Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill

I rise to take a call on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I stand here on behalf of the Minister, the Hon Nick Smith, who is not able to be here, unfortunately. He sends his apologies. He is actually at a conference on fresh water, working with different iwi in consultation. I stand on his behalf in the chair during this Committee stage, just to bring the remarks in.

This bill has gone through the select committee deliberations. The Government Administration Committee was unanimous in its support. We can see that it is a bill that really just makes some minor technical changes, and, in particular, I suppose in a sense there is the responsibility of perpetuity for Christian Churches New Zealand, which is a body of 30 different congregations throughout New Zealand that has been in existence since 1929. Its role, in particular for this bill, is the investiture of assets from the association into the new trust board, which, in effect, will still allow it to fulfil its role of stewardship in this regard. Although each of the congregations is autonomous, they do have conferences that allow them to come together to discuss things in common, things of interest that are important to them, and, especially, their roles of responsibility in this regard.

When we think about the roles in clause 3, where it talks about the “new board”, the bill will allow the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Inc. to take on this role from the “old board”, which means the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board. These properties are important. They are important because it does allow for these autonomous Churches to be able to meet some of the needs, both spiritual and practical.

I have previously been a pastor of a Church, a small local Church that operated in that way. It was important to have a facility that could allow for the congregation to meet, to exercise its principled values of faith on a Sunday. But then also on the other days, Monday through to Friday, and even on a Saturday, Churches like this will have things such as budgeting services held on their properties. They will have kindergartens held on their properties. This is all to do with the properties at hand and the use of those properties, which enable them to be able to exercise their roles of responsibility.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s the weakest filibuster I’ve ever heard.

Although the member over there may be talking about the weakness of this exercise, having actually been a pastor of a Church, I know the importance of having such a facility and the roles of that facility that allow it to be able to do that.

The bill is simple in its intent. However, it is important in its roles of responsibility. So we believe that this bill is important. It will allow the boards to be able to have those roles of responsibility in meeting those needs. I know that—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Sit down now. You’ve proved you’ve never read the bill.

—there have been times in which there may have been common and small things—maybe to the member who is interjecting over there they may not mean much but, I have to say, to the members of those congregations it means a lot. It means a lot because they can exercise some of those responsibilities. There may be small knitting groups. I know that there were groups that used to knit for young mothers, whether it be little booties or little jackets, and so forth. So those things are really important, because the property provided a facility for them to be able to exercise this role of responsibility. So I think it is important that we acknowledge the role that the board is playing, which again will still allow for the stewardship of these Churches and their congregations in the exercise of this for their properties as well.

There is also a sense in the bill, in Part 1, where it talks about the purpose—and the purpose is the transfer of all the existing property, interests, powers, and obligations of the old board into the new board. That, technically, becomes important. I know that there are times when there are conflicts.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: You’re scared of members’ bills.

People talk about politics in the House, like the politicking that is happening at the moment, but politics even happens in Churches, where there is a disagreement about the property, the roles of the property, or who should be in charge. So opportunities like this become important—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chairman, we’re in Committee.

Oh, thank you to the member for correcting us. That was probably the most positive statement that the member has made during the speech, and I appreciate that from that member. So I believe it is important that this bill takes its role of responsibility.

I want to say that this is a very narrow bill. I have it in front of me. It is not a wide-ranging debate, and I will ask members in future calls—we are on clauses 3 and 4—to just concentrate specifically on clauses 3 and 4, otherwise I will terminate the speeches.

It is a pleasure for me to rise and take this short call on Part 1 of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. In some ways this is my swansong for the Government Administration Committee, which this bill came to. It was referred to our committee for submissions to be heard, and we had two submitters. I really do enjoy the camaraderie, actually, of the Government Administration Committee. It is a hung committee. It is bipartisan, and it was a very, very good process that we ran in respect of this bill, and it is now a pleasure to have a say in the Committee of the whole House.

