BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I move, That the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill be now read a second time. This is a private bill, and it was my privilege to introduce it to the House on behalf of the Methodist Church of New Zealand, which is centred in my electorate of Christchurch Central. That is home also to the mighty Crusaders and Canterbury rugby teams, but unlike other members we do not need to dwell on their various glories.

The Methodist Church, as every member of this House will know, is a very well-respected religious institution. It has had a very long and proud history here in New Zealand, dating back to the earliest days of European settlement. It has a very strong role and purpose in our communities, in terms of sharing resources and assisting the poor and the disadvantaged, and that very proud tradition continues to this day, with a wide range of services and interventions provided by the church.

Over the years the Methodist Church has attracted a large number of benevolent contributions, and some of these have been preserved in the form of trusts for charitable purposes. As a consequence of that long history, the Methodist Church now holds some of those trusts for purposes that have become obsolete. Of particular relevance to this bill is that a large number of trusts have been held in the past for Methodist orphanages and children’s homes. The Methodist Church, like all other churches now, no longer undertakes the care of children, and there are no such institutions still in operation. The amount of money held in trust is generally quite small, and unfortunately it cannot be utilised for the purposes for which those trusts were established—hence the requirement for this bill. At the moment, the only real alternative for variation to the purposes of those trusts is by way of application to the High Court, which is an expensive, lengthy, and sometimes impractical way to deal with trusts and changes to trusts.

The purpose of this bill is twofold. Firstly, it provides an alternative process to the one under the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957, to vary charitable trusts in general held by the Methodist Church, and, secondly, it widens the purposes of the children’s trusts, to allow those trust funds to be used for the benefit of children in New Zealand.

At this point I thank my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, under the chairmanship of Craig Foss. I am also grateful for the support we received from the Parliamentary Counsel Office and from the Ministry of Justice, and indeed for the submissions received from the Public Trust and Trustees Executors. They were very helpful in terms of shaping this bill. The select committee gave the submissions considerable consideration. At times it seemed to take almost as much time as some of our more omnibus and sizable tax bills, but I think we have ended up with a bill that we can all be relatively pleased with.

I should note that a number of changes have been made to the bill as introduced. The original clause 12 specified that trusts for charitable purposes would be referred to the Attorney-General for his oversight and consideration, but we considered that such specificity might exclude some church trusts. Our suggested recommendation, then, makes it clear that all schemes prepared under Part 2, relating to any church trust, would have such oversight. In relation to trusts dealing with orphanages and children, we are making some suggested changes to clause 18(1) in Part 3, as the clause applies to trusts, funds, and trust properties held for Methodist orphanages and children’s homes in New Zealand, or for the care and welfare of children. The amendment we are suggesting removes any doubt as to whether the funds could in future be applied for non-charitable purposes.

Perhaps the most contentious change that has been suggested by the Finance and Expenditure Committee relates to clause 21, which we suggest be removed and replaced by new clause 19A. This clause provides that if trustees of those trusts, who have in the past been delegated to look after the interests of children by orphanages and other institutions, are to be appointed or removed, then that can happen only after consultation with those trustees. There was a view in the select committee that if clause 21 had proceeded as originally devised, it may have given a rather unfettered power to the Methodist Church. That is perhaps not a very likely prospect; as I said in my introduction, the Methodist Church is a very long-established church with a very proud history of service to the poor and needy in our community. But obviously legislation has to be framed in a way to make sure that any possible contingency has to be covered.

Again, I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its support of this bill and its passage through the House. I ask the House to support the bill through this second reading and the bill’s remaining stages. I hope that the House is able to conclude the progress of this bill before a particular date in December, which all good Methodists and other Christians will be celebrating.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) : I take a very brief call on the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. Picking up on the sentiment and words of the previous speaker, Brendon Burns, I say National will continue to support the bill. As members—particularly those on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—are aware, we are very supportive of the intent of the bill on its way through the House.

Members will note that the Finance and Expenditure Committee recommended a few changes to the bill, under advice from the officials, particularly those from the Ministry of Justice, whom I acknowledge and thank. The previous speaker alluded to some of those changes regarding the definition of property—trust property, at least—and we had an inquiry and discussion with the Attorney-General about some matters, which members will know are picked up on in the commentary on the bill. We will obviously touch on that during the Committee stage.

I quickly note a couple of points. This bill is quite different from a normal bill in that the select committee received it from the House on 6 May 2009, and the way in which we ask for submissions on a bill like this is that we ask for submissions from particularly affected parties: those that are listed as interested parties in the petition from the promoters of the bill. I congratulate the member on picking this bill up; I think Tim Barnett originally ran this bill. Is that correct? Yes, it is. [Interruption] OK, I give my apologies there if that is incorrect. But anyway, I congratulate the member on getting the bill through as far as this, and I also congratulate the members of the committee, who have helped to steer it through. They have raised some interesting points and have effected some amendments to better the bill. One point I would flag is that it was very interesting to note the support that the member opposite, Brendon Burns, had from his colleagues when the bill was finally deliberated on in our committee.

