Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill

on behalf of Hon Dr Nick Smith (National—Nelson): I move, That the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill be now read a third time. Can I, first of all, just acknowledge the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for RNZRSA Clubs from Special Licencing Requirements for Anzac Day) Amendment Bill and my friend and colleague Paul Foster-Bell. It is a bill that has obviously had wide support, and I congratulate him on getting it through. It is a rare thing, as I have been told. As a member of the Te Atatū RSA and the RSAs out in west Auckland, I know that they too will salute that bill, which is really important. So I acknowledge the fine work that he has done, as well.

The bill that I will be speaking on, the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill, like the bill around the sale and supply of alcohol, talks about the legacy of service and sacrifice of those who served their country. The bill that I will be speaking on, on behalf of the Minister the Hon Nick Smith, is a private bill that he brought to this House, and I give the Minister’s apologies because he cannot be here with us this afternoon. My speech will not be long, but it will cover the essentials that he has requested me to cover, including acknowledging those who have been part of bringing this bill to the House, and the intention behind it.

Christian Churches New Zealand is an association of more than 30 Churches. This began some time ago in Nelson, in 1844. The Christian Churches movement began in the early 1800s in both the UK and the US, out of a concern that the more traditional Churches were too rigid and authoritarian. It was at that stage that those Churches at that time felt that it was important that they should congregate together and to have Churches that were more accessible, and also, I suppose, that met some of the needs that were more community and communally orientated. That was the reason for the forming of this Christian Churches movement, as well.

Its focus is on unity and the teachings of the New Testament, so, in a sense, the Christian Churches movement grew rapidly in New Zealand. New congregations were formed in Auckland in 1845, in Dunedin in 1858, and in Christchurch in 1870, and by 1885 it had grown to 25 churches across the country. Mr Assistant Speaker, I do beg your indulgence, because the Minister was quite clear that he would like to acknowledge some of the foundational aspects of this bill and those who have been involved, and so I will be talking just a little bit about that, as well.

Initially, each of the church properties was vested in each autonomous congregation, in the name of the Church elders. This was not entirely practical, and in the 1920s a conference of Churches decided to have a legal entity that could own all of those properties. In April 1924, at a convened conference of delegates from the Churches, a board of trustees of certain members of the Churches was set up, with the intent that the board should hold, as trustees, the lands of those Churches that wished to vest the land and their properties in the board and also all real and personal property for Church extension purposes.

In that sense, what has also come out of the work of those founding members and those who have been actively involved in those 30 congregations is that the congregations actually have more of an outreach focus. Not only was it to be unified but, in a sense, the ramifications and the confinements of the trust, as it was constituted, allowed them to deal only with properties, and yet we know that a lot of the work in these Churches was not just about properties. It was also about the outreach ministries that they have. It could be everything, not just from Sunday schools that they delivered on Sundays, and the Church services, but often these Churches have other social services that are involved, like budgeting services, kindergartens, and after-school programmes that are run, potentially with an out-of-school care and recreation contract. These are a number of the services that are being run by these Churches and by these congregations.

The intent, then, was to be able to give them more flexibility to broaden their reach and the scope of their ability to be able to make a difference in those communities, in particular. 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 about the legal capacity of the board to hold these properties vested within it, so the private Act was passed by this Parliament in 1929.

The reason for this bill is that the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act of 1929, which governs the management of these Church properties, is outdated and needs modernising. As I was explaining, a number of these Churches—I have talked to some of them about their activities that were important in order for them to be able to, I suppose, demonstrate their relevance to their local communities. Hence this becomes an important part of their evolution and change as a Church, to become more relevant to the needs that they face within their congregations as well.

This bill repeals the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act, which dates back to 1929. The core of the changes proposed in this legislation is to enable the new trust, which those 44 Churches have agreed to establish, to have a more modern governance structure and to be able to manage their Church properties in a more flexible way. I also want to reiterate that some of the Churches were unsure about different matters that may be affected by this change. I just want again to reassure the members of those 44 Churches who may be listening about, for instance, the matters not affected by the transfer of property rights and obligations.

The bill provides that the dissolution of the old board and the transfer of those property rights and 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 trust, or in breach of confidence, or as otherwise making the person guilty of a civil wrong, and are not to be treated as entitling a person to (a) terminate or cancel or modify a contract, an agreement, or an arrangement; or (b) enforce or accelerate the performance of an obligation; or (c) require the performance of an obligation not otherwise arising for performance, and do not release any surety wholly or in part from all or any obligation; and (d) do not invalidate or discharge any contract or security. These were issues of some concern that I know were raised, and so I hope that by clarifying these in my speech, it will give some clarity and confirmation to those who seek it.

The other thing, too, is the dissolution of the old board. I think that is important. The bill provides that on the commencement of this Act, the old board is dissolved and the Registrar of Incorporated Societies must, as soon as practicable after commencement of this Act, remove the name of the old board from the register of charitable trust boards, kept under Part 2 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.

I want to finalise this part of my speech, again to give some clarity to those members who are listening. I turn to the part where it talks about the records and registers. The bill provides that neither the Registrar-General of Land nor any other person charged with the keeping of records or registers is obliged solely by reason of Part 2 of the bill to change any name in those records or registers or in any document.

The bill also provides that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, an instrument, whether or not it is an instrument of transfer, is sufficient proof, when presented to the Registrar-General of Land or any other person charged with the keeping of any records or registers, and that any property, rights, or obligations have, under this bill, become the property, rights, or obligations of the new board if the following requirements are met: (a) the instrument has been, or purports to have been, executed by the new board, and (b), the property, rights, or obligations in question were the property, rights, or obligations of the old board immediately before the commencement of this Act.

I know that was a little bit tedious, but again, it is just to give clarity and confirmation to the 44 Churches and their members who may be listening out there.

I just want to conclude my speech by noting that probably the most significant change in this bill from the 1929 Act is that the Act put quite a narrow constraint on the property trust board to be able to spend the funds and the revenues of those properties only back on property, in the view that 44 Churches have today the ability to be able to exercise their outreach ability into their communities.