In respect of Part 1, obviously clauses 3 and 4 cover the interpretation and the purpose of the bill. I will start with the purpose of the bill, which is that it repeals the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929, an Act that came into force in 1929 and established a board, a congregation of Churches, that came together for the purposes of holding real property. What they found over time, with the evolution of the ministry, was that they needed more powers to deal with the property that they held. When they looked at the Act they found that it did not properly set out the powers that allowed them to do that—which was their obligation—and, therefore, they needed to change that situation in order to sell their property, take the proceeds, and use those proceeds appropriately in their ministry. So this bill repeals the 1929 Act and establishes a new board that allows them to do that. The new trust board is established under a charitable trust deed—which is comprehensive—under existing trust laws and gives them those wide-ranging powers to enable them to deal with their property.

I want to talk about the 30 congregations across the country that belong to the Christian Churches New Zealand group. There is one in Invercargill, which I am very pleased about, and it too carries out different ministry programmes in Invercargill that have a good social benefit for my constituents. Whether you are religious, Christian—spiritual, or not—the values that they teach are very good in life, and that should be acknowledged and celebrated.

I myself am an Anglican. I do not belong to the specific Church that I am talking about here, the Christian Churches group, but, certainly, if you look throughout time from the 1929 Act at what these groups of Churches were doing compared with what Church groups do now, you can see that the ministry has evolved. I myself have certainly enjoyed learning about theology and the faith and the values that are taught throughout biblical study, and learning on an academic level almost about that faith and how you can apply it to your life and work it into your values as you walk through life.

Moving back to Part 1, clause 3, “Interpretation”, is a very clear interpretation clause, which narrows down the definition of the “new board”. It means the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board. The “old board” refers to the board established under the 1929 Act, which is the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board. Then it goes on to define the property. So the property that we are talking is real property, money, and also any land registered under the old board’s name.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. In Part 1, as my colleague has mentioned, under clause 3, “Interpretation”, we see here that a core part, if you will, of this bill is the definition of “property”. What we are doing here is we are simply defining it as meaning every type of property, and that will include, as set out in 3(b)(i), “every type of estate and interest in property; and … (ii) money; and (iii) all land registered in the name of the old board under the Land Transfer Act 1952:”. That really comes to the heart of why we are having this legislation.

💬 Chris Bishop: Why is that?

Well, the challenge that we now are faced with in a world that is so many decades after the initial trust and powers were put in place is that originally the value and assets of the trust were all in property, and it was thought that was the only real value of those assets that could be used—that it was all about providing property and facilities for the works the Christian Churches New Zealand does. The trust now finds itself some many decades later having to face challenges in today’s world where, if it has got some property—some building or some facilities somewhere—that may be all well and good in that they have a monetary value, but if it cannot actually realise that monetary value, that monetary asset, in some way, it can find itself constrained from actually delivering the services to the constituents that the trust actually existed for in the first place. So with this interpretation, we will make it clear that property, for the purposes of this legislation, is any form of property in the name of the trust. By doing so—as the other provisions, which we will get to, will permit—it will mean that no longer will property have to be physical real estate or buildings, and therefore the trust will have the power to change one asset to another form of asset.

For instance, the trust could sell property and gain a cash asset. As we know on this side of the Chamber, that is a very powerful ability. This Government, in its forward-thinking views, took the same approach into the last election through the mixed-ownership model, and said that it is better for New Zealand, in some instances, to convert a physical property asset into a cash asset and then use that cash for things that are more meaningful for New Zealanders today and into the future, through the Future Investment Fund. It is one that is seeing schools built, hospitals built, and ultra-fast broadband and the Rural Broadband Initiative.

What we saw was that if you simply limited property to physical property, and plant and machinery in the case of those particular mixed-ownership models, then you constrain choices—you can constrain the services you provide and the good you can do. By taking such a broad definition of “property”, what we are permitting and enabling in this legislation is that the new trust will be in a position to make decisions today and into the future that will permit it to deliver the best-possible outcomes and services to its constituents. We are actually empowering a new trust to be relevant today and into the future.

Along with this, in clause 4 we are also making it clear, to help give effect to this, that the purpose of this enabling legislation is to “transfer all of the existing property, interests, powers, and obligations of the old board;”, dissolve that board, and repeal the old property Act. What we are basically saying is that anything that was held by that trust will now come under the auspices and authority and power of the new trust, along with any associated obligations, and we will dissolve the old legislation.

