Dioceses were funded from a combination of sources: parish contributions, endowment income, and distributions made by trust boards and corporate entities. The financial circumstances of each diocese differed as some had substantial endowments while others relied entirely on parish contributions. Over the years, the Anglican Church built up a major investment portfolio although its extent was not easy to ascertain.76 This remains a fertile field for serious research. Although the profile of the diocesan trust boards continued to be low, Morrell argues that it was because of their creation that
Selwyn’s policy of centralisation was abandoned in 1868.77
Diocesan accounts were (and are) more complex than those of the General Synod as each diocese made its own arrangements. There were no church protocols to guide them. The lack of consistency and uniformity in the published accounts reflected diocesan autonomy. However, this lack of consistency inhibited the development of a church with a national focus and discouraged strategic thinking.
This section describes the fragmented and compartmentalised nature of diocesan finances and notes the more recent attempts by the auditing profession to introduce a higher level of disclosure and transparency. It is an onerous task to calculate the income or expenditure of any diocese throughout the immediate post-war period. There is no shortage of information but diocesan accounts are a minefield of complexity to the researcher. The question is whether it is possible to gain an accurate understanding of
76 A summary of returns filed with the Charities Commission as at 31 December 2009 (in most cases)
revealed that trusts in the name of various Anglican entities (but excluding parishes and schools) held assets of over $1.25 billion. Trusts administered by diocesan trust boards totalled $40m (Auckland), $15m (Waikato and Taranaki), $32m (Waiapu), $77m (Wellington) although that included $49m in fixed assets which suggests that it included the real estate of churches, $49m (Nelson), $40m (Christchurch) and $26m (Dunedin). The assets of the dioceses totalled $463m although there appeared to be
inconsistencies in the ways in which parish assets were dealt with. Some of the largest trusts were the pension board ($93m), and social service agencies like the Selwyn Foundation ($201m). These figures do not include the St John’s College Trust Board (whose capital in 2011 was shown in its accounts as $315m) and the Melanesian Mission.
77 W.P.Morrell, The Anglican Church in New Zealand: A History. Dunedin: John McIndoe for Church of
80
the financial position of the church at diocesan level from the information that is available. The present writer argues that it is not.
“What does it cost to run the Diocese?”
Few dioceses attempted to consolidate their accounts. That made it difficult to calculate the cost of running a diocese. There was a ‘money in the jar’ mentality: certain income could be used only for certain expenditure. The proceeds of past appeals were placed in different accounts so that disbursements could be seen to have been made in accord with the original intentions. Bishops were financed separately (usually from endowments) from their dioceses.
Over half of the 128 pages in the 1946 Auckland diocesan year book78 were given over to the reports and accounts of the diocese and some of its agencies. To these were appended the annual reports of various social service agencies79and the summary of the annual parish statistical returns. The volume included the accounts and reports of a number of Anglican bodies which were not diocesan in character but whose work and investments were centred in Auckland. 80 The Diocesan Office Trust Board provided secretarial and accounting services for these bodies at a total cost of £4710 but because most of its work was charged out to its various clients it meant that the administrative costs to the diocese were only £933.81The General Trust Board (GTB) administered a number of significant trusts on behalf of the diocese.82
The accounts of the diocese itself were fragmented. Instead of a consolidated statement, there were several sets of accounts, some relating to funds held on behalf of
78 Auckland YB 1946.
79The Orphan Home, Papatoetoe; the Henry Brett Memorial Home, Takapuna; St Mary’s Homes, Otahuhu; the Order of the Good Shepherd; the Auckland City Mission; the Mothers’ Union; Girls’
Friendly Society; and the Queen Victoria Association for Helping Maori Girls.
80 These included the General Church Trust Board (which administered properties held in trust for the Province), Purewa Cemetery Board, the combined dioceses’ Pension Board (which provided a pension scheme for clergy in the Dioceses of Waiapu, Waikato, Melanesia and Polynesia, as well as Auckland), St
John’s College, and the Melanesian Mission.
81 Fees paid by other clients included: General Trust Board £800, General Church Trust Board £92,
Diocesan Pension Board £237, St John’s College Trust Board £400, Melanesian Mission Trust Board
£744, Purewa Cemetery Board £250, Orphan Home £279, St Mary’s Home £147, Brett Memorial Home
£149, Church Gazette £25. The board also received commission on insurance premiums and charged for the use of its duplicator.
82These included the Bishopric Endowment, Bishop’s House Trust, Cathedral Trust, and the Diocesan
Trust and a number of smaller trusts held on behalf of parishes. In 1946 the capital of these trusts totalled £176,589 of which £129,000 was invested in mortgages, Government stock and local body debentures through its Common Investment Fund.
81
other bodies. The diocese also dealt with the payment of clergy stipends and allowances. The core accounts were the Diocesan Trust Administration Account, Diocesan Expenses Account, and the Central Fund. A rather tedious explanation is required to explain the flow of transactions and transfers that the system required.83 The Central Fund was the key element in diocesan finances. Built up over a number of years from donations and bequests its work was promoted throughout the diocese through a paid collector.84Its income was used to supplement clergy stipends, support chaplains to hospitals and prisons, pay for a Sunday school organiser and assist the youth council. Surplus funds had been used to build up a clergy motor car loan fund.
