence of the early missionaries in Northland, especially around Pēwhairangi. It is a good reminder, in fact, that the churches were part of the fabric of our culture—our shared culture—over many years and indeed, still are, albeit perhaps in a different and arguably somewhat less persuasive form.

We have read the bill, obviously; we have had a look through it. We are persuaded that it is a well-drafted piece of legislation. The responsibilities, rights, obligations, contractual arrangements, and so on of the existing board carry forward to the new arrangement, and that is as it should be. We see nothing in the bill to suggest any malice or anything other than a pragmatic response to a situation that has emerged over nearly 100 years, so we are very happy to support this bill.

I am happy to take a call. I have to say that I did get some very good-natured ribbing from my colleagues when I was picked to speak on this bill, as I am a Catholic boy who was born and raised on the North Shore and schooled at Rosmini College. I grew up in the parish of St John’s in Mairangi Bay. But I am very happy to speak to this bill.

I want to acknowledge the Minister Nick Smith because if there was any Minister who was going to sponsor a bill, be passionate about it, and make sure that it travelled safely through its passage in this House it would be the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I was very pleased to see that one of the churches—[Interruption] Sorry, what was that, Ruth?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: You need to repeat them. He’s not listening.

No, he got it—do not worry. He knows. I am very pleased to point out and acknowledge one of the churches—and it is really pleasing to see that the churches are spread right throughout the country. So although the bill has been sponsored by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, it is actually relevant for a good part of New Zealand. One of the churches is the Mairangi Bay Community Church, which I know very well. It does terrific work in our communities. It is really pleasing to see that what this bill is going to do is allow it to use its assets for a much wider outreach in terms of the work, the services, and the care that it is going to be able to deliver into the communities that it serves. Of course, this relates to all the churches and the Christian centres that are going to be affected by the bill. So I am very, very happy to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

New Zealand First also has no objection to this bill and will be pleased to vote for it. I see that the matter has had quite a long history and that initially church property for the various churches concerned was held in the names of elders of the congregations. You can understand the practical difficulties that might have arisen from that and that did, in fact, occur, resulting in new legislation in 1908 when a board was incorporated under the Religious, Charitable, and Educational Trusts Act 1908.

But even then it did not solve the problem, because I see there were doubts as to the board’s ability to legally hold the properties vested in it and that a private Act of Parliament was necessary and was enacted. That was the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929, which did contain a provision defining the trusts upon which the board was to hold the real estate and, indeed, other property concerns. So it took rather a long time even to get to that position, which is quite extraordinary.

But, of course, even now it is not a satisfactory situation because over the years, as you would expect, a number of church properties have been sold and the proceeds of that have to be invested and then applied for the purposes of the trust. As it has transpired, of course, the legislation and the definition of the powers—especially the administrative powers under those trusts—have not been adequately set out. So we now find that there is wording that does create significant doubt about how the funds can indeed be applied. That is the matter that this bill specifically addresses.

I also see that the churches have had a conference back in 2013. They have formed a new trust. Real and personal property held by the board now needs to be transferred to that trust, and the specific terms of new trusts need to be properly set out. That is what the bill provides for—those two things: the transfer of the property, and provisions to widen the administrative powers of the trustees so that they can apply to property, especially the proceeds of sale of church property for the purposes of the trust. It has been determined that such a transfer would require a further Act of Parliament for the purpose.

The terms of the new trust are wider than in the previous legislation. They will allow the churches to consider their wider mission and outreach, not only in terms of buildings but also in using their funds for other activities of the churches. New Zealand First certainly approves of both of those objectives: the updating of the legislation to ensure that for this day and age the church property can be held under a new trust with new legislation, and wider powers to create the administrative ability that the trustees need to properly administer those funds and that property for the purposes of the churches involved.

So it remains only for New Zealand First to congratulate the churches and the trustees involved and to wish them well in their future endeavours in the administration of this property under the new Act and with those new powers.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill. I have to say there is a bit of a love-in going on today. There are Catholics and Anglicans getting together like they never have done in history. My history in this may be limited, but there was a time when they would greet each other with stick implements and fire and do bodily damage. I would say that if they could extend this fellowship and bonhomie to heathen atheists like me, we would be singing “Kumbaya” before we knew it.