One point I would make, because I think it is relevant to the idea of repealing the old Act, and indeed of dissolving the old board, is that the Government Administration Committee questioned the officials as we went through the consideration of this bill. We asked: if we have come to a point where old legislation is no longer valid, how do we ensure that the new legislation doesn’t suffer the same fate at some point in the future? Why do we not just use general law, general trust law, to manage this new trust and incorporate it in? Why do we not have a sunset clause so that this particular empowering bill would just cease after a period of time, and the new trust, the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board, would just be completely under the auspices of the Charitable Trusts Act? Unfortunately, we did not really get the answers we were seeking, but I think it was a very valid question for the committee to ask. It shows that we are taking a forward look—

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. In this Committee stage debate on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill, I just want to start by saying that clause 3 is a very, very sensible clause.

This bill updates the framework that the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board will operate in, to make it far more relevant to the 21st century environment. Clause 3, “Interpretation”, clarifies the meaning and the difference between the new board and the old board. This is important because there have been changes in the real world that make some of the previous legislation meaningless. For instance, the Associated Churches of Christ no longer exists, and this is laid out very clearly. The old board, the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board, no longer exists. That institution changed its name some time ago. It is now the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board, and it will be regularised, as my colleague Brett Hudson referred to, bringing the arrangements for governing the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, like what the vast majority of other Church-held property would be registered under. In fact, the vast majority of charitable trusts—full stop—are regularised under that general law, rather than requiring their own particular individual legislation. That does, to some extent, futureproof the organisation against the changes that it will face in the coming years.

The very practical example of how this will play out was given by my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he spoke about this bill in its first reading in the House. In his own area of Nelson he is now the proud owner or, I suppose, the landlord of property that was once part of the Church of Christ Property Trust Board—the Annesbrook Church, which now forms his electorate office—and, in fact, it was outgrown by its congregation. So that was a positive sign for the Church of Christ. It actually managed to outgrow the buildings in which it was based, allowing them to be disposed of to Dr Nick Smith, so that he could put his home and his electorate office into that property. It moved to a new complex in Saxton Road.

This particular clause of the legislation does clarify that every type of property, and real estate in particular, that is held by the Churches is able to be transferred—to be disposed of. Their existing powers remain. But there is another important word here that I want to refer to. In clause 4, “Purpose”, it also talks about the “obligations”. My colleagues have focused primarily on the property rights and interests of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board, but actually there are obligations. So, for instance, where debts may be owing on properties, where there are other conditions that need to be abided by, by the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board, those obligations will continue to remain. By defining that very clearly and outlining that those obligations of the old board are transferred to the new board, we will not end up with the problematic situation where the assets are moved across but the liabilities are kept with the old board, once it is dissolved.

The powers of the board—this is also important. The board must be able to conduct its business. It must remain the master of its own destiny. So it is retaining the existing powers—not adding any additional powers, and not removing powers, but retaining the existing powers of the board—along with the obligations and along with the interests in the property, whilst it does. transfer to the new board, which, I think, is particularly important. Just on a technical level, that land will be registered in the name of the new board under the Land Transfer Act 1952. So, effectively, the name on the title will transfer across—that is in clause 3(b)(iii) of this particular part of the legislation. It is very well drafted. It is very clear. It is short and crisp, but excellent.

I am very happy too to take a call on Part 1 of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I am disappointed. I would have expected the chair of our Government Administration Committee, Ruth Dyson, to take a call and speak about this, because I noticed that when the member in the chair, Alfred Ngaro, was standing and giving an introduction on the bill, there was some strong interjection. There appeared to be a lot of emotion. It appears that she is upset about something. I would encourage her to stand up and take a call. I think that is important.