Can I finally just acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson, who is the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee, and the deputy chair, Sarah Dowie, and also all the members who are on the committee for their work on this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the new trust solicitor, Mr Viesturs Altments, for his work on bringing this bill to the House. This bill is simply about letting those 44 Churches have a more flexible ability to manage their own property. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā tēnā koutou e ngā mema o Te Whare nei. It is a privilege and pleasure to stand for the third reading of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I sat on the Government Administration Committee for this bill and I am absolutely certain that the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust, along with the 30 congregations that own 44 properties, are very pleased that we have finally arrived at this day, when we have the third reading of this bill.

As the previous speaker outlined, there has been a long history, from 1844 right through until today. I want to focus on a couple of parts of that history. First of all, there was the agreement in 1929 to have the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act. Of course that was an Act that was absolutely suitable and appropriate for 1929, but not so much for 2016. I want to acknowledge the trustees who had the tenacity and the courage, I guess, to start that process in 2012, to get us to where we are today. I want to congratulate them.

The new terms of the new trust are considerably wider than the ones the previous trust had. They will enable the trust not only to deal with the property issues but also to have the ability to use their funds as they see fit, for the purpose of encouraging the promotion of the Christian faith. So I want to congratulate them again on getting this bill through the processes of the House.

There were only two submitters on this bill during the select committee process. One of the submitters wanted to include a sunset clause in the bill, but on the advice of the officials the committee decided not to put a sunset clause in, and that is basically because there may be a something in the future. One of the parishioners might leave a bequest to the old trust in a will that has already been written, and that will now still be able to go to the new trust. That piece of legislation needs to stay to the book for that purpose, and for other purposes as well.

I also want to acknowledge the Government Administration Committee, led by the Hon Ruth Dyson. This is one of those bills that had consensus across all of the parties on the committee, which is not like every single bill that comes through the House. It is a good thing when we are able to help organisations—in this case, a group of Churches—to achieve what they want to achieve. I suppose, for me, the issue is around Churches in a modern society as well. I can quite understand why this legislation has been put up. It is not an easy issue for Churches to deal with, and there are many, many things in a changing society that Churches have to deal with. I think this is part of the solution of addressing those wider issues for the Christian Churches.

As I mentioned, the new trust does give them wider powers. I think that one of the big issues for Churches today is, obviously, the diminishing congregations and the ageing congregations, and it is an issue that all Churches are dealing with. I see this as perhaps part of addressing the organisation of the Christian Churches for the future. I do not propose to extend this contribution on this bill unnecessarily. I think the people who are affected by this bill have waited long enough. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.

It gives me quite a lot of pleasure to stand up and speak to the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill, because it emanates from a Church that I was born and raised in, the Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand. In fact, I note that the initial proponent of the bill, Mr Steve Baigent from Nelson, was a member of the Church of Christ at Annesbrook, which was the Church that I attended as a young fella. In fact, it was in his mother’s garden, as a 4-year-old, that I met my future wife, then aged 2—she does not remember.

💬 Phil Twyford: A bit young to propose.

I did not ask her out on that occasion.

It is interesting to reflect on the impact of Churches across New Zealand in those days, the 1950s and 1960s, and where it is today. This is a Church—they called it a brotherhood in those days; an association is, I suppose, the more polite term these days. They are a smaller group, they are not as recognised as some of the bigger churches that we have in our community, but, in fact, they had a big impact, particularly on rural New Zealand, in those days. They emanated in New Zealand from the Nelson region, and a number of Churches sprung up around there. Their raison d’être was evangelism, but also to seek unity across the Churches, and that was the whole reason why they stepped out of the parent Church that they came from—to actually understand that there was a need for society to see all Christians as one, rather than as peddling a particular doctrine that seemed to be more divisive than bringing people together.

They were one of the five Churches negotiating towards Church unity in the 1970s. There was a high lay involvement within that Church, and a lot of us can remember as kids—me particularly—being in the back of the little Morris Minor as it struggled over the Tākaka Hill to go and deliver the message in places like Bainham and Tākaka, or driving down to the coast from Stoke in Nelson to deliver a couple of sermons on a Sunday before coming back and our parents getting on with work the next day. There are a few connections, too, within the House. My cousins the Hon Annette King and Hon Christopher Finlayson—their forebears were instrumental in starting congregations at Spring Grove and in Richmond. Those Churches exist today and continue with some strength.

As noted in the report that came back from the Government Administration Committee, there are others, too, who have come up through that Church and made a huge contribution to society. I think of Sir Garfield Todd, who emanated, again, from this Church and then went on to become the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, as it was back then prior to the Smith regime. The Todd family is one of the families that have been involved within these congregations over generations. Another is Fred Hollows, who trained in the ministry in Dunedin, at Glennleith, before he embarked on his ways in respect of helping those with eye problems and became absolutely noted.

The Church also worked in other countries—I would just note the connection with Southern Rhodesia again—it started a mission school at a place called Dadaya, and that was where a number of our members who were educators and also men of the cloth went to work in the mission fields over there. I guess one person we would like to walk away from is Robert Mugabe, who was a student at that school, funnily enough. I think he has shaken the dust off his sandals, because he does not seem to be adhering to the principles of the Associated Churches of Christ just now.

It is a Church that, over the years, has continued to give an awful lot to the communities in which it served, and around the country there are about 40 different congregations. There was one, for instance, at Lower Hutt, and former Labour member for that area Trevor Young was a member of that congregation at Naenae. I remember as a young guy listening to the men and women in the church who would bring their thoughts before the congregation. It was not so much pastorally led as membership led, and so each of those men and women were given the opportunity to stand up and speak, to lead lessons, to teach and to pray, and to work for their communities.

It was very much—and still remains very much—a Church that tends to put its money where its mouth is, and that is what lies behind this bill. The fact is that the legislation has tied up a lot of the Church’s assets in a way that means they cannot be used for its principal goal, which is ministry. In effect, what this Church is saying is that it wants to free itself of those assets and use that money towards the ministry to which its members feel they have been called.

It is sad to note that, maybe, Christian Churches have not been their best advocates around the country, maybe around the world, for some time now. But it is great to be able to sit back and to look at a group of people who do feel a sense of vocation—we would call it in secular terms; others who may adhere to a faith would call it a calling—to get involved within their communities. No doubt every one of the members who are sitting in this Chamber today actually came here for a reason. Many felt that they came here because they wanted to make a contribution, and, in respect of where that will of wanting to make that contribution comes from, largely Christians are over-represented within this House as a slither or a slice of the general population of the country.

