Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill

I am just wondering if the member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, can explain to us, when she looks at the trust’s charitable purpose, as set out in clause 4.1 of the trust deed, why that particular area is important for the benefit of this. I notice that it talks about Christchurch, Banks Peninsula, and so on—and just the particular needs of social housing tenants in those areas as compared to perhaps the rest of the Greater Christchurch area, and what difference this bill will make in that respect.

I thank the member Ingrid Leary for the questions. The critical piece, as you say, in Part 1, in terms of clause 4.1 of the trust deed, is that the difference it will make is that it will have the ability of a very experienced community housing provider being able to apply that experience in places beyond the bounds of Christchurch City, as it’s defined as a particular area.

I think that will be one of the most critical things, to build social housing that is fit for purpose for particular communities. As we all know from our own areas, in some areas there is more need for one-bedroom social housing units; in other areas, it’s all around four- and five-bedroom homes for extended families. What it will do is allow those local communities to be able to work with an experienced and established community housing provider to get the best fit for their community.

I also note that the trustee was amended in 2017 to refer to Banks Peninsula, and I believe the member, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, has answered that, but I am curious to know how she sees mana whenua’s involvement—whether that will be enhanced or diminished or remain relatively the same, in relation to the changes that will be brought about by this bill.

Thank you. I see that absolutely as an opportunity for strengthening the involvement of mana whenua, in particular the papatipu rūnanga and the way that they can be involved. There are many rūnanga that fall within the rohe of Christchurch and that can work, and do have very good relationships working, alongside them. Also, there are many rūnanga that sit further outside of Christchurch City, across Canterbury, that have a huge desire and ambition around what they can do for housing and how they can work in partnership, and what they can do to make sure there is that kind of quality housing available in their areas.

I note that the trust has sought legal advice to save itself from having to go through this protracted kind of use of House time but that the advice said it probably would not be able to extend its charitable purpose. I wonder if the member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, could just expand on what the legal impediment is there, and also, why it is imperative that the charitable purpose is expanded in this way. We are, obviously, using time in the House to do this. Has she considered other ways, or had the trust considered other ways, that they could achieve the ends that are being met by this particular bill?

I’ll just very briefly touch on that, because we have had some discussion on that. The trust actually sought very hard not to have to do this to, and I have some other colleagues in the House that might want to turn their minds to this for future parliaments. There are some trust deeds that actually have to be amended, if you’re going to make substantial changes to them, by Act of Parliament, despite the desire to be able to do it in other ways—so thinking about what we might be able to do to make more efficient use of the House’s time in order to do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess, flowing on from that answer, in an earlier question about the links to both Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, obviously, there has been some reorganisation in Christchurch City with Banks Peninsula some time ago. The member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, knows much more about that than I do. We have on our books at the moment—well, not really our books yet, but it’s certainly Government policy—that this Government wants more local government change to happen.

I guess my question is: does this bill that we have in front of us protect the trust sufficiently now from any future changes in local government boundaries? And does the member have any views, going to the point that she just made, about how many other trusts and organisations—I know we have a museum in Otago that has its own specific legislation that relates to local government boundaries. How much House time might be required to make all these changes?

Thank you. I think the member the Hon Rachel Brooking raises an incredibly important point, because what this bill does is open up and allow the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to work right across the South Island; not that I’m suggesting there should be any super-city, ruled from Christchurch, that controls the entire South Island!

Hon Rachel Brooking: Are you sure you’re not?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I would never suggest that to that member. But I think the member does raise an interesting point. Obviously, there had to be a change after the Banks Peninsula council amalgamation that needed to be brought in here. I guess, in some ways, the changes that we’re making here would actually mitigate the need to come back if there are any forced amalgamations of councils that would occur—I can’t imagine there would be any councils that would extend across from the South Island into the North Island, although I may be mistaken. It would mitigate against that.