I would like to acknowledge the member in the chair. I think it is very appropriate that he is in the chair, covering for the Hon Nick Smith. I want to acknowledge the Hon Nick Smith. He brought this bill to the House, in support of his constituents. Of course it has a far-reaching effect, because we have Churches from the far north to the far south, including the member’s own electorate, that are affected by this bill. So it is a very good one. I also want to acknowledge the member in the chair because he has got personal experience of having run his own Church and ministry inside both west Auckland and South Auckland. So he has got real-life experience of the work that these Churches do—the important work that these Churches do—in their communities.

Thank you, Mr Chair, if you will bear with me, I will come back to Part 1—you are right. I just wanted to very quickly talk about the effect that this bill has, from the far north—and I have said in earlier speeches and have referred to the Mairangi Bay Community Church. The reason why this one is special for me is that I was born and raised in Mairangi Bay. I have personal knowledge of the Church and I have personal knowledge of the work that it does in its community.

Actually, to have a bill like this that is—and my colleague Brett Hudson made a very good point. To be able to enact legislation like this will allow the board to be able to manage its assets much better, and it is actually very, very important to allow it to be able to actually deliver the important projects that it sponsors and that it works on in our communities.

💬 Hon Member: It will make a real difference.

MARK MITCHELL Actually, it will make a real difference. Being able to manage those assets properly is very, very important. He referred to the mixed-ownership model. That is actually a really good example, where this Government was able to convert assets that we felt that we did not need to have—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No, clauses 3 and 4.

Oh, you are right—you are right. So if we come back to Part 1, the interpretation in this bill is the context that “ ‘new board’ means the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board”—as I have said—“incorporated as a board under Part 2 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957”.

💬 Chris Bishop: What part?

That was the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957. That is where it was originally incorporated. The “ ‘old board’ means the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board”, and “ ‘property—(a) means every type of property, and (b) includes—(i) every type of estate and interest in property; and (ii) money;”. That is actually very important. What I was alluding to, and what I was trying to get to, is the point that Mr Hudson made around the use of assets, and that is the fact that sometimes it is actually prudent to liquidate assets that are maybe not achieving the return that the Church may want, and it might be better to actually liquidate them and realise that in cash and be able to manage the asset as cash instead.

So that is a very, very important part of Part 1 in the preliminary provisions. It also includes “all land registered in the name of the old board under the Land Transfer Act”, and that is actually under the Land Transfer Act of 1952, Mr Bishop, in case you were wondering.

💬 Chris Bishop: We’re reforming that Act, as well.

That is right—that is right. We are reforming that Act—very good point. We are going to modernise the Land Transfer Act 1952. The purpose of this bill is to transfer all of the existing property, interests, powers, and obligations of the old board to the new board, and dissolve the old board and remove it from the register of charitable trust boards under—

I rise to take a call—and I know that there has been a little bit of goading from the other side there. I actually want to acknowledge the Rev. David Clark, whom I hope will take a call on this bill. Having been a minister of the Church and having actually served a congregation, he knows everything about the property and the purpose of the Church and its roles of responsibility, and I look forward to the member being able to stand up to talk about this.

But we are talking about Part 1 of the bill and we are talking about the purpose. I know, Mr Chair, that your wise counsel would be for me to look at new things that we maybe can add to this debate in the Committee stage, and what I would like to add is in clause 4, “Purpose”. The submission that was brought forward by what was the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board—and I want to acknowledge its chairperson, who is Mr Steve Baigent, and also its secretary, Mr Viesturs Altments. In their submission, they talked clearly about the purpose of this bill, and I want to acknowledge them. They are probably at home in Nelson now and may be looking at this debate with a sense of anticipation—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Wondering why they’re spending money on your salary.

But what they—well, no, they did not pay for my sermons, Mr Goff. No, no—not at all. The people came willingly as volunteers to hear the good news—to hear the good news. So, hopefully, this bill is good news. It is not the gospel—I will not say that—but it is good news for the Church in this regard.

But what the board members put forward in their submission was quite clear, which was that the old Act of 1929 meant that it had inhibited the trust board. What it did was it meant that when we talked about the transfer of funds, they could be used only for property use. When we talk about the purpose of this bill, that is the real intent. What the association wanted to do by renewing this trust at its conference in 2013, was try to give itself the ability to have greater flexibility—and those were the key words that were used. So the purpose of this bill is actually not just about the transfer of the asset as a property; it also enables the trust board to be able to use the funds to have a flexibility, in particular, and what it calls a wider outreach of ministries, which it could use to then actually engage with and serve its local communities.