I think it is important to note that these sets of values that drive us on, whether or not we pin them to a particular religion or particular creed, nevertheless are important ones. People who give of themselves in community service and do so from a sense of service and public service actually hold the thread of our communities together. That is why when we go into the various NGOs or those community groups that we visit on a regular basis we see people turn up time and time and time again. We might see the same faces at five or six organisations that we might visit within our electorates on a weekly basis, and these people are giving because they not only see the need but hear a call and feel a sense of calling towards contributing to their communities in that way.

I think back, as I do, to a number of the personalities I saw working and operating within their churches and within their communities as part of this particular Church. I do have a sense of gratitude for where those people have taken my family and me personally—on a walk towards exactly where we find ourselves today, and where each of us in the House does, as I have just reflected. The fact is, as soon as you get a few years on you, you tend not to notice those sets of values around the community and its subsequent generations, but nevertheless it is there. We have to then quiz ourselves and wonder about how well we are at communicating that sense of calling or that sense of vocation that leads us to contribute to our communities in the way that we do. If it is not being passed on from generation to generation or neighbour to neighbour, then we have to ask why not.

So I commend this bill to the House and I acknowledge the fact that here is a group of people who recognise they are asset-rich and need to do something about it. They realise that they did not belong to that particular organisation to acquire assets or acquire land to build edifices to some faith that is actually meaningless outside of those edifices. But, actually, they joined a particular movement so that they could turn it towards the people who had needs within their community and to reflect the faith that they had taken on for themselves. Often we scoff at people who do things from a sense of faith. Often we find people laughing behind their hands at those who might believe in something as simple as a Christian faith. In actual fact, the people who adhere to this Church and all those other churches do so from a sense of what we would call, in a secular way, goodwill or public interest. But we know what drives us and I am here today in this House to endorse that sense of call and that sense of worth in a community. I commend the bill to the House.

I am delighted to stand in solidarity with my colleagues on this side of the House, as well as other members of this House, in support of this bill. I have no hesitation whatsoever, and I am pleased that by the sounds of those who spoke at the Committee stage of this bill there is unanimous support from all sides of the House. I am also pleased to hear from the Hon Chester Borrows, who is a member of this organisation. It is always good to get the personal side and get the personal stories related to this, rather than just reading from reports.

I do not have any hesitation whatsoever; I stand in support of this legislation. I will tell you why. It is a simple matter for me. The other day I listened to a story related by Professor Clayton Christensen, who teaches business at the Harvard Business School. He related a story about how a Marxist economist from China was coming to the end of his term on a Fulbright fellowship at Harvard. The professor had asked him whether there was anything he had learnt that was unexpected or surprising. This Chinese scholar immediately said that there was. He had suddenly realised, by being in America, how critical religion was to the functioning of democracy. He had learnt that the Government’s role is not to observe and determine what everyone does but that it was to create a framework where everyone voluntarily obeys the rules.

He said he believed the reason for that was religion and that religion had this critical role to play in encouraging people to voluntarily—and most people do, at most times—obey the rules. He had observed that people would go to church on a Sunday, somebody whom they respected and admired would teach them, and what he observed was that, by and large, where religion had an influence, most people recognised that they were not only accountable to one another but were accountable to their God. So I want to relate that story in order to recognise the work of this particular association of Christian Churches and recognise the value of them changing the legislation so that it brings things up to date for them and recognise that they have this asset that, undoubtedly, they do not necessarily want to use for purely real estate purposes, but to promote their religion and their faith.

I was delighted to know that the other day my colleague Carmel Sepuloni took my place at the opening of the Religious Diversity Centre that was done here in Parliament. I regret sincerely that I was not able to be there, because a lot of the inter-faith groups and organisations from Auckland were there. The establishment of that centre is going to be critical for New Zealand going forward, because in our history, in addition to the indigenous religion—in addition to the Rātana movement—we also have Christianity, which has been a part of our history. Whether we go to church or not, I think it is important that we recognise that it is part of our history.

Moving forward, we have also got to recognise that New Zealand is growing; it is becoming a critical member of the international community. As such, we are also seeing more and more people from other parts of the world who are also bringing their faith. It does not matter whether it be Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish faith, what is important for us is to acknowledge and recognise that. I think that we have the basis and the foundation here in New Zealand where we are able to accept that everybody has the right and the freedom to believe in those things that are dear to them—in fact, to believe in their own God. I think the work of this organisation that we are debating about is showing to us that it wants to do good going forward.

Largely, we see that many church organisations today—for example, the Salvation Army, the Methodist Mission, and the Catholic Church—all have an arm that is doing critical work in our communities. They are not just preaching the gospel, if you like, in the four walls of the church building, they are out there practising what they believe and engaging with the people and supporting people as best they can.

It is for those reasons that I do not necessarily need to know the details of this legislation, but I recognise that what the Christian Churches is doing is, basically, upgrading the legislation that has governed and has given powers to its board so that there is clarity and there is an ability for the new trust board to take on the new role, utilise the assets it has accumulated over time, and recognise that those who have gone have also been able to contribute their worth, if you like, into the work—and I think it is very important work.

Just in concluding, I think that there have been several surveys that have been released that show that, by and large, New Zealand is declining in terms of having a faith, whether it be God or believing in anything else. I have to say that there is a younger generation who seems to be yearning for something more than themselves and who seem to be appealing to the churches. I would hate to see this country of ours reach a situation where fewer people are attending church or fewer people have a belief in God, and then see us clash with those who do not. I would hope that, irrespective of what faiths, what beliefs, people have—even those who may not believe in God—we in New Zealand would continue to uphold our Kiwi way of recognising that people have the right to believe. I think we can disagree; we can have the arguments, but be prepared, also, to respect that we can agree to disagree and continue to recognise that we are all human beings belonging to this world of ours, of the race of humankind.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this third reading debate on the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill, a private bill that stands in the name of my friend and colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith. This bill has been canvassed quite widely throughout the different stages that we have debated so far, and in this third reading debate. I will seek to make a few points during this call, but first I want to put on record my thanks for the indulgence of the House that was given for the previous matter—that is, for my Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association alcohol bill to be moved to the top of the Order Paper, ahead of this bill. As a private bill, this would usually have sat ahead of members’ orders of the day. So I would like to put on record my thanks to the House for that.

