St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill

I move, That the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill be now read a second time.

I have every intention of being back in the House after 14 October as part of a Labourled Government. When that happens, I will no longer be the member of Parliament for Wellington Central because I am not running in that seat, and the excellent Ibrahim Omer will win that seat and be the MP for Wellington Central.

So, as I come towards the end of my time, 15 years, as the member of Parliament for Wellington Central, it’s with some pleasure that I’m able to stand in the House today and deal with what is a relatively minor matter but quite a significant one for St Peter’s Anglican Church. At the outset, I want to acknowledge, in this second reading, the work of the select committee in having gone through this bill. Like all bills, there were always issues; there are always things that come up that need to be dealt with and the committee dealt with those in a very sensible and rational way. I want to thank them for allowing members of the St Peter’s parish and trust board to be represented within the sessions of the committee. It allowed problems to be dealt with immediately and I think that kind of approach is actually a very constructive one, which select committees might want to think about more often when they’re dealing with private bills and bill of this nature—local bills that are very particular to the institution—and the knowledge of what it means, how a change would impact, in this case the St Peter’s parish and the endowment trust fund; having those people in the room is particularly useful.

I do want to acknowledge Ross Tanner for the extremely hard work that he has put in to this bill over a significant amount of time and—indeed, many of the other things he’s done in the Wellington Central community over the years that I’ve been serving it—and all of those from the parish who are represented today, for whom this bill matters.

To go back to the beginning, as it were, St Peter’s is a church that many folks will know. It sits very conveniently down on the corner of Vivian Street and Willis Street. It’s very close, about 30 or 40 metres from my electorate office, where I’ve been for the last 15 years. During that period of time, I’ve attended numerous events at the church ranging, as I think I might have said in my first reading speech, from somewhat the extraordinary Wellington Fringe Festival awards nights—which are not, when they play out, the kind of thing you would expect in a church, I can assure you, but they’re a lot of fun—all the way through to candidate debates, very serious debates on issues, and I want to acknowledge Stephen King, who’s in the gallery, and Charles Waldergrave and others who have led the Ngā Kōrero series that has happened at the church. That’s been an exceptional act of public interest, to have those conversations in the community with the doors, as they always are at St Peter’s, wide open.

It’s also, and I got this wrong in my first reading speech—I think I said the wrong Wilson, and the chance of doing it again; it’s Godfrey, isn’t it?—that’s what I’m looking for, yes. Yes, Godfrey Wilson, who delivered, in 1967, a landmark sermon on homosexuality at St Peter’s church, and the church has always been an institution that has, and certainly in my 15 years, celebrated diversity. As a church that does this work—social justice work; community engagement work; celebrates diversity; it’s an arts venue; it’s a venue that all Wellingtonians know is an open space for them; it currently hosts The Free Store Wellington—there are a lot of the most vulnerable residents of Wellington who see St Peter’s as an integral part of their daily lives. So it’s with that background that we bring this bill to the House; a church that has been there for a very, very long time and has much more to offer Wellingtonians and, indeed, the whole of New Zealand, but this bill will help them do that.

The particular trust deed that is being amended here dates back to 1922, and its provisions are very much based on a 1920s legal model. The investment powers of the trust board are limited in the existing trust deed and the provisions are silent on many of the legal provisions that govern the endowment fund. The 1922 trust deed also restricts the size of distributions to the lesser of either the amount of income earned in the current year or the preceding year, limiting the ability of the trust board to, effectively, distribute income for the intended charitable purposes. There is a great deal more money in the pot now than there once was and, unfortunately, because of the nature of the deed, it is not possible for the trust board to be able to give the money out in a way that I think they would like and, indeed, all of us would like to see.

So the trust board has recommended a revised endowment fund trust deed to address limitations and difficulties in its current operations. The revised deed is clarifying the investment powers of the trust board, bringing them into alignment with current best practice and removing those limitations on distribution that I mentioned in a revision of the trust deed. This will allow the trust board, the parish, to be able to play its role in the social justice and community interventions that I mentioned before, but also make sure that current and future trustees and the board itself is compliant with relevant legislation.

It’s important to note that the bill did go through all of the necessary things that happen when a private bill comes forward so, as far back as April 2021, there was a special general meeting of the parish to be able to work through the issues. There was a bit of coming and going with Crown Law—such is the nature of these things—but we found ourselves to come in front of the select committee with a bill that I am very pleased the committee has put through without amendment. I think that proves that the hard work that did go into it was well and truly worthwhile.

There were a couple of matters that were raised in the committee which the committee dealt with very well and I probably will leave committee members, if they choose to, to talk about that or we can take it up in the upcoming committee of the whole House stage. But they were matters which, I think, were dealt with relatively easily around the question of distribution and exceptional circumstances and around the interaction of this piece of legislation with, in particular, the charitable trust Acts and the Anglican Church trust Acts. In both cases, the committee talked to their advisors, listened to the church, and came to the conclusion that the bill could continue in the state that it was brought in front of the House.

So, for me, this is a bit of a landmark day when it comes to the work of a local MP because much of it is in this kind of vein where we work with organisations closely in our community for the greater good, and St Peter’s is most definitely an organisation that does that. They will now be in a position to be able to use more of the funds that they have for the good deeds for which they are well-known and to do so in a way that is legally safe and robust enough to be able to survive any future changes that might occur to other pieces of legislation.