But I would just like to talk to the bill, if I might. What I would say is that the reason we are here to talk about this is just an illustration that needs, requirements, and situations evolve over time. So if we look at the private Act that exists, that is in force today, the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929, it is a very, very valid and good piece of legislation for its time. That was a time when over 30 congregations came into an association under Christian Churches New Zealand and looked to pull property under a trust so that they could continue their social good and charitable acts across not only their own congregations but, in fact, across the public of New Zealand.

At the time I understand that a lot of the property was held in the names of the elders of those churches. Any view on governance would suggest that that would hold some real challenges in terms of what we would today call best-practice governance. So that association put together a trust structure to help manage those property assets and govern those property assets in a more appropriate manner. In the sense of giving legal certainties of the day, that led towards the Act that exists and that we are not only amending but going to repeal if this bill goes through.

At the time it removed risks that there could be legal challenges to the rights of that association or that trust to hold those property assets, which would in turn provide the foundation for the charitable works that they would do. We have a bit of a converse but related issue now, and that is the case that the churches have in fact disposed of some of those assets over time. They may, in fact, wish to do more of that. Doing that would not only be possible or desirable; it could actually be a far better use of the money or the proceeds gained, to use them in a different form to support the charitable and good works they do in society.

At the moment there is a real concern—a real concern—that if the churches liquidate some physical real estate property held under the Act as it stands today, they must replace that with real estate assets to use those proceeds, whereas it might be better for them to use the cash and provide charitable works in another way.

So what we are doing, as well as modernising the situation and bringing it in line with other trust practices across our society, is making sure that this association of churches that does good work in our society is not going to be placed at risk of legal challenge for the good work that it does simply because of some archaic provisions, which at the time were very, very valid but which, I would argue, are outdated now.

I think, as other members have raised in the House, there is a very, very strong presumption that the funds received from the current assets can be used only in real estate and that they cannot be used as cash assets for other purposes. So the action we will take as we proceed through the stages of the bill will certainly give greater flexibility to this association of churches to do the work that it does.

I think it is important to note though that although we will be making some modernising changes, we are being very careful to ensure that all of the rights, responsibilities, and obligations that exist under the existing obligations, particularly in respect of honouring leases or the management thereof, or any contracts that might be held—potentially things such as maintenance contracts on existing property—will remain in force and that the association will be obliged to continue to honour those. That is a very important thing. We are not about breaking something here; we are about modernising it and giving it some flexibility, but also maintaining fundamental good governance. So I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

I am happy to make a short contribution on this particular bill. As my colleague Stuart Nash said earlier, there does not appear to be any controversy with the bill and the information therein. It is, basically, straightforward. It is a transfer of all rights, obligations, and contractual arrangements from the old board to the new board. It is dissolving the old board, under the legislation, and removing it from the register of charitable trusts. The third point is that it is repealing the legislation that was the basis for the old board.

The only thing that I would raise at this early stage and suggest that the select committee could, I believe, look at is that the bill does not make any reference to the trust deed. It does not make any reference to how the members of that trust will be elected. It does not make any reference to whether the trust deed will be changed; yet, in the explanatory note it makes reference to the fact that the old board was set up, essentially, for property purposes—for real estate. The new board wants now to expand its obligations, and so I think—particularly with the chair of the Government Administration Committee here—that that is an area that I hope that members of the association may want to enlighten the committee on.

I want to acknowledge the fact that the churches, or whoever drafted the legislation, have provided a fairly comprehensive history of the organisation. It is wonderful to note the wonderful work that they have done, not only in New Zealand but also on an international level. But I think we owe it to the wider membership to have a little bit of a better look at those things, and I am hopeful that the people who make submissions to the select committee process will raise that.

The final point that I would make is that I find it really interesting that on occasions such as this, we have members on the Government benches revealing their Christian backgrounds. I am hopeful that by their revealing those, they acknowledge the work that church organisations are doing right at this very moment. They are dealing with the very difficult issues that people are facing the length and breadth of New Zealand. When members reveal their Christian backgrounds or their affiliation, I hope that they take note of the struggles that the church organisations are having to deal with, in particular the housing crisis and a range of other difficult tasks that people are dealing with. When members raise these issues, I want to remind them that they have an obligation to minimise the inequality that their policies have caused. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to talk to the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill 2015. Fundamentally, as has been said, this is a bill that empowers the transfer of property from an old board to a new board. I thought it might be kind of interesting to maybe look at the first property that the church acquired to give a bit of background to that, and then bring it forward into modern days.