The cost of running the diocese could only be calculated by consolidating the receipts and payments of the various accounts. However, that did not take into account the expenses of the bishop. These were funded by trusts controlled by the GTB and not included in the Standing Committee accounts. In 1945-46, the net income available to the diocese was £651485 and expenditure totalled £5584.86 It was thus a very lean operation.87 There was little understanding of the need for parishes to contribute
meaningful sums to the diocese. What they paid was regarded as an assessment or levy, rather than a voluntary offering. These arrangements were similar to those in other dioceses. Dunedin’s total income was £356588 and Waikato’s £3112.89
By 1973 Auckland recognised that its diocesan accounts had to be simplified. The core accounts were consolidated: parish assessments were credited to a
contributions account from which transfers were made to four new accounts90 each of which was also credited with income associated with specific items of expenditure.
83 The Diocesan Trust Administration account received an annual grant from the GTB, derived from the
income of the Diocesan Trust, from which was paid the General Synod assessment and grants to the archdeacons. The balance was then transferred to the Diocesan Expenses account which was also credited with a small administration charge for operating the stipend pool and the special accounts referred to. Against this income were charged the expenses of synod, printing the year book and the levy for the diocesan office.
84 Its income came from subscriptions and donations (419 individuals contributed £695), parish
collections and vestry contributions (£1450), and investment income (£981).
85 Investment income (£4182) provided 64 percent of the total, parish and other contributions (£1716),
and administrative charges (£616).
86 This included support of the bishop and his establishment (£1564), administration (£1826), the General
Synod assessment (£155), assistance to parishes and institutional chaplaincies (£1609), and work with children and youth (£430).
87 In 2012 dollar terms, this was equivalent to expenditure of $438,100 and income of $511,064. 88 Of which £1202 came from parish assessments and a small endowment, £1223 from investment income
for specified purposes, and £1140 from the bishopric endowment.
89 £735 parish contributions, £908 endowment income, and £1469 from the bishopric endowment. 90 Administration, Special Ministries and Grants, Maori Purposes, and Stipends and Pensions Subsidies.
82
However, the endowments associated with the bishopric remained outside these arrangements.
Four decades later there was a trend in the opposite direction. The establishment of the Charities Commission in 2005 signalled the need for greater accountability in the not-for-profit sector. 91 Following new accounting conventions, it became the practice for dioceses to present a ‘statement of financial performance’ which included all
moneys received by the diocese. At the insistence of auditors, such a statement was now
required to ‘report gross income and gross expenses for all of its activities.’ 92 Income and expenses could no longer be offset, although there was an opportunity for related items to be explained by way of a note.93
The 2011 accounts in Auckland indicated that the total income of the diocese was $7,339,030 but that included ‘other income’ of $5,222,897, 82 percent of which related to contributions made by parishes for the payment of clergy stipends. These were essentially held in trust by the diocese.94 The auditors required these parish stipend contributions to be included in the income of the diocese although they were effectively held in trust. Some felt that the inclusion of such items in a consolidated statement made the document almost irrelevant. The Auckland Diocesan Council reported that it was difficult to measure budget performance ‘because a variety of external items have been
inserted into the accounts mainly at the insistence of the auditors.’95 Waiapunoted that:
91http://www.charities.govt.nz/strengthening-your-charity/financial-management/, accessed 5 March
2013.
92 See, for example, Not for Profit: Financial Reporting Guide, Wellington: New Zealand Institute of
Chartered Accountants, August 2007.
93‘However, if an entity considers that showing gross income and expenses on the face of the statement
of financial performance does not appropriately reflect the activities of the entity, it may provide additional information. For example, a not-for-profit entity must show total revenue in the statement of financial performance, but may also provide additional note disclosures showing the revenues, expenses
and net surplus from different activities.’ For example:
Opportunity shop revenue xx Opportunity shop expenses xx Net revenue from opportunity shop xx
Not for Profit: Financial Reporting Guide, Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants, August 2007, 5.16, p.49.
94The remainder of ‘other income’ related mainly to items tagged for particular diocesan programmes
which, in the past, were offset against such expenditure. Auckland YB 2012, p.35.