So, with that, I do want to commend the bill to the House. I want to thank the select committee again for their work. I want to thank members of the St Peter’s parish, the trust board, in particular, for their hard work in bringing us to this place, and to wish the church well in its ongoing work in our city. I was once asked what my vision for Wellington City was, at a Rotary club of Wellington event, and I said I wanted Wellington to be the opposite of loneliness. And I think St Peter’s church does a great job in making our city that very thing. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m actually very pleased to take a call on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. It did, I will admit, come as a bit of a surprise. I do not sit on the Governance and Administration Committee. It may even be a surprise for the parishioners of St Peter’s! I don’t think I’ve been called upon because I’m a trained theologian; I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think this is an attempt to advance the cause of ecumenism, because I’m a Catholic, but I’ll do my best to the Anglican Communion. I also don’t think it’s because I’ve had an excellent working relationship in the health sector, with Ross Tanner. I think it’s because it’s an opportunity, and it’s an opportunity first and foremost to say thank you. It’s first and foremost to say thank you, not only to those who do religious service, but it’s also an opportunity to thank those involved, including actually the Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, who’s speaking.

Part of the reason I am involved is that I’ve had to deal, for a variety of reasons, with religious trusts over the years. I’m not a lawyer or anything like that, but as those in the gallery will know, and those listening, often when these trusts and funds are put together for vestries or parishes or for religious good, the intentions at the time don’t often translate well into the future. As the parishioners, and certainly the trust board, know an enormous amount of work has to be undertaken. So can I start with some thanks, as we come into this second reading, and if I might, I’ll start with the Minister. I think actually—and he touched on it himself, from his own personal side—Grant Robertson is a great example of a hardworking local MP. I say that, obviously, on this side of the House. See what religion can do! Look, quite seriously, he’s a connected MP who actually works for the good of their community and, when there’s a need, works hard. I think it comes with a gravitas and mana, so I just acknowledge the Minister for the way that he has shepherded this private bill through.

Certainly, the select committee has had to do a lot of work alongside their officials. Any time you are changing a trust, things get complicated, let alone when you bring in the Charities Act or the laws around the Anglican Church, both in Crown law but, I would probably suggest, even within the Anglican tradition itself, and right through, of course, to the Charities Acts. The purpose of this, though, is relatively simple: the trust wants to use its money more effectively, and they’ve been limited to date, from a very initial small endowment to what has now become quite a substantial amount of money, which, as I understand, the parish wants to spend. Even though I’m an Aucklander, I know of St Peter’s; I know of the good that they do. It’s a massive contribution into Wellington and, as Mr Robertson put, it’s a way, amongst others, to address loneliness, at whatever level you want to articulate that. So this piece of law, as it progresses through the House, will give much greater flexibility to the trust board to spend money.

Reading through the original trust’s Act and so forth, they were very limited, based on either the income of this year or of the previous year. But so much more can be done. I know the select committee—and we might bring it up at the committee of the whole House stage: it’s really around the question of how we go from having it so tight and limited, to whether it’s far too open, as some may have suggested. I don’t think that is the case by any means. I think this is one of the great things of parish endowment funds and the like: that, actually, you’ve got a group of people who see the wellbeing not only of that fund but of the people they serve. There are also questions around the whole interaction—or rather the committee was looking at the interactions—between, obviously, the endowment fund itself, the initial legislation back in the 1920s, and again how that fits in with the current Charities Act. As Crown Law has advised, this is a piece of law that is important to be working its way through Parliament. So, as I say, we’re pleased to support it on this side of the House.

Look, I’m not going to chew up the House’s time by running through all the particulars, other than to say that this has been well considered, I think well traversed, and ultimately—ultimately—I think it’s going to further the aims, obviously, of St Peter’s. And I want to really stress that word “further” because the work that you already lead in the community is important, well-known, and respected; this is going to enhance it even further. And, if I could somewhat bookend where I started, this is ultimately going to be an expression of that love and faith in society. It is one thing, if I might, to preach and to talk—says a politician!—but it’s another to actually do. If I might, it’s that whole faith and works playing together, without creating a new schism or argument. We have faith and works working together, and the jolly decent thing is that you have a lot of money to spend. I have absolute confidence that will be done so well for the people of Wellington. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to take a call on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. I unfortunately missed the first reading—I was not in the House and so was unable to take my call that day—so it is a real pleasure to be able to take some time today to speak to this bill. I do so with two hats on, I guess, the first being the deputy chair of the Governance and Administration Committee that considered the bill, but my other hat is being probably one of the staunchest Anglicans in this House. There are many, who I am looking at in the gallery today, who I know, and who my parents know, through being a very proud member of the Anglican Church for 43 years of my life.

I do want to begin, as well, by acknowledging the member for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, and his 15 years in that role. I know he will still hold the role of Minister of Finance from the middle of October and going forward, for at least another three years. But I do want to note the remarkable contribution and just reflect on the small role I had in his selection for that fine position as the member for Wellington Central, having been a member of the Labour Party, living in this fine electorate at that time. I know that, for the member, the work of churches and other groups, such as unions and other NGOs, in the area of social justice was one of the dear causes for his heart for Wellington Central. So I do just want to acknowledge the work that he has done and how pleased I was to be able to play my very small part in helping him be here in this House.