This bill, as was put in the words of my colleague the Hon Chester Borrows, is dealing with an organisation that has become asset-rich, but which needs to focus on its activity. There are many examples of these sorts of organisations that we could look at. I have the pleasure of representing the Pacific region on the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That is one example of an organisation that, unfortunately, for a few years at least, has devoted something like 70 percent of its resources to administration, property, clerical matters, and HR, and only 30 percent of its resource—of its subscriptions that it collects from its members—to activity, to delivering programmes on democratic good governance. In a similar way, over the course of time Christian Churches New Zealand, formerly known as the Associated Churches of Christ, has developed this issue whereby it has buildings that may not be in the right place, or necessarily the right size, to accommodate its changing membership numbers. This asset is tying up a considerable amount of capital that could be devoted to its mission and to service and to providing the charitable services that it offers to its members, its parishioners.

I would like to refer to a member of Christian Churches New Zealand that is based in the area I seek to represent as a National list MP, Wellington Central. In Karori we have St Anselm’s Union Church, which, I think, provides an excellent case study of why this legislation is necessary. St Anselm’s Union Church is at the far end of Karori, on Mākara Road as you head out to Mākara Beach. It is named after Saint Anselm, a former Archbishop of Canterbury who was actually born in Italy in the year 1033. At the age of 26 he moved to Normandy and accompanied William the Conqueror over on the Norman invasion of Britain. He became the archbishop at the age of 60. Uniquely, he was declared by popular acclaim to be a doctor of the Church and then a saint, rather than by a formal appointment process within the Church hierarchy.

St Anselm’s Union Church, named after Saint Anselm, is a small, Christian community. It is there to encourage, according to its mission statement, the development of a dynamic and living Christian faith, to share its faith with others in the wider community, and to work for peace and justice for all. Whether you are a person of faith or someone who is irreligious, I think we can admire the fact that it is seeking to work for peace and justice for all and to deliver a community service to people in their area. The Churches of Christ were traditionally, of course, a laity-led organisation, but St Anselm’s Union Church is presided over by a minister, the Rev. Geraldine Coats. I think it is also interesting that St Anselm’s Union Church is one of the more liberal Christian communities that we have here in Wellington. For instance, in September 2014 it formally expressed the concerns of its congregation about a decision taken by the General Assembly of the New Zealand Presbyterian Church, a stance in relation to whether people who are in relationships outside of marriage could serve as preachers or ministers. St Anselm’s Union Church certainly marked itself out as one of the more liberal communities.

The amenities that it offers the community are highly valued. For instance, there is a craft group that attracts a regular following. Its community hall is hired out to groups to offer a wide range of different social and hobby activities. The Church’s main service takes place on a Sunday at 10 a.m. but it also has very interesting guest lectures, and I would point to two series of guest lectures that were provided by Professor Lloyd Geering, a member of the Order of New Zealand and so one of our 20 greatest living New Zealanders, and also, I believe, the only person to have been convicted in a heresy trial in a canon court here in New Zealand. Professor Geering offered some very interesting lectures. “What we owe to Ancient Iran” was one of them. This was talking about the Zoroastrian religion and how that fed into modern Christianity. We also had “What we owe to Ancient Iraq”, talking about the laws of Hammurabi and the 12-based Sumerian numerical system. This is the ancient system of counting by twelves, which, actually, our system for measuring time, the calendar, our directions on a compass—much of our modern system of counting—is derived from. Then there was an interesting series of lectures called “The Greening of Christianity”, on ecological morality, I suppose. These were allowing the parishioners at that Church, but also wider members of the community who wanted to come in to listen to them, an opportunity to think more widely and to learn something new from a professor and one of our 20 greatest living New Zealanders. I think we can all agree that that was a very useful amenity that was offered to the community there.

In its mission statement, St Anselm’s Union Church points out that it seeks to draw people into a caring Christian fellowship by providing meaningful worship, the study of the gospel, community activities, a creche, and children’s programmes. I think the creche and children’s programmes that are offered in both their kitchen area and the hall are highly valued by members of the community in Karori. These are the sorts of activities that, through this bill, we are seeking to underpin by empowering the property trust board of Christian Churches New Zealand to be able to deliver services rather than focus on administration. I would note that there is nothing in the Church’s mission statement that talks about the maintenance of property and rates and keeping the power switched on, and all of those issues that one has with properties. Its mission statement outlines the activities that it is seeking to deliver to its people.

This bill supports the Church in that goal of giving individuals an opportunity for spiritual growth rather than tying up the management and the administration of the Church in dealing with property trusts that have become outdated. This is a bill that has been through the select committee. I am now on the Government Administration Committee, although, unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to sit on that committee while we heard the two submissions—there were only two submissions on this bill. One of the submissions supported the bill as it is. There was another submission calling for a sunset clause to be inserted, but the committee, on consideration, decided that on balance the sunset clause was not necessary.

Why is this legislation needed? There are a couple of good reasons why we do need to enact this. Firstly, there has been a name change. What was the Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand is now Christian Churches New Zealand. It has changed its name, and the original enabling legislation, the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929, deals with the organisation as it was then named. There has been a change in name, and as we know from recent disclosures from Panama, the issues around trusts can be quite contentious. I do not think this is one of those issues. This is a trust that no one will have an objection to. It is a trust that seeks to underpin the Church and the valuable work it does. I think the issue around the naming of the Church and the renaming of the Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand did need to be dealt with.

Also, the legislation is, effectively, bringing the Church under wider general charitable trust law. I think that is a positive. In a previous era almost every organisation, every school, and even some individuals wanted their own private piece of legislation. Rather than giving updated private legislation continually to organisations, I think it is actually better lawmaking to do as we are doing here in bringing this organisation under the auspices of having a charitable trust, which is governed by general trust law rather than a unique and specific piece of legislation. There were also some doubts as to the board’s ability to legally hold the properties that have been vested in it because of those name changes that relate to when the private bill was first enacted.