95 Auckland YB 2012, p.54. They cited the inclusion of the whole surplus from Trust Investments
Management Ltd (TIML), which was fully owned by the diocese, amounting to $1,029,600 whereas the budget had included a figure of $457,000 being the amount applied towards diocesan expenditure. The balance was earmarked for purposes outside the budget like grants to parishes for the building of new
churches. The Diocesan Council asserted that: ‘As a result, the “bottom line” deficit of $374,335 is not, in
83
The Accounting Standards also require us to merge the accounts of the Diocese with those of Diocesan Trusts Boards. This is a major exercise and certainly cannot be accomplished for the year ended 31st March, 2012. Dialogue will have to be initiated to see whether we should comply for the year 2013 or fail to comply and accept a
qualification to our accounts. Our view is that a total consolidation of the accounts of all diocesan entities would be a meaningless exercise with the outcomes being reported being of little value to anyone including the diocese.96
Some diocesan offices provided accounting services to client organisations but there was no consensus among dioceses as to how these should be treated in the annual accounts.97 By 2010, this situation had become more complicated. Until there was agreement on how the accounts should be presented it was not possible to say what percentage of diocesan incomes came from particular sources. Establishing the total was just as difficult as identifying a single item.
The Impact of Wells
The ways in which dioceses were financed was challenged around 1960. Dioceses may
have assumed that they would benefit from a ‘flow-on’ effect as parish coffers filled but
they soon realised that they had to go out to the parishes and ‘sell’ the diocese to the church. New lay members, inspired by the Wells’ success and now giving time to the diocese, saw the need for a more business-like approach and supported moves for a
clearer presentation of the church’s needs and resources. Influential leaders like Bishop
Johnston observed that people did not necessarily give in relation to their incomes but
rather because they understood the church’s needs.98
Change came as a direct result of the Wells’ campaigns. The dioceses eventually
benefited from them and were able to expand their activities.99In Auckland the net income available to the diocese in 1960-61 was, in real terms, nearly double that of
extraordinary income and expenditure, the true bottom line of the accounts is a deficit of $119,190 against
the budgeted deficit figure of $163,000.’
96 http://www.waiapu.com/assets/DIOCESAN-REGISTRARS-REPORT-2012.pdf, accessed 4 March
2013.
97 Some dioceses showed administrative costs as an expenditure item and income from clients as an
income item; others (like Auckland) showed only the net cost; others (like Christchurch) showed the fee paid by the diocese for administrative services as an expenditure item as these services were provided by a third party.
98 Dunedin YB 1961, p.15.
99 In Auckland the principal expense items were the bishop and his house (£5731), costs associated with
the archdeacons, assistant bishop and diocesan chaplain (£983), General Synod assessment (£1034), stipend support and chaplaincies (£2723), Christian education, now broader than work with children and youth (£2984), broadcasting (£504), church extension (£1000), and diocesan administration (£4321).
84
fifteen years earlier.100 Investment income now represented only 39 percent of the total, compared with 64 percent fifteen years earlier as parish contributions now provided 41 percent of diocesan income.
Auckland was preoccupied with the completion of its cathedral and it was that concern, rather than parish finances, which propelled the drive for stewardship. The Standing Committee intended to appeal to the city and to individuals within the parishes and so they turned to Wells for advice. They were in for a shock, as the Wells
representative told them that the building of the cathedral was the task of the diocese. Before approaching the wider community the church must ‘show what she herself was able and willing to do.’ Wells insisted that the diocese should first put the affairs of the parishes on a sound basis and, only then, ‘ask, and to expect with confidence, the cooperation of the church members throughout the parishes.101
Colonel Wells flew from Sydney to meet the committee. The result was a decision to engage Wells to conduct a survey of the financial position of the diocese, which included the financial position of every parish.102 One outcome was a diocesan
loyalty dinner at which ‘over nine hundred members of the church, from every parish in the diocese, sat down together at a common meal’.103The survey itself was conducted
within six weeks and only five of the 58 parishes declined to use Wells’ services.
The experience of the southern dioceses also indicated what could be achieved. In May-June 1957 Wells assisted a band of laymen in Christchurch to conduct a diocesan survey:104
The survey was most successful in every respect and the Standing Committee expresses grateful thanks to all who were associated with the work. The visitation to vestries has given our church people a better appreciation of the problems and needs of the diocese as a whole. The survey has also been the means of helping many vestries to overcome some of their own problems. The response to the invitation made to vestries to give more liberal support to the diocesan programme was most encouraging and resulted in approximately £130,000 being pledged over a three-year period. This represents about £100,000 of new money over and above normal assessments … A Liaison Committee has been set up to keep the survey under constant review and to assist the vestries with their problems as they arise.105
100 Income £19,442 and expenditure £19,280. In 2012 dollar terms, these amounts were equivalent to
$813,447 and $806,669.
101 Auckland YB 1956, p.23.
102 The report of the Diocesan Survey is included in the report of the Standing Committee, Auckland YB
1956, pp.38-39.
103 Auckland YB 1956, p.23.
104 The cost of the survey was £3087 (Christchurch YB 1958, p.23). Most of this would have related to the Wells’ fee. This is equivalent to $140,000 in 2012.
85
By 1961, around £100,000 was contributed and eventually, after deduction of the normal quotas for three years (£27,555) and expenses, £67,807 became available for new work.106 Wells carried out a similar survey in Dunedin in 1959. The needs of the diocese were outlined at a loyalty dinner and lay members of the survey liaison
committee visited vestries to secure pledges. The mere fact of having to stump up with
£1250 for Wells’ services galvanised the diocese.107