Hon Grant Robertson: You had your wedding in a different Anglican Church, though.

RACHEL BOYACK: But yes—no, I was married at—

Hon Grant Robertson: The larger one.

RACHEL BOYACK: —at the larger one. At the one that sometimes—I’m not going to use the colloquial term we have for it, because I might get in a bit of trouble. But at the one across the road, where I married my wonderful husband, Scott, who I am just going to mention because he intimately understands some of the work that’s involved in these bills.

Scott is an accountant in Nelson but has spent many years, until recently, on the Nelson diocese finance team. So he’s spent a lot of time meeting regularly to look at the finances of the Nelson diocese as a volunteer within the church, as well as being a church treasurer of two Anglican churches, which is how he ended up becoming an accountant. Initially, that’s what I was going to be, when I was growing up.

I just want to turn to the bill briefly, and then just make some comments, if you’ll indulge me, around the role of the church in social justice, and some of the times we face now. Firstly, though, I will turn to the bill.

The purpose of the bill is to make amendments to the trust deed governing the endowment fund that the church holds. One of the challenges that we do face in the Anglican Church—it’s not just the Anglican Church; it’s other organisations—is that because these institutions are so old, they are often governed by statute as opposed to sitting alongside a trust deed of some sort that’s come through current law that we hold. We’ve actually seen a few of these bills come through the House this term, such that the Governance and Administration Committee has said we’re quite keen to take a look at what other options we could have for amending these. On one hand, they do take up the House’s time—which I don’t suggest is something we shouldn’t be doing—but it also takes up a significant amount of time for the organisations that put forward private bills. I note that we probably will be discussing some matters that are relevant, when we have discussions around Standing Orders, because we want to make sure that those organisations that are the holders of these pieces of legislation are able to make changes to them in a way that is nimble and flexible. But also, there is a useful option here for the House and for the select committees to be able to test out those changes and any changes that could be of concern to the House.

It’s something that our committee has grappled with this term, and it’s a good thing for us to discuss. I am not suggesting any wholesale changes to Acts and how they operate, because I would probably have the Bishop of Nelson on the phone to me tonight saying to me, “What are you doing?” But I do think that having these bills come through has allowed to have that conversation, which is really good.

Essentially, as the member in charge of the bill, Grant Robertson, has pointed out, the main purpose of the bill is to ensure that the parish can use the funds that it has available to it to do the work that it wishes to do. I have a number of examples I can use from my own experience, where money is set aside—for example, in some of our parishes in Nelson—where it can only be used to maintain the church organ. We end up with literally millions of dollars sitting in accounts to maintain the pipe organ. Now, being the holder of a music degree, an Anglican Church musician myself, and the daughter of a church organist, maintaining the pipe organ is very important. We often have these situations where we end up with money being attached to a specific item within the church, and, actually, the church’s objectives and what they want to do with that money—and, in this case, St Peter’s plays a huge role in social justice—it means it makes it very, very difficult for the church to be able to achieve the objectives of both the people who establish the parish, what they want to achieve for the parish, but also the current members of the parish.

So what this bill does is it allows that flexibility in terms of how that money can be spent, while still ensuring that the capital account can be maintained in perpetuity, because that’s important that it doesn’t get drained and the funds be reduced.

One of the things the committee did grapple with was the comment in the nature of an “exceptional circumstance”. So I just want to make some commentary around that, because clause 5(3) states that “In exceptional circumstances, the vestry may request that the Trust Board make an additional distribution.” We did have a discussion around whether we needed a definition for what “exceptional circumstances” were, but we, in the end, decided to stick with the case by case basis that should be exercised if an exceptional circumstance does materialise that would require a larger amount to be dispersed.

I’m sure we will be able to ask the member in charge a couple more questions during the committee of the whole House stage. Before do, though, I just wanted, I guess, turn to some comments around social justice, because, a couple of weeks ago, I had quite a moving moment when I was walking down the corridor on level two of this House. One of our retiring members Jamie Strange called out to me and said, “Rachel, I’ve got this in my office and I don’t what to do with it, and would you know what to do with it?” And I went into his office and he had a banner with the Anglican Church logo on it from the 1998 Hīkoi of Hope. I opened it up and I was extremely moved to open up this banner. It was given to Jamie Strange by former MP for Christchurch Central Tim Barnett. So I contacted Tim to find out how he came into possession of the banner. It had been given to him by a Christchurch priest from the Canterbury diocese, who had arrived in Wellington and given it to him, and it ended up hanging on his wall while he was in Parliament. So he gave it to Jamie Strange, who’s given it to me. So I’ve been in touch with Michael Hughes, who’s the General Secretary of the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia and I’m going to be returning it to the Auckland diocese—they’ve determined that’s where it should go—on Saturday, when I’m in Auckland.

It’s been remarkable for me to just reflect on the Hīkoi of Hope and talk to mother about it, because it was a formative time in my life, when we had a cost of living crisis in the 1990s. At the end of that time, we had seen—well, during that time, actually, early on, we’d seen benefits cuts, we’d seen high unemployment, and we’d seen selling off of State houses. That Hīkoi of Hope was one of the turning points, I think, in the life of New Zealand, which did lead to the election of a 1999 Labour Government, and certainly influenced the first vote I took, in 1999.