That is not to say—and the point the member raises is a very good one—that they’re could well be other trusts that are defined by territorial and local government boundaries, in where they can operate, that would find themselves in the position of having to make amendments to their purpose and that would, potentially, need to come back and have amendments to their legislation in order to do that. I think it is a very important point that needs to be considered.

Point of order. I’m sorry to disturb this debate, but I do think I just saw a flash from the Chamber, and the Chair might want to comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): From the Chamber or the gallery?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Sorry, not the Chamber—into the Chamber from above.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. If anyone up there is using flash photography, would you please refrain. It’s not allowed in the House or the gallery. Thank you.

The member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, has herself talked about the relationship with Christchurch City Council and alluded to the support from the council. I wonder if we could have just a little bit more detail about how that endorsement of this came about and what the relationship is like with the Christchurch City Council. Clearly, that would have a lot of sway with members of the public wanting to understand that this is a good move, and having a really well-recognised territorial authority with all that weight behind it is significant. I’d just like to understand the depth of that relationship and the depth of their endorsement.

Thank you, and it is an excellent question. Thank you very much. While this bill does allow Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to operate outside of the confines of Christchurch City, which includes Banks Peninsula, it does retain Christchurch and Banks Peninsula as the primary focus of the trust. It was a trust that was obviously set up to manage what is a legacy taonga for Christchurch, and that is many generations of ratepayers of Christchurch that have built up a substantial portfolio of social and public housing. It’s something we are proud of and that we hold dear.

In terms of where the impetus came from, which the member Ingrid Leary asked about, it was actually instigated by the mayors; not only the Mayor of Christchurch City, Phil Mauger, but also the mayors from other councils in Canterbury—Selwyn and Waimakariri. Kaikōura was also involved. There was a number of mayors that said, “Look, we just need to be able to have this expertise operating in our area too, and that’s something we would want to see.” This is something that has very much been driven by the councils themselves, not something that is being imposed upon them.

I think it shows that, when we allow councils to work out where they can work well together—this came out of the Greater Christchurch Partnership. It started the conversations there, which is where we bring together Christchurch City along with Waimakariri and with Selwyn, and central government agencies and iwi, to talk about the region. That is devoid of thinking about lines on a map drawn for the purposes of local government but what modern-day Christchurch operates as and how that operates.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Ingrid Leary, but I will say that it’s a very small part with two clauses, so it would be nice if we could really get some finalisation around the questions in this call, if that would be helpful. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s really just coming to matters that the member herself is bringing into the debate. She talked about the rates element from the territorial authorities, and I can imagine that for a trust that is doing excellent work like this, there would be an appetite from some philanthropists in the area to want to contribute. We’ve also talked about the relationship with mana whenua.

I’m interested to know if the financial basis of the trust is simply the rates. If it is, is that because it’s a requirement in the trust deed, and does that move over into the statutory requirement, or is there flexibility and leeway, both in the trust deed itself and in what she envisages for the application of the new bill, to be able to accommodate other forms of income that could make the trust more vibrant and sustainable in the long term? What’s the thinking around that?

Thank you, Madam Chair. By and large, the ratepayers of Christchurch do not contribute to the funds through rates. This is funded, and it is a ring-fenced asset in housing. The income that is received for rent—both from tenants, but, importantly, the income that is received by way of the income-related rent subsidy—and the operating subsidy that goes with operating public housing in New Zealand goes back into the trust. That is what allows them to continue their reinvestment.

Even before the advent of the trust in Christchurch, Christchurch City tried to operate its public housing in way that was ring-fenced away from general rates income and that could be self-sufficient. I guess the legacy of such a large portfolio—from memory, I think Christchurch City was and is, if you put Christchurch City and the trust together, the largest landowner after Kāinga Ora in the country. It has a substantial portfolio of social housing.

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Purpose of trust and other matters, and the Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2, “Purpose of the trust and other matters”. Part 2 is the debate on clause 5 and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.