Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill
Thank you, Madam Chair. What this does is it varies the terms of the trust. In Part 1, the “trust deed” and the “trust” are defined terms—and, of course, I won’t go over those—and we see, in the preamble to the bill, some discussion of what is in that trust deed. The definition of the trust deed “includes all amendments to the trust deed since that date”—that date being 19 February 2016.
Then we turn to clause 5, which is Part 2, and it varies that trust deed. I guess it would just be useful for the member to talk us through why it is that the deed needed to be amended in these specific ways—because, on the face of it, it doesn’t all look like it relates to the boundaries of Christchurch. It would be useful when we get to the Schedule—oh, no, sorry, the Schedule is in this part, so I’ll speak to the Schedule as well.
What happens is clause 5 says there’s going to be some variation to the trust deed, and then you find what those variations are in the Schedule. They do refer to the Christchurch and Banks Peninsula areas. The question is, if the member can explain, how these changes to the trust deed—if, effectively, the importance of these changes is just because when the deed is referring to “the benefit of the communities in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula”, there is an addition after that that says “and other areas as determined from time to time by the trustees”. Is that the most significant change that we’re looking at here? It’s this addition of “and other areas as determined”. Thank you.
Thank you. The member Rachel Brooking is right that clause 5(1)(b), in particular, replaces clause 4.1 of the trust deed with Part 2 of the Schedule. It is around that geographical boundary that sits there. As I said at the Social Services and Community Committee, there was debate about whether or not we needed to put in geographic guardrails. It could be that some people don’t trust people from Christchurch not to look to expand their kingdom too far across the island!
The decision was made that “and other areas” allowed more flexibility, it would achieve what was needed and wanted by the mayors, but would mitigate against the need to come back if there were further geographic expansions. In an earlier contribution, I talked about not needing to come back if, say, someone one town over wanted the trust to operate, but the geographic guard rails had been established in such a way that would require us to do this all over again.
I’m interested in the member’s answer to that, and I’m glad she has faith and confidence that the trustees will keep it relatively close to home, because they are quite broad words.
I want to look at some other broad words in Part 1, which talks about the social housing tenants. It talks about how, from time to time, the trustees can consider people “who are suffering genuine hardship or need, including without limitation”—and then there is a series—“elderly, the young, the disabled, the unemployed, and other low-income people.” Obviously, that’s got a really worthy purpose, but the “without limitation” wording is very strong. I can see that there might be a purpose to make sure that the trustees have the flexibility to be able to expand their charitable purpose or the groups of people that that supports, such as, say, single parents or whatever. I’m wondering why the words “without limitation” were specifically used and if that was something that came up in the Social Services and Community Committee.
I also just want to look at the legal structure from Part 2 and the way Part 2 operates in terms of lifting and shifting everything as if the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 applies. If the member could explain, perhaps from a lawmaking perspective, why this particular provision is so important for her bill to be able to work properly. What would happen if we didn’t do that? Would that be an impediment to the types of things the trust would be able to achieve?
Thank you. To my knowledge, there wasn’t discussion at the Social Services and Community Committee around the terminology that the member is referring to. What I assume is that what it is giving is enough scope. As I talked about in earlier contributions, the trust is actually innovating; it is no longer just renting out to people who qualify for the income-related rent subsidy. They are also doing another category of kind of affordable rentals. They are also looking at shared equity type schemes. These don’t have the criteria that are applied by income-related rent subsidy rules that go with that. It allows it and gives it a kind of direction of the groups that they would see and that the trust would want to be assisting.
If I understood the member’s question correctly, around what the limitations would be if we didn’t change the law, it’s just that they simply can’t operate outside of their specific area. It would confine them, and they would not be able to work across that greater partnership.
Just further to the point that Ingrid Leary was making, it was about—the member in the chair, I think, is trying to convince her further-southern colleagues that this is not going to be a Christchurch takeover.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I had not realised until this afternoon that Dunedin was so threatened by Christchurch.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: They’re our big brother, Madam Chair.
Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s all about that stadium!
Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, your taxpayer-funded stadium, unlike our ratepayer one. Anyway, this might digress into something that’s not seemly for Parliament, and so we won’t go there, except to say that Christchurch now has a wonderful stadium that looks magnificent.
Going to that point, is there anything, apart from “and other areas as determined from time to time by the trustees” that limits the geographical area, or is it simply the name of the trust, that it has historically operated in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, and that the people who have been involved in it thus far have been the mayors of those other councils that are in Canterbury and in close proximity to Christchurch? Is it sort of the contextual nature of it, or is there anything anywhere else that places any caveats on the geographical area? I mean, there are lots of good things to have come out of Christchurch, and so it’s certainly not the end of the world if there’s not.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the question as to whether there are those geographic guardrails, the answer is no. I guess that the limiting factor is the patience of the people of Christchurch. The primary purpose of the trust is still primarily to be community and social housing in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, and so I think there would be some grumpiness if there wasn’t continued activity within that area.
But if we have a look at a number of our community housing providers, the way they get scale is by actually operating across greater areas or, indeed, by operating at a national level. One need only look at the Salvation Army, for example, as a great example of a community housing provider who operates at a national level. It’s the way that we can get the scale and get the expertise that is there. The member has nothing to fear.
I also want to look at the—I think Part 2 of the Schedule is included, if I’m correct, Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It is. All of the schedule is included.
INGRID LEARY: Thank you. It’s talking about the benefits not being for “the private pecuniary profit of any individual”, and then also has another one around the purpose of that, and it’s really trying to, obviously, serve the charitable purpose. I’m wondering whether the member considered whether other types of profits that are not necessarily pecuniary and direct but that could be a form of benefit to that individual that don’t involve a financial transaction, but might be, say, that their family members could live there, or there is some other kind of benefit. Is there a way that that is limited through this, or is she concerned that this is only about kind of financial transactions, rather than other social transactions that could accrue a conflicted benefit that might then not serve the charitable purpose of the bill?
The provision of the bill is primarily around the pecuniary benefit that could flow. In terms of the social benefit, I guess it’s our systems for allocation of housing that would stop that. If someone is to go into an Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (ŌCHT) home, in the majority of their homes, they have to qualify for an income-related rent subsidy. There is a test that goes through there that is applied through the Ministry of Social Development. It is then the placements team at ŌCHT that would look to house people who already qualified for that, and so the purpose of the bill is focused on the pecuniary interests that could flow.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll take a call from Ingrid Leary, but I’d really like to wind up this part.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on Part 3 of the Schedule, which talks about replacing clause 9.5(b), which is to do with the board appointments panel, there’s some really interesting wording about a requirement for that person, I believe, to have “an empathy with the people for whom the Trust would provide social or affordable housing”. I wonder if the Minister could describe for us what she thinks would be included in that, and also what might be excluded that would make somebody not able to qualify if they lacked that empathy for those particular beneficiaries.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think most trusts, when they are looking for people to come on their board, are looking for people that share values, believe in a particular cause, and have expertise in achieving what needs to be achieved in terms of the provision of housing. I think we all know what “empathy” means. It’s someone who believes in and sees the value of having social housing and the transformative nature that it can play in a person’s life, whether that be from a health or a social benefit, and from a community perspective, as well.
Part 2 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Committee of the whole House
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to our final debate. It is the debate on clauses 1 and 2: “Title” and “Commencement”.