In these times, which are very, very tough, as an Anglican who proudly stands on the values of social justice, being able to talk to this bill tonight is actually a real reminder to me of the Anglican values and the Labour Party values that I hold, that I believe align very closely. This is a time where we need to put hope first and where we need to look after those who are most vulnerable, at all times. That’s why I’m so proud to be a member in this House—on this side of the House that is looking at how we house people, lift incomes for our most vulnerable, and, at this time, focus on hope and not fear. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it really is a pleasure this afternoon to be speaking on this bill. In my time in Parliament, we’ve dealt with a lot of bills that perhaps come from the 1950s or the 1960s or a relevant amount of time ago, but very seldom do we ever deal with one that comes from 96 years ago, and actually from 1927—and it really is a no-brainer to be working on the updating of this bill.

I really do want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee—I’m an ex-member and a chair of that committee, and it really is interesting, and I have worked with Rachel Boyack in the past and there are some very interesting pieces of legislation that come through there. And perhaps I can sort of understand—having not been on the committee through that phase—thinking about how we might deal with some of these bills in the future, because the time and effort that churches and other groups have to go through in getting a bill like this passed through Parliament can be quite onerous, and for a lot of groups are also quite costly, unless there are some charitable legal options that they’re able to take in terms of people doing some of the work for them.

I also have noted that the church has been extremely good, and I’ve taken a lot of lead from the Hansard on the first reading, particularly the speech done by the Hon Grant Robertson, talking about how the church has provided important community services for the people of Wellington and worked really hard on issues like climate change, working for families, living wage—a range of things in the social justice area. And I must say that at a time where we’ve only got a matter of hours left in this House and sometimes the tensions of politics—particularly at election time—tend to take over and tolerance disappears, it’s actually really nice to be standing here and working with a group of people who have provided so much tolerance and love for all. And if it means that we become more tolerant of each other in this House, then maybe you might like to come back more often, because at the moment it’s having a really good effect on the House of Parliament.

So the bill has been through significant consultation with the St Peter’s parish community, and I have to say, from all accounts—and not having any involvement in this, but the feedback that I’ve had is that the church has worked extremely hard to get the bill to this stage. It is a significant achievement, and you should all be proud of where you’ve got this to. We note that the bill restricts the size of the distributions to the lesser of either the amount of income earned in the current year or the amount of income earned in the preceding year. And for good reason, the trust board wishes to amend the deed to resolve this. So now the bill basically states, in clause 5, that the Trust “may … distribute up to 4% of the [trust] fund in [any] financial year … lend to the parish … [and is able to] make … additional distribution[s]”—in certain circumstances, up to a limit of 20 percent. I can understand why the Governance and Administration Committee have had a discussion about “certain” and “exceptional” circumstances, except that I can also understand how that could be very hard to define and probably something that is probably best left to the judgment of those who sit on the trust board, because each exceptional and certain circumstance may end up being quite different, and we hope that you don’t face too many of those, because often they come in adverse situations.

So the St Peter’s Endowment Fund, according to the information I’ve been given, is worth $5.7 million in land, property, and financial security. So I must say, over the course of many, many years, it has been a very soundly-run fund, which has been put to some extremely good use. And I think it’s commendable that the trustees wish to modernise and reflect, because modernising after 96 years is a very fair request. To take account of the provision of all relevant legislation that currently exists, a lot has changed in 100 years. I lost my grandmother about 2½ years ago, and she was 104 years of age, and I often reflect on the things that she would have seen in her lifetime, and it’s really been interesting, probably for her and many other people who have the luck of reaching that age—hopefully in good health—that they do see a lot of change in their lifetime. Certainly, 96 years is a fair period for a piece of legislation to be lasting.

So Crown Law did advise the trust board that to vary the provisions of the trust deed, they must seek to do this through a private Act of Parliament, which of course is why we’re here now, and it has taken quite a considerable amount of time, but we’re here now—and I really think that this is a very good bill to enable the trust board to lend to the St Peter’s Anglican Parish in Wellington, but also to be able to carry out the good work that they’ve been carrying out through until this time. So with that, it’s my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill.

Before I carry on with speaking on the bill, I just want to add my voice to the voice of other members who spoke in this House about the member who brought this bill to this House, the Hon Grant Robertson, and the last 15 years of his service to Wellington Central. In the last few months, I’ve been engaging with a lot of Wellingtonians on the campaign trail. The testament—what I hear from the people that 15 years of his service to Wellington; even the last six years, being the Minister of Finance, he is always someone who turns up to events, whether they’re big, small, medium. I just want to thank him for his service to Wellington, but also for bringing this bill on behalf of St Peter’s church today.

The purpose of this bill is to modernise governing arrangements of the St Peter’s parish endowment fund, which was last updated a long, long time ago—which was 1927. The trust board was established by the declaration then, of the trust board, which was 8 August 1922.

I just want to talk a little bit about St Peter’s church. It is one of the entities that makes Wellington feel like home. I know that many members of the church are today here with us, and many of them are people that I proudly call good friends as well. Because the role of the church, in making Wellington what it is, and looking after those most vulnerable members of our communities—the member in charge of this bill talked about the church’s role in highlighting the issues of the LGBTQ communities 50 years ago, for example. But also, in the last 15 years of me being in Wellington, I had a lot to with the church; that’s around the social justice and the work that the church and its members do fighting for the living wage and the fair pay agreements for those who are most vulnerable in our communities.