I think this is a very clear and good piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

I am pleased to rise and take a short call—I do not think I will feel compelled to take the full 10 minutes—on the third reading of this bill. I have listened with some interest to the history and the stories that have been told in the House tonight, and it is always nice when the House is in agreement on a bill and there is a sense of working together to solve problems. It is a novelty, and it is a pleasant one.

Christian Churches New Zealand began in Nelson in 1844—so I am adding my piece of history to everyone else’s—and a Church was opened the following year in Auckland, and my understanding is that the movement grew significantly through the 19th century until the point where we now have 44 progressive Churches around the country. The Minister sponsoring this bill, Minister Smith, has spoken positively of the role of the Church in his community in Nelson, and we also heard from the Hon Chester Borrows this evening about his upbringing, noting that it works with youth and families providing very real and much-needed support, as well as opportunity for spiritual enlargement or enlightenment, as we have just heard now.

The bill is a private bill that was introduced last year by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It enables the repeal of the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act of 1929, enabling the dissolution of the Associated Churches of Christ Church Extension and Property Trust Board, which means it will be able to transfer all the property, powers, and legal obligations of that trust board to a new charitable trust, which is now called the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board. This bill gives that trust the legal power to do that, and it will also deliver a more modern governance structure and give it more flexibility in how it uses its resources and delivers on its mission.

I think it is important to acknowledge that Christian Churches New Zealand, from a decision at its conference in 2013, asked Parliament to introduce this legislation and make these changes to enable it to be more flexible on the use of its property or the proceeds from the sale of that property, because the existing Act on our statute book from 1929 gives an impression that the trust is restricted in the use of the money or proceeds from the sale of property only towards other property, and the Churches want to be able to use it for other charitable Christian purposes. The Churches have met every year since 1905 in this country, and continue to have annual conferences. It was at that conference that the Churches and the owners of these properties thoroughly debated and supported the changes that have now been through the Government Administration Committee process and are in front of the House.

I personally do not really understand the historical context that required legislation to govern Church activity. I always thought, you know, rather baldly, I guess, that there was a separation between Church and State and that the business of a Church had no place in this House. But that was how things were done back then. There was legislation governing a whole range of organisations, including some of our Churches. So that requires this Parliament to introduce legislation to repeal those Acts or to amend them, which is what we are doing here. In my view, it is not our job to make comment on the wishes of the Church. Our job is purely to consider the quality of the legislation and how it might interact with other legislation or in practice, not to make comment on the intent or the delivery of the Church role. That is its business, and it is not appropriate in my view for us to be commenting on that.

Through the select committee process there were, as has been mentioned, only two submissions, and there was not a huge amount of detailed discussion or dispute through the select committee process. I guess the most gnarly issue was about whether there should be a sunset clause to this bill, to take the Act off the statute book all together, and the decision was to not do that because there may well be people who have left provisions in their will to leave money, or property, indeed, to the Church as it was known previously in the legislation, and if a sunset clause were introduced that might mean that that money or property ended up in trust and not going towards the Church. That would defeat the purpose, and, again, would not be something that Parliament or the Church would have intended. So the bill is as it is, without that sunset clause, and the Green Party is very happy to support it, because it reflects the intention of the Churches and their desire to move forward. Thank you.

It is a great pleasure for New Zealand First to be able to support this private bill with the impressive name of Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. There has been a long history of trusts and legislation for the purpose of holding property for the Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand. Other speakers have canvassed that history very accurately, and it is not necessary for me to do so again. Suffice it to say that originally the focus of the old trust and legislation was on the holding of Church property. That is what it was set up for, and that is what it did: simply that, nothing much more. It was very narrow in its focus.

But obviously over time things change, and they have in this case. They change as a result of events that happen over many years, and also they change as a result of the changing of attitudes. Some of the events that drive change for issues like this are, for example, the two world wars, which would have changed people’s attitudes and changed the focus of Churches in what they were there to do and what needs of the community they attempted to carry out. I know personally that in Christchurch, for example, where I live, the Canterbury earthquakes of 5 years ago have also been a driver of change as far as many of the churches in Christchurch are concerned, because many of them were destroyed or damaged and have been since demolished as a result of the earthquake. Many of the Churches have decided that they will not rebuild all of those churches, or will not repair all of them, and instead will use the proceeds of insurance and the proceeds of sale of property for other purposes, in order to meet their changing needs. So you can see that events do actually act as a driver for change, even in respect of issues like this, for trusts that hold Church property.

The other things, as I have said, that drive change are attitudes and the needs of the congregations because, more and more, Churches have acted to meet the social needs and the educational needs and other needs—community needs—of their congregations. So I feel that there has been quite a strong change over many years—less towards investment in property and more towards investment in those other social purposes—and I think that is a very good thing because it reflects the needs of the people who rely on those Churches for those purposes. So it is understandable then that this private bill is coming to us to seek changes that the Churches of Christ in New Zealand have asked us to look at, because it is pretty clear that the definition of the powers in the current legislation and the trusts set up under that are far too narrow for current needs, and something needs to change.

So we need to solve those doubts, create more clarity, and create wider powers for the trustees in order that they can do the new things that are required of them in this day and age. It is pleasing to see that the Churches of Christ back in 2013 got together and decided what those needs were and what they wanted for an updated piece of legislation and this bill is, ultimately, the outcome of that process.

The bill itself really does only two things. One is to create a clear legal power to enable the transfer of the property from the existing trusts to the new trusts to be established as a result of this legislation. The second thing is to create broader powers for the trustees to do the new things that I have already spoken of earlier. It will allow, as a result, the Churches to consider a wider mission not only in terms of buildings but in the use of their funds for the other activities of the Churches so that they can do the things that they now wish to do.

New Zealand First thoroughly approves of those two new purposes in this bill and we wish the Churches well in using their resources for those wider purposes. The bill and the new trusts will allow the trustees to invest in different ways from those they were empowered to do in the past. We think that is very appropriate.