On 2 March 1844 the first Churches of Christ preacher in Wellington came from Scotland—Thomas Jackson, actually—and his first converts were Thomas Butler, James Barton, Thomas Magarey, Charles Nichol and wife, John Batt and wife, George Taylor, whom I will come back to, and John Griffiths. In 1844 they had no trained ministry; they were all lay people. In fact, they followed the British churches’ formula, if you like, which had lay people preaching. So they ministered their faith using borrowed periodicals. Why I mention George Taylor is that it was very fortuitous that when he came from Yorkshire he brought a whole lot of British periodicals with him. Subsequently the congregation reached out to James Wallis in Nottingham and Alexander Campbell in the USA, who regularly sent theological periodicals for the burgeoning faith to use. A few years later in an economic depression the church actually discontinued, and then it recommenced in 1879 with a total of 13 members. As you will see, over the next 50 years it actually got to a maximum of 4,900, but I will come to that.

In 1883 here is the church’s first building, its first property, now Hocton hall. The land was donated and it paid £350. So here is one of the properties that are being transferred from the old board to the new board, Hocton hall. After that the church had rapid membership growth. In fact, no more than 2 or 3 years later it had 25 churches and 1,238 members, and had engaged a full-time evangelist, Edward Lewis. If we could jump 50 years, if you like, I said the church’s highest membership was actually in 1938, when it had 4,962 members in New Zealand. That brings us through to today when, as it openly states, its membership is declining a bit, and may be around about 1,800. But I would like to look at some of the achievements of the Churches of Christ, as it was known as then. Of course, now it is the Christian Churches New Zealand. The name was changed in 2012.

If we look at some of the achievements of this organisation—firstly, it was represented at the first World Convention of Churches of Christ in 1930. Secondly, in 1955 the Churches of Christ became members of the Joint Standing Committee on Church Union. That had been set up by the congregational Methodist, Presbyterian, and Anglican churches. Thirdly, in 1940 it was a foundation member of the National Council of Churches in New Zealand and the World Council of Churches. Fourthly, it has had members who have been associates and the general secretary of the National Council of Churches, and one of its members was an executive director of the Christian World Service. Finally, some of its members have also been chaplains and exhibited leadership in a number of groups, including the Bible Society and the Leprosy Mission. In fact, it contributed some of the early missionaries to Southern Rhodesia in the late 1800s, which was, you know, a really good mission.

If we look today, as has been commented, the initial property was in the names of the elders of the congregations. Well, clearly that did not work in a modern world. In 1924 at a Dunedin conference the church formed a board, and all the property has since been authorised and held by the Churches of Christ under the Associated Churches of Christ Property Act 1929. That brings us to 2013 when the church reconfigured and formed a new entity, and a new structure was formed. It is that structure, that entity, that this Act authorises.

This bill vests property appropriately. It also says there is no breach in fiduciary duty from old to new. It also says there is no cancelling of existing contractual arrangements and, I think importantly and practically, there is no requirement for retrospective name corrections on any existing instruments. So I think this organisation has had a fine history and foundation in Nelson. I think it has contributed to New Zealand and around the world. I have no hesitation in recommending this bill to the House. Thank you.

Just to exercise my right of reply, I thank members from each of the parties for their contributions. I acknowledge the broad support in the House for this bill. I particularly welcome the reflection of the rich history of the Christian churches from my colleague Shane Reti, which I think reminds us of some of the struggles of the early people who founded our nation and their work as missionaries, both in New Zealand and overseas. As members of this House have noted, this bill is simply about allowing Christian Churches New Zealand to be able to modernise the governance of their properties. I welcome the ongoing work of the House, through the Government Administration Committee, to be able to progress this bill and enable Christian Churches New Zealand to have a more governance structure of their church properties across our country.

Bill read a first time.