But also, their role, and the work that they have done with the members of the Muslim community after the March 15th attacks: St Peter’s stepped up and embraced the Muslim community. They organised a lot of events after events, making the community feel good, but at the same time also feel safe as well. Not only their members, but they managed to bring members of the Wellington community in wrapping their arms around the Muslim community as well.

It was only after—in May, the second day from the Budget, the church’s child poverty action group got us together to talk about Budget 2023, but also the work that has been done in the space of child poverty. It was a very useful discussion to everyone who attended. I was one of the people that was lucky enough to be invited and be there.

So, a few years ago, St Peter’s church was one of the entities that spearheaded the campaign to increase the refugee quota. I remember Bishop Justin, who was walking all the way from Wellington Central to Parliament barefoot and demanding the politicians step up and increase the quota. Those of us who are in refugee communities are very grateful for the work that the church has done not only in the space of increasing wages but also speaking up on behalf of those often vulnerable communities.

So, this is a good bill; it’s a timely bill. I want to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee, who did diligent work on this bill and made it the way it is today, and also the submitters, who took time to submit to this bill. I’m sure their submissions improved the bill, and because of their contribution and engagement the bill is now better than it was at the beginning. It’s a timely bill and it’s a good bill. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the ACT Party, I rise to speak on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. It was very interesting reading through this, because, again, not from Wellington; however, experienced a lot what has occurred in Christchurch with the Anglican churches down there.

Reading through all this, it was very interesting the history that Minister Grant Robertson informed us, when this was originally sat back in 1922, then the endowment fund in 1927—and at this stage, we’re 100 percent sure there’s no one of that age here. However, things have changed.

Hon Grant Robertson: Willie Jackson’s here.

TONI SEVERIN: But one will never know—one can always be hiding. But then, also, the charities trust—this is part of that—is to get us back into modern life. Even the Charitable Trust Act, which is 1957—we might have a few people that are closer to that age—then again we’ve had the Anglican Church Trusts Act 1981, which I’m thinking we’re coming a little bit closer to home for many people in Parliament; and then, of course, the Trusts Act 2019.

But it was very interesting to read through and find out that the minimum trust payments are that they could only pay out £1,500—and many people wouldn’t even know what a pound looks like—and then it goes to £10,000. So we’re no longer working with pounds; we’re working with dollars. Anything that can help a great organisation that does great work—we’re all for it, especially when they have been able to achieve the savings that they have and doing the good work that they have within the social justice area.

I understood this makes it just that much more flexible to be using this money, and that’s great, especially those from us in Christchurch that understand when extreme circumstances can occur and especially with us losing many of our old churches in Christchurch—of which many were Anglican churches—that extreme circumstance that they have in this bill, we hope, in Wellington, do not need to use on an earthquake. But we do know that adverse things do happen and there’s also anything with buildings, we know, when they are of age as well, we just hope that everything’s going well.

But in general, the bill: we were quite happy. I did not sit on the Governance and Administration Committee, but I believe that they have gone through this very well, and that Crown Law has come through. We might need to start looking at some of these quite old bills that may need to be updated, because we are constantly changing laws here and many people get caught in the changes. It’s a huge cost, as well as time, for these people that have these sorts of trusts and conditions placed on them from like 1927—that’s, yeah. It’s hard to believe, to think that they’ve operated for this length of time with these constraints that they had around them.

So with that, we commend this bill to the House and we think it’s going to do a great job to help the Wellington community and help St Peter’s parish to continue their good work that they have achieved. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to arise and take a call on this bill, the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. I did sit on the Governance and Administration Committee—a great select committee—as well, when we scrutinised this bill. I thoroughly enjoyed the submissions process, because I got to meet many members of the church and their excellent legal adviser who we’ve now become very good friends with over many bills—advising my select committees—including members of the clergy as well, and to see your dedication to your community and to the church as well.

I took a particular interest, I think, in the way that churches are governed and the structures that we hold to hold this sacred institute, but at the same time to have laws—the laws of man, really, is what I call it—to interact with the Church of God, and being able to go into those discussions and see where the church interfaces with law, with the society, in terms of the social justice programme that my colleague Rachel Boyack has already talked about. That was something that has left a long-lasting impression with me after that interaction that day, especially the submission from the social justice committee—so having another arm, another body to specifically carry out that work but also the different memberships that the trust has as well. So it’s great to hear also that day that this bill and the changes we’re about to make here in the House has the support of the whole entire church and all the different branches and all the different arms of the church as well.

I do have my own story with the St Peter’s church on Willis Street. It’s probably not one that people expect. I stay in the Victoria Street Precinct Apartments, which are built right next to the church and on its land. On the first Sunday, I remember, when newly elected, that I stayed in that apartment, I worked to the beautiful church bells, which were obviously an hour before I had anticipated getting up that day, because I was trying to recover from the campaign trail. Then I’ve since learnt that if I want to have a sleep-in on a Sunday morning, I shouldn’t be staying in my Wellington apartment.

But then I saw the different people that streamed into the church and then I discovered that on the ground floor of my apartment building there was that community centre as well. And I saw firsthand the work that St Peter’s were doing on the ground here in Wellington and within its own community. That was probably the most straightforward way that I could really appreciate the wide-ranging work that the church is doing here in Wellington. For this bill to be able to give the church, I guess, its wider power—it’s a bit more flexibility in terms of how it deals with its finance, in terms of how it supports all the other different types of work that it’s doing. I think it’s just a much needed change.