I am also pleased to see that the Government Administration Committee has done a good job in listening to the two submissions it had and reviewing the fine detail of the bill and reporting that back to the House, as it has done. So New Zealand First is very happy with the detail of the legislation and its purposes and we will therefore be very pleased indeed to vote in favour of the bill.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the third reading of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I have been able to follow this bill right through the whole process, as a member of the Government Administration Committee, and of course I would like to recognise and acknowledge the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and my colleagues who sit on the committee with me. I would like to acknowledge Sarah Dowie. She was the deputy chair at the time, but she has moved on to another committee and has been replaced by the very able Mr Paul Foster-Bell, who comes on to the committee as the new deputy chair.

I would like to acknowledge my colleague Brett Hudson, who also sits on the committee with me; Mojo Mathers from the Green Party; and Adrian Rurawhe, who made a very good speech and took a very good call earlier; and of course my good friend and parliamentary rugby team-mate Kris Faafoi.

💬 Phil Twyford: Haven’t you missed somebody, Mark?

No, I think I have got everyone, Phil. I know that in the Committee stage, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch, you gave me a fair bit of latitude in terms of talking about some of the Churches that are affected by this. I think that is actually really important and I think I will come back to that. But one thing that I would like to do also is acknowledge the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who is the original sponsor of this bill.

Going through the list, I would like to acknowledge some of the Churches that are in his electorate. There is the Annesbrook Church of Nelson. There is the Unite Church in Nelson, which I know is heavily involved in youth missions and youth counselling, so I want to acknowledge them and the work that they do in the community in Nelson. I know there is another one—the Richmond Church of Christ in Nelson. I do want to acknowledge them, as through the members and the members of the more than 30 congregations—obviously it was their local member, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who originally sponsored the bill and brought the bill, which is an important one, to the House.

I would just like to maybe go over a little bit of the history again. Christian Churches New Zealand was the name given to an association of more than 30 congregations throughout New Zealand. Until 2012 they generally described themselves locally as Churches of Christ. Together they are still known legally as the Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand, and of course as part of this bill there is going to be a name change.

Christian Churches New Zealand congregations are autonomous but they act together through their regular national conferences, and I think this is very important. If you were actually to make contact with any of the Churches or if you were living in a certain area, for example Nelson, and you happened to be moving to Invercargill or Tasman or Auckland or Tauranga, they already have a very strong network, so you are able to enjoy what would hopefully be a seamless transition from one congregation and one Church to another—one of these Churches that are very aligned in what they are doing. I have to say that as a dyed in the wool Catholic, I got a little bit of ribbing—

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: A Roman?

—that is right—about taking calls on this. But you know what? At the end of the day, actually, we are all bound together by Christian faith and that is what is important.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: The end of the day is night-time.

To be honest with you, I find it actually very rude that there are interjections—on a bill like this—coming from the whip of an Opposition party.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, you’re exaggerating! That’s ridiculous.

No, no, I am not exaggerating. This is something that is actually pretty important to people. Two of your members have got up and made very good contributions and you are sitting there making fun of it, and that actually indicates a lot about the way that you guys think. It is poor. It is very poor. I can guarantee you right now—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: It’s pathetic.

—no, I am serious—that there are people sitting at home watching people stand up and speak to this, which is fundamentally very important, because, do you know what, the way that they use their assets, the way that they administer, the way that they deal in their communities is fundamentally very important to them. So I would ask that you keep your comments to yourself and that you have respect for the House and allow everyone to get up and make their contributions. Thank you very much.

The global family of Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ now extends to more than 185 countries. It was begun in the early 1800s in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It evolved largely from a concern growing strongly through the Enlightenment era that the Church had become rigid, authoritarian, and divided, making the meaningful preaching of the Christian message more challenging for them, of course.

Christian Churches’ pioneers felt strongly that the whole Church would be more effective if it showed unity and I believe that was a very important step. I believe that actually unity, wherever you find it, always provides a very powerful message. They felt that the whole Church should be more effective and that they would return to and use the New Testament for their model. They intended that their message should be one of reform within the Church but, eventually, they were forced to become a separate movement in themselves.

Just talking about the history of these Churches, if you go back and look at, for example—and we heard a very good contribution from Chester Borrows, who is very strong in his Christian faith. So I want to acknowledge that and talk about one of the Churches in his electorate. It is the Riverside Christian Church. That Church had its first meeting and was founded back on 28 April 1867. I think why this is quite a good example is because at that time they had no assets at all. They rented a hall and they had their first meeting there, but, as time progressed, they started to accumulate assets and, of course, it was important for them to know exactly how they could use those assets and the best way to be able to administer in the community that they were working in. That is why this bill is so important, because we are allowing and we are giving them the flexibility.

As Chester Borrows alluded to, some of these ministries do not want to have all their capital tied up in assets. They want to be able to free some of that up to be able to actually perform the missions that they do. I think this Church has actually got some members who are leaving fairly soon for Papua New Guinea on a mission there. So if they are able to free up some funds to be able to support those types of missions, these are very important things to them.

The Churches of Christ was established in New Zealand soon after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, again going back to these very early dates. The first congregation was actually in Nelson, which I think probably gives it some real added value and meaning to Dr Nick Smith. In 1944 other cities were added: Auckland in 1845, Dunedin in 1858, and Christchurch in 1870. By 1885 they actually had 25 Churches that had joined as part of the group.

The first dominion conference was held in 1901 in the capital city, here in Wellington. National conferences became annual gatherings by 1920. They provided opportunities for stimulus and inspiration and enabled the Churches to work together on home mission projects, ministerial training, Christian education, women’s work, examining public issues, and they also were able to produce a national paper.

Along with other mainstream churches, the Churches of Christ experienced a drop in numbers and, of course, over the years there would be an ebb and flow. Numbers would decrease and then increase again, which is very common with a lot of different organisations. This led to a simplification of structures and a focus on development. New Churches have been established and the movement as a whole is growing, which is a very positive thing.

Initially, property was in the name of the elders of the congregations, which was common because obviously in the very early years they were starting to slowly accumulate assets and often these Churches were driven by a small group of people, so it was not uncommon for them to be registered in the name of these original elders and leaders within the Churches. On 18 April 1924 in Dunedin, at a duly convened conference of delegates from the Churches, a board of trustees of certain members of the Churches was set up. So that was the original board of trustees.