In their words—Mr Chair, if you will allow me the indulgence to just quote a very small part of their submission. It states on page 2, paragraph 3 of the submission, under “Background”: “In particular the 1929 Act limits the ability to apply any of the funds held by the Trust Board to other than property purposes,”—and here is the aspect of this particular clause, clause 4—“except by way of loan. In the view of the Board the limitations in that Act are an obstacle to the effective use of part of the significant funds the Board holds for the wider outreach, community, and kingdom building purposes of the Christian Churches of New Zealand movement.”

I would have to say that that actually is the heart and purpose of this bill. It is to ensure that it is a fact that the board has the flexibility to be able to ensure that it can use those funds, not just for the use and the procurement of property and maybe its repairs and renovation but, in particular, so that the board can now utilise those funds to be able to engage in other forms for the purposes and wider forms of outreach. That, again, goes to the heart of clause 4 of the bill, which is the reason for the change in this form of legislation for the trust board.

I will not say too much more about that, but I will just say that I think it is quite clear that the association has established this purpose so that it allows it to be able to minister in various ways. I will not go through the 30 different churches in the 30 different areas; one of them probably will be down in Dunedin. I am sure that Mr Clark there—I can see him getting his notes ready. He is ready to take a call. I look forward to that. I hope it is not the brief call that may call for the end of the debate.

But I do want to acknowledge the board for coming and making its submission and for its commitment to seeing this through. There were not a lot of submissions—there were only two. In this part, in particular, the purpose of the transfer of this board is not just for the issues of property but also for the extension of—I will not say “the extension of the kingdom”, although in the association’s eyes it is the extension of the kingdom. It is for the extension of its services—its ministry—of outreach into the wider parts of the community. So I acknowledge the submitters; I thank them for that. And I acknowledge the opportunity to be able to speak on this part of the bill, about the property and purposes, at present. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you for allowing me to take this brief call, and it will be a brief call because we have kicked Part 1 around the Committee quite significantly. There is a particular word in clause 4 that I want to perhaps bring into the debate and add some clarity to, because for those of us from different religious traditions from the Church of Christ, it is a loaded word. It is a significant word to us. We have here in this Chamber members of the Roman Catholic tradition. Some of my ancestors were Catholics, and the word “dissolve”—“dissolution”—is a loaded word.

I am talking about clause 4(b). The first words in clause 4(b) are “dissolve the old board”. I just think it needs to be clarified that we are not carrying out a dissolution in the sense of Henry VIII dissolving the monasteries. We are not talking about assets being broken up and carried off. We are not talking about gargoyles being removed, statuary being taken down, or walls and windows being misappropriated. We are not talking about beautiful artwork being painted over. When we are talking about dissolving the old board, we are actually meaning that we are making it a legal nullity, although its assets, its property, its moneys, its powers, and its obligations are transferred over to the new board.

I think this is an important point, because for those of us from different traditions—my own family are a mixture of Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, and Open Brethren, actually—the word “dissolve” will mean different things to all of us. You know, the word “dissolve” is quite loaded, and we are talking about simply a legal dissolution so that those existing properties, interests, powers, and obligations are dissolved in the old board and are transferred through to the new board under the new name, the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board, rather than the Churches of Christ—

💬 Dr David Clark: This speech is dissolving into the ridiculous.

Well, I would be interested in hearing a call from the minister of religion on the other side of the Chamber, Dr David Clark. I know that this is not the tradition that he comes from. This is a very different tradition, because this is a laity-based ministry rather than ordained ministers conducting services in their church halls. I appreciate that Dr Clark may have a different set of experiences that he wants to bring in when he is reflecting on the wording of Part 1 of the bill, and I would be interested in hearing from him. I just thought it was important to rise and to take a brief call around that particularly loaded word at the start of clause 4(b).

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Transfer of property, rights, and obligations from old board to new board