My colleagues have limited my use of this following phrase to probably once a month or once a year, which is “This bill was enacted before I was even born.” I think I can say that very safely for this bill, as the member who’s just resumed her seat has mentioned. Today’s bill is one where we’re trying to amend an Act—so the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Act 1927, and obviously, in that original Act in 1927, we have built a structure that is of that time and obviously does not work and is no longer compatible for modern-day New Zealand.

Being able to update that to make it compatible and to be able to analyse across different legal entities into the ones that we have and that are most comparable, in terms of the legal instruments that we can use to help and build the Church, I think is very much necessary. And it’s really good that we’ve looked at, in the select committee process, how the funds are distributed. We know that there’s $5.7 million in the investment fund. That’s a great and healthy, I think, financial governance that we’ve put into place in the church. Being able to still support that and support the church in a sustainable growth in the years to come, to fulfil its vision and mission in the community, I think is something that I’m extremely proud to have played a part in.

We’ve also looked at the exceptional circumstances, as well, in the select committee process where we can, I guess, deviate a little bit from the set rules, where we can respond to some of those needs. I think there’s no other better example than COVID-19, when we had to really be creative and be nimble about the way that we responded in those kind of circumstances. So being able to give the trust a bit of flexibility in how to respond to unanticipated events has been really good as well.

Then there was also the liability and indemnities of trustees, which I think is now quite a standard clause in most trust deeds, and then there’s some other loose ends that we’re tying in. Obviously, the select committee also commented on the future of these private bills and how Parliament can better respond to them and be more efficient for both the people who want to change a trust deed and for Parliament as well.

This is a great bill. I’m very proud and very humbled to have played a little part in this, and so I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. I rise to take a very brief call to demonstrate the Green Party’s support for the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. I acknowledge the member, the Hon Grant Robertson, for bringing this forward on behalf of a significant constituency within his electorate. This is amending a bill and a trust that was put in place in—as we’ve heard—1927 and is about reflecting the will of the church and their community. And I really feel like it’s their business—ha, ha! And the sooner we get to the point where Parliament doesn’t need to spend time on enabling the church to do its own business, the better. I support this bill.

As I start, I want to acknowledge the Rev Bob Scott, who, a month ago, passed away. He was not only a good Labour man—member of the Labour Party but he was one of the ministers at St Peter’s back in the 1960s. I had the privilege of knowing the Rev Bob Scott and was saddened by his passing, but also reflecting on the work that he did at St Peter’s, the work that he did to support the InnerCity Mission and ministry, things like—we think of the Wellington City Mission, and Bob Scott was integral in that.

So I just want to reflect and pause to acknowledge the Rev Bob Scott for his contribution to St Peter’s, to the parish, to the wider community of Wellington, of New Zealand, but also he stretched beyond that because the work of apartheid in South Africa—he was a part of working to end that regime, and to bring healing into not only places like St Peter’s but also around the world. So I want to acknowledge the Rev Bob Scott this afternoon as we come closer to passing this piece of legislation.

Now, I did mention it in my opening speech in the first round—the first reading, and I know that the Hon Grant Robertson has also talked about it, but I just get a chuckle from the fact that Bob Scott and his antics—his antics with the Rev Godfrey Wilson and that national radio programme back in 1967—all from St Peter’s. The first open and affirming speech for our rainbow community from a church in New Zealand, and that will go down in history as a good thing. At the time, I’m not sure if people thought so much of that, but we look back at the journey and the steps to not only homosexual law reform or marriage equality but to the liberation of our rainbow community that I’m part of. So I want to say thank you not only to Bob Scott and Godfrey Wilson but also to the parish of St Peter’s. I see some of you in the gallery this afternoon and I say thank you for your mahi, and continue to do the mahi.

I guess that is what this legislation is about. It is around ensuring that this fund, created a number of years ago, continues to serve the purpose of the church, which, of course, we know is to serve the purpose of community, to build community. For those of you who are familiar with the Christian scriptures, obviously it’s around feeding the hungry, it’s around clothing the naked, it’s around visiting the prisoner and the sick. This legislation, although it’s words and it’s about legislation, it’s actually about the purpose which is to serve the community of Wellington, and the community of the world, as we see with many of the ministers and reverends that have gone on to work around New Zealand and the world.

I just want to acknowledge that this does need to be updated. There’s been lots of conversations around what should or shouldn’t be done in this House, but, at this point in time, this is the legal process and we will support it—very much. It’s around streamroll—almost said steamrolling—it’s around streamlining, let’s stick to that, shall we? Around streamlining the role for the trustees and to let St Peter’s plan so that you can continue to do your mission and your ministry.

Now, we all seem to try to find a story or a connection back to St Peter’s, it just feels like we’re doing that this afternoon. So I will do the same because, you know, I’ll just play along. And my earliest memory of St Peter’s was back in the 1990s. I was young and fit and handsome and had hair and didn’t have a belly, and all those sorts of things—

Simon O’Connor: In the last millennium.