It is a privilege to speak in the third reading of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. I think that everything that needs to be said about this bill has really been said. I would like to correct the member who just spoke before me, Mark Mitchell. I was interjecting earlier, but I was interjecting in support of the bill and in support of the wise words that he was sharing with the House. So it is disappointing that he took those interjections the wrong way. Perhaps he did not hear. I would not like to think that he was just demonstrating a lack of integrity, as he was trying to extend the debate further than it needed to be extended. I will just take it that he did not hear what was being said. So I will accept his apology. Thank you very much, Mark Mitchell, for the apology, and I move on back to the bill. There is not, as I said, much else to be said. I just want to say that Labour does support this bill. I acknowledge all of those on the Government Administration Committee who have worked hard on this bill and all of those involved in the trust who have done a great deal of work to bring us to the point that we are at now. Thank you very much.

It is a privilege to be able to rise in support of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill in this, its third, reading. It would appear from the contributions that have been made across both sides of the House that this has unanimous support across the House. As another member, Ms Logie, mentioned just a little while ago, that it is actually a very good thing to be able to sit in this House and contribute in these debates where we are united and each, as she said, is looking to work together to find a solution, a solution to what is a real and genuine problem for particular people or groups in New Zealand. In this case, of course, it is Christian Churches New Zealand, an association of more than 30 congregations throughout New Zealand. I would make note of the Tawa Union Church in the electorate of Ōhāriu, which will be affected in a positive way when—with the confidence I have, and I think we all share—this bill in enacted.

If we look at the history of this, which I think is really important, when a group of Churches comes together with a notion to do good across their communities inside any well-formed and, particularly, any well-functioning democracy, the idea that people or groups will coalesce and provide services and assistance to people in need is something, actually, that underpins that well-formed and well-functioning democracy. We had a case here that dates back, I guess, around 90 years, if we look at the history of this, where these Churches saw a need or a desire to do good in their communities, and they coalesced around a notion that if they had at the time—they were thinking in terms of property; assets—they could put those assets to good purposes, to benefit perhaps those who might share similar views but certainly those who were perhaps a little less fortunate, a little less privileged, or with certain needs.

If we look back—I think it was in April 1924 in Dunedin—a conference of these Churches came together and agreed that they should have trustees who would be certain members of the Churches, and that they should form a trust to hold and manage the real estate assets that they would settle, and to make sure that they were used for the works they wanted to do. The reason that had come about was that initially, when they started these works under the use of these assets, or the shared approach, they held the property in the names of the elders of the congregations. In many respects you would look at that and say that was not perhaps unusual for the nature of Church operations of the time, but, actually, I would suggest that the need for change, or the identified need for change, in the 1920s, was underpinned by a changing society. If there is anything, of course, that we have witnessed in our time, and throughout human history, it is the evolution of our societal groups and the way that they change the way societies operate, the way they govern themselves, the way, if certain people are going to work together, you do that effectively to deliver the outcomes you want in a way that can be adequately managed.

In 1929 the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act was enacted. That Act created the trust—which we will in fact be disestablishing it once this bill is passed—that could administer the joint assets, if you will, the assets owned by this congregation of Churches and could ensure that those assets were put to the use, to the purpose, that the assembled congregations had. Just as that Act was born of perceived need for change in governance to make sure that there was a better structure for the works that the congregations were doing, we see now, if we fast forward approximately 80 years, the same need arise. If we look at the operations of the congregations today, the way that they might best use the assets they hold, and the constraints that the current trust and empowering Act place upon them, it actually creates a situation where the congregations together might hold sufficient assets to do a great deal of good work across the country but they cannot always use those assets in the way that they feel would provide the best and most good to those in most need.

For instance, although there is held to be some ambiguity around the language of the empowering legislation as it currently stands, the wording does create doubts as to how the funds held by the board might be applied for the furtherance of the work of the Churches, but there is believed to be a strong presumption from that legislation that the funds received are on trust for the purposes of real estate only. If we consider that, as we have done through the stages of this bill, including the select committee process and the Committee of the whole House, and have canvassed it, that actually can—and I think it is a perception across those congregations—present constraints on the works that the board and the Churches can do for those people whom they are looking to serve. There was a parallel drawn in the Committee of the whole House, I recall, which said that where you hold an asset and you are simply looking to convert that asset, which might be—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Brett Hudson has 3 minutes and 56 seconds remaining, if he wishes.

I have to say, there is so much to say and so little time. Just before the break, I was drawing the parallel that had been raised in the Committee of the whole House about constraints when you have a certain fixed asset that you can use and yet your desires and needs might better militate towards a different form of asset. If one is in a position to transform an asset from one form into another, you can unlock all sorts of good potential. This is the issue that is currently the case with this trust, which we will address through the passage of this bill.

The parallel that was used in the Committee of the whole House was actually an item that this Government, this party, campaigned for in 2014 and then executed once re-elected, and that was the mixed-ownership model, principally, but not exclusively, with our utilities companies. So the assets, in many cases, were fixed. They were generators, machinery, the ability to produce electricity, and yet there was a feeling, as a Government, that we could deliver services to our citizens in other forms if only we could convert those assets from physical assets like real estate into other liquid assets like cash, which is precisely what we did by converting 49 percent of those physical fixed machinery assets into cash, which is now being used for schools, ultra-fast broadband, and for roading—things that are providing services to citizens and unlocking potential across New Zealand.

That is precisely what this bill will enable the new trust to do with the assets—not only with the assets they own today but also with assets they convert, if they choose to, into some other forms. Today we said there was a very, very strong presumption that the funds they had had to be held in real estate. This bill will enable them, should they choose to, to convert some or all of those into other assets, and they could be cash assets, they could be other forms of machinery, they could be assets that will help them to deliver the services to their constituent parties, to the people in need, to the people that they have existed to serve for so many decades.

I think that is an extraordinarily powerful thing. It is something that I wholeheartedly endorse. I think the whole House is unanimously supporting it. I was hoping that there might just be an epiphany on the other side of the House and that in doing what we are doing with this bill—

💬 Simon O’Connor: A religious term.

—thank you—and permitting them to convert an asset into a more usable form, they might realise that what this Government did with the mixed-ownership model was indeed a very powerful and enabling thing.

I will just move on to another part of this bill, because I think it is very, very important. When we are changing one structure to another, it could potentially introduce risks. So while we are transferring all of the properties, the rights, and obligations within that, we are being very careful to ensure that any actions that are under way or could otherwise have been placed under the old trust structure are either still going to be continued or still be available to parties who might wish to bring them under the new structure. So in that sense, nothing will have changed.

That has a couple of very important consequences. It does mean that the new trust will not be able to exit unfairly from agreements it might have in place with suppliers—agreements that those suppliers are relying upon. It will not be able to introduce new performance criteria, but, equally, the trust itself will be protected because those suppliers cannot use this change as a vehicle to exit their contractual obligations to the previous trust. I think it is an absolutely wonderful bill. I am glad it is going to be enacted.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. After a long night last night in the House here speaking Te Reo Māori, I thought today I would practise my English. I rise to make a short contribution on this particular bill, the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill. Given that so many members across the House, in particular from the Government, are really keen to talk about the Christian heritage and the proud Christian heritage of New Zealand, I thought I would just take them on a short history lesson.

In 1814 the first sermon was given at Ōihi Bay by Te Matenga, otherwise known as Marsden, and he delivered that with the support of Ruatara. So it precedes the 1844 opening of the particular Church down in Nelson. Further, in 1840, just before the Church opened in 1844, some members might be interested to know that article 4 of the Treaty of Waitangi, supported by Bishop Pompallier, allowed for religion here. Admittedly, it was rather narrow in its view but it said in article 4: E mea ana Te Kāwana, ko ngā whakapono katoa o Ingarangi, o ngā Wētēriana, o Roma, me Te Ritenga Māori hoki e tiakina ngātahitia.

[The Governor says that all English religions, Wesleyan, Catholic, and Māori beliefs, as well, are protected simultaneously.]

So what that did was it allowed for the Churches to take their place here in Aotearoa. Then, of course, we have, in 1844, as the members from across the House have already mentioned, in Nelson the Church was open.

Moving to this bill, we stand in support of this particular bill. We think it is just a positive way forward. I am reminded of another Māori whakataukī that says “Ka pū te ruha, ka hāo te rangatahi”—it is about time that the old net was put to the side and the new net goes fishing—and that is what this bill provides for the Church. As the bill indicates, it empowers these Churches to move on into the future, and, indeed, it will help them support a lot of the good social aspects that the House has talked about this evening. So I want to rise in support of it.

I will not talk too much longer. But I do want to, in conclusion, just thank the member for bringing the bill to the House and the select committee for the hard work that it has done, and, as mentioned earlier, for the collegial nature of the debate—and, of course, the progression of this bill from the beginning to now. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to speak to the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill, to take a final call on this bill. I actually unexpectedly spoke to Part 1 of this bill and became interested to know a little bit more about it a wee while ago. So when I was in Nelson working with my colleague the Hon Nick Smith, I took some time to visit the Christian Churches headquarters and was fortunate enough to be shown around by the Church archivist. I was taken to the Annesbrook site in Nelson, and that is the headquarters for the Church, where all their archives are. It had not always been there, this wonderful structure that I will tell you about; it had been in various locations over time before being housed in the Nayland Road intermediate school, and then it moved to its current site in Saxton Road.

The current Annesbrook Church, the headquarters for the Christian Churches, was built in 2002 with a mix of community funding and lottery grants funding for which they are very grateful. When I visited this site—it is really a wonderful facility; truly a community facility—I saw a beautiful sound-proofed auditorium able to take 700 to 800 people, a children’s playroom, an infants’ playroom, there was a youth room that becomes a dance studio complete with ballet barres on the side, there was a kitchen, and there were outside seminar rooms for teaching and education. That is important because Annesbrook Church is also a large ministry development centre, and it is also an approved tertiary institution. In fact, it is one of the main theology colleges for the upper South Island.

The Christian Churches work has both national reach, including managing four large-scale campsites for youth work around the country, and international reach. I would like to read out some of the achievements that the Christian Churches have done from a letter that was sent to me. “For 170 years this small denomination of always less than 5,000 New Zealanders has quietly gone about ministry to local communities, made a tremendous impact in emancipation in Zimbabwe, and punched above its weight in ecumenical affairs. It has spawned mayors, members of Parliament, prison and defence chaplains, missionaries, and welfare workers. Two, in particular, have been in the international spotlight. The late Sir Garfield Todd was the only missionary in the world to become a Prime Minister, in Southern Rhodesia, and knighted by the Queen after a New Zealand Government initiative.”

Sir Garfield Todd was born in New Zealand; he is a New Zealander. He was born 13 July 1908. He worked, in his student years, at his father’s brick-making business. After university at Otago University, he went to the Glen Leith Theological College, took his holy orders in 1931, and was then assigned, from New Zealand, to missionary work in South Africa. When he was there, he then took up public life from an empathy he felt with the Africans, whose interests he had overlooked as a superintendent of the Dadaya Mission School. So he is a person who had been supported by the Christian Churches—a New Zealander who then went on to do wonderful things.

Another person who had been supported by the Church was the late Ronald O’Grady. He is the founder of EPCAT International, which is End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes—again, another really good cause that the Church has been around. Locally, in Nelson, Tony Barnett, the hospice chaplain, was crowned “Nelsonian of the Year” by the Nelson Mail. Again, he has strong involvement with the Christian Churches as well. It is noted to me that even Fred Hollows, the noted Australian eye doctor, passed through its Bible college in Dunedin.

The Church’s work continues overseas. It continues in Zimbabwe, where it is very proud to have done 80 boreholes to date, an orphanage, a 700-student boarding school, and microfinance for subsistence farmers. It has quite a large congregation in Vanuatu, and its work following the recent cyclone disaster has been quite strong.

I think this congregation and this body of work by these people is really important. They have really contributed to New Zealand history over time. I think the final sentence in this letter that was sent to me, outlining these achievements, says it all: “Being autonomous congregations, the 24 current churches need a property trust board to be able to combine their resources for training, missionary outreach, and church ventures.” I agree with those sentiments, and I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.