On that note, I say I look forward to this bill progressing through the House quite rapidly. I look forward, hopefully, to achieving the same date that the previous member alluded to. Thank you.

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) : Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I am quite humbled and honoured to stand in this House to support my colleague Brendon Burns, the MP for Christchurch Central, who is sponsoring the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill, and I am also pleased to speak to the bill’s second reading. The group that is critically important to this bill is the Methodist Church of New Zealand, Te Haahi Weteriana o Aotearoa. I thank the Methodist Church, which has been in place since the early 1820s. Just about every New Zealander is affected by church or the history of missionaries, including those from the Methodist Church.

This bill is quite visionary, because it follows a precedent that has already been set with Catholics, Anglicans, and Presbyterians. The main aim of this bill is that where the original objects or purposes are now impossible or impractical or where it is inexpedient to carry them out, we can remove that legal technicality, so that we can carry on with the business in terms of supporting those most in need in our country and in our society.

I also acknowledge the Methodist Church in terms of its commitment to Māori and also to Pacific people. All over the region the Methodist Church has contributed enormously to those countries and to those people when they are in need.

We are very pleased with the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I thank its members so much for doing the great work they have done on this bill, particularly to do with the amendments that my colleague Brendon Burns has alluded to.

We really look forward to seeing the passage of this bill through the House. It will be a welcomed bill, particularly by all the Methodists, who comprise the fifth largest Christian church in New Zealand. I also acknowledge the wonderful contribution that they make to those in need. Thank you.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I am very happy to rise this afternoon and take a call on the second reading on the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. I echo the words of the speakers who have already spoken, setting out that there appears to be broad support in the House for the bill. Certainly, when the Finance and Expenditure Committee considered the bill there was very wide-ranging support for the bill from the outset, and the time that the committee spent on the bill was very much, as Mr Burns has said, about making sure that the bill was in as good a legislative state as we could get it. No committee should ever take that matter lightly. No matter what support a bill has, I think it is the duty of all of us to ensure that the laws we pass are as good and as correct as they can be. Although when we are dealing with an organisation like the Methodist Church we have no reason to fear its motives, my view has always been that the legislation has to stand alone, and we cannot give any law a free pass on the grounds of the particular people involved.

From my perspective, and from my background in trusts law, I was particularly concerned in our work on this bill to ensure that we set the parameters correctly. As has been said already in this debate, this bill was about ensuring that the church did not need to go through what would otherwise be the normal process for amending trusts. We recognised that this particular set of circumstances warranted the Methodist Church having a cleaner, simpler, cheaper way of tidying up some obsolete trusts. Given that we were providing it with, effectively, an easier path through than other trusts would have, I think it was incumbent on us to ensure that we did not let that provision go too far, and that appropriate safeguards were in place.

As Mr Burns has already described, we worked on a number of amendments in committee to ensure that was the case. We have talked about ensuring that all amendments under Part 2 would need to go before the Attorney-General. I think that provides an important check and balance to ensure that if there were any improper conduct there would be the potential for some oversight. The other important change that the committee recommended is about the appointment and removal of trustees. The width of the provision was the subject of some debate. I take responsibility for being the main proponent for requiring the change, and my view was that the ability to appoint and remove trustees, which goes right to the heart of controlled trusts and trusts law, should only extend to the sorts of trusts that the church came before us to seek help in amending—that is, the obsolete, impractical, out-of-date children and orphanages trusts that we all recognised it had a problem with. In terms of the way that the bill had been originally presented to us, the concern was that it would give the church an unfettered ability to change trustees in any trust with which it had an involvement. I think that would cut across too many important principles of trust law and the rights of the settlors of those trusts when they were set up.

We spent some time on it, but I make no apology for that. I think it is important that we get these things right. I think we got to a very good result, and I note that through this bill the Methodist Church has been brought into line by being given similar powers to those this House has already given to the Roman Catholics, the Presbyterians, and the Anglicans. It is certainly something this House has done before. That notwithstanding, we looked at this bill on its merits and on its face. As I said, I think the committee has done some very good work in ensuring the appropriate safeguards and checks and balances are in place. I think they are now.

I conclude by saying that this bill always had our support in terms of the objectives it was trying to achieve. I think the committee has done excellent work in refining the detail of the legislation, and I am very pleased to support it.

• Bill read a second time.