GLEN BENNETT: And it was in the last millennium and I do remember going to midnight mass several times at Easter. I was a good Salvation Army boy and so I remember going to midnight mass one Easter—probably my first time and I remember getting this shock of my life when communion came round and, you know, the Salvation Army were very good, we had teetotallers—and to partake in the blood of Christ and the body of Christ made me a bit nervous when I realised I was partaking in alcohol. But in all seriousness, it was significant to reflect on what that story is, which is around giving up your lives to serve others.

This legislation helps to empower to do that. We thank you for your service and your mahi, and I commend this bill to the House.

I understand this is a split call. Penny Simmonds—five minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand today and speak in support of the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. I looked through the first readings of the speech as well as the report that came from the select committee, and obviously this fund was set up some time ago—1927—and in the first reading someone unkindly asked Ian McKelvie if he recalled it at all. I wouldn’t be so unkind as to suggest that of course. But speaking of Mr McKelvie, he was of course the chair of the select committee that took this bill through its submissions process. So the bill went to the Governance and Administration Committee in March this year and looked at the submissions, the nine written submissions and of course a number of oral submissions. And we can see from the submissions that the board members have worked diligently to ensure that this bill goes through to ensure the successful continuity of their endowment fund.

I served about nine years, I think, on Community Trust South and it is a significant responsibility for trustees of endowment funds like this that they not only make sure they are doing good work with the fund in their time, but also that they are safeguarding the fund for perpetuity and ensuring that it will be there to continue this good work of the church going forward. So you can see from the submissions and from the work that this board has done that they are very mindful of those significant responsibilities that they have. So clause 5 is the particularly important one which allows the trust board to distribute up to 4 percent of the endowment fund in any financial year. And it is that delicate decision making of that balance of being able to use funds as they are needed but also to ensure that the fund is not eroded over time. And so they’ve come to a very conservative but also very sensitive balance in that 4 percent.

They have noted, in clause 5(3), that under exceptional circumstances they may be able to exceed that 4 percent, and quite sensibly have not tried to put limitations or definitions around the threshold of what could be an exceptional circumstance. I think that’s been a very wise thing to do because there will be unforeseen circumstances that have to be considered at that time in the context of what is occurring at that time. So I think, wisely, they have left some opening there for the trustees to exercise good judgment and I know they will show that same sensible and enduring responsibility that they have shown up until now.

The administrative powers are covered in clause 6 and then clause 7 very importantly talks about mitigating that liability and indemnity of trustees. It’s really important that the trustees can go about their work without that fear of any losses that may occur—because there will be times when it is quite tough to be able to make that sort of return, and they have to have that indemnity. But of course they will be very aware that it doesn’t indemnify any dishonesty or wilful misconduct or negligence. But I’m sure that the very good trustees of this endowment fund will never fall into that category. So I am very pleased to be one of the speakers lending support to this St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. Thank you.

Mihi ana ki a koe e te Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa ngā rangatira o te St Peter’s.

[Greetings to you, Madam Speaker, and to you, all the distinguished leaders of St Peter’s.]

It is my pleasure to take a short call on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. The bill seeks to remedy, with relation to income distribution, matters within its trust deed. The purpose of the bill is to bring its trust deed into the modern world. There’s no doubt, of course, deeds need to be reviewed from time to time. I was not involved with this bill, but I congratulate everyone that was involved. This bill does a number of things. It removes the restriction on the trust to distribute income, it repeals the former 1927 Act, and it ensures any future amendments can be provided under provisions of the Anglican Church Trusts Act 1981 and possibly the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.

St Peter’s has a long and rich history, which dates back to 1848, of advocating for social justice, especially for the lost, the last, and the least. In my world and that of Te Haahi Rātana, te pani me te rawakore—the orphans and the widows and those of the greatest need in our communities. I acknowledge also historically they are open to all in every aspect of worship, regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientations, race, or faith. Sadly, we can’t say the same for other Christian groups. But I commend and wholeheartedly celebrate St Peter’s in a way that due respect needs to be held here with their inclusivity. So in particular, of course, their long advocacy on behalf of the LGBTQ+ community. I acknowledge too that the Wellington City Mission was formed from St Peter’s—it’s iconic to Wellington. I thank St Peter’s on behalf of every one of you. You do such a great service to our people. Tēnā koutou mihi ana ki a koutou tātou katoa.

[Thank you all, greetings to you all.]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be the last National Party speaker in this debate on the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. People who are watching on television or listening on their radios—or, indeed, in the gallery—will have got the sense now, having heard other speakers in this debate, that there is unanimity across the Parliament and support for this piece of legislation. That’s a good thing, because too often in this Parliament people look and see us arguing, debating philosophy and policy and principle, and all that sort of stuff.

Hon Grant Robertson: Philosophy?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Occasionally, we do do philosophy. My colleague Simon O’Connor is very good at it. So it’s quite nice, occasionally, for us to be united on a good piece of legislation that’s actually going to continue the good work that has been done over a long number of years, since the establishment of the original piece of legislation many years ago—back in 1927, I think, was the first piece of legislation.

Our Parliament has a history that dates back to around that time—and, in fact, even earlier times—of doing these special, bespoke pieces of legislation for a range of organisations, whether they be charitable, sporting, or indeed religious. I can remember, on a number of previous occasions in my time in Parliament, having to update legislation relating to other organisations. I remember after the Christchurch earthquakes, when there needed to be some updating of some of the bespoke pieces of legislation that related to horseracing and jockey clubs around Christchurch. The fact is that, when these pieces of legislation were first formulated, they were formulated with good intent, to encourage good community outcomes, for organisations that were doing good work across the nation in the particular sector or field that they operated in. But, over the years, many of those good intentions have been overtaken a little bit by time. The good intention remains, but the practical application of the piece of legislation has become, for a variety of reasons, limiting, inflexible, and not best placed to provide the kind of nimbleness and good governance that is now required in a modern environment, for a changed set of circumstances, and also not particularly well futureproofed. So I want to commend the local member, the Hon Grant Robertson, for his work in bringing this private bill to the House. He’s the sponsor, but it’s promoted by the St Peter’s Wellington Endowment Fund Trust Board. So it’s appropriate that, in this Parliament, we do update, modernise, and futureproof the good work that the folk at St Peter’s do, not only in the parish but also for the wider community that they represent.

In a previous life, I served for a number of years on an Anglican parish vestry that didn’t have the benefit of an endowment fund but was a heritage building over 100 years old. I have a particular memory of my years on that vestry, of the constant battle in terms of raising money to do significant maintenance work on the historic building, which was much loved in the local community but actually not necessarily as well supported by the local community. It was a relatively small congregation of wonderful people, generous of spirit, time, and energy, and financial support, but always struggling with the need for fixing some windows, or updating the roof, or fixing a leak, or upgrading the toilet facilities, or maybe the kitchen in the hall needed work—all those sorts of things that are a challenge constantly for the good folk who, almost inevitably, give so generously, voluntarily of their time to promote and encourage these wonderful institutions that form the very fabric of so many of our communities around the nation. In my electorate, in the Coromandel, we’ve got a number of churches that are of a similar vintage to St Peter’s. In Thames, in particular, we have a couple of outstandingly beautiful, magnificent, hard kauri built churches. I’m thinking of St George’s Anglican Church in Thames, and also St James’ Presbyterian Church in Thames—beautiful examples not only of religious buildings but actually of magnificent architectural buildings in their own right. But the constant demand to keep them up is ongoing and never ending.

So not every parish has the opportunity of having an endowment fund or a bespoke piece of legislation that goes with it. So, when we have an opportunity to update, modernise, and futureproof, as we are doing with this piece of legislation, that’s something that I think we should take advantage of. I know that to get to this point will have involved many, many hours, not just formal meetings and discussions within the trustees’ meetings but also amongst wider members of the congregation and parish community. They will have given very careful thought to the prudent and pragmatic approach that is going to be needed to ensure that this iconic building and this iconic institution that is so much part of central Wellington will be maintained and kept in good order and good governance over the many, many, many years ahead. I don’t have a particular knowledge of the building itself, other than I can remember about three years ago participating in a political debate on climate change in the precinct of the church. It was actually quite a good debate—

Hon Grant Robertson: Did you learn a lot?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Well, I had divine guidance on several matters, and I can remember James Shaw participated in that debate, as did several others. Now, I’m not sure that he was particularly inspirational in providing me with divine inspiration on that particular evening, but I do recall that it was a very appropriate and good setting for a debate that was in good mood, good heart, and just representative of the sorts of things that a church like St Peter’s provides to the wider community. It’s not just the Sunday services and the religious outreach; it’s far more than that. Other speakers have made mention of the very good and proud record that St Peter’s has, but I know, as a traditional Anglican myself, that by and large we don’t like change. Change comes slowly and with a lot of debate and a lot of angst and often a lot of gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands, but, eventually, we collectively get there, and so, on this piece of legislation, it’s an absolute pleasure to, as I say, be the last speaker on behalf of the National Party in this portion of the debate.

We will pass this legislation today, before the Parliament rises tomorrow, and I think it’s very fitting that part of what we do in the conclusion of this Parliament is to pass this piece of legislation. So, again, my thanks and appreciation go to everyone who has been involved in getting it thus far, and my best wishes and sincere good hopes for future endeavours. I’m sure that the church, the parish, and the community are going to endure, prosper, and succeed for many, many years to come.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a delight to rise and take a call on this bill. We’ve heard very much already about the changes that are required to modernise and make it possible for St Peter’s parish to continue to lead and to support their neighbours and the fight for social justice. So we’ve heard about all of that.

I guess I have a little confession that my children are not from a family that connects regularly with a church community. As a teenager, the only time I went to church was to sing because the acoustics are great and musicians are welcome in most churches. So my family only really experiences church communities when we go to weddings and to funerals, and maybe the odd christening. Yet, they had been beneficiaries of your mahi.

So when we were locals in in the Aro Valley and my kids were a lot younger and we’d walk down Willis Street, they would see the people congregating and waiting for that very precious container to open up with The Free Store in the evening. You know, my little daughter would ask me what’s happening. It was such a wonderful opportunity to be able to explain to her not just what was going on, but why; and be able to really share that sense of community, and not just that it’s good to look after your neighbours, whoever they may be, but how you do it; you just do it.

I want to thank you for teaching our children about social justice and about service—

Camilla Belich: Go the Catholics!

ANGELA ROBERTS: —and the Anglicans—and, really importantly, for our young people that when things are hard—because they are tough at the moment—to help them through; to know, after seeing what you do, that there is hope that comes from service. It is because of this I’m delighted to commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, the St Peter’s Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of this bill.

In Committee

Preamble and clauses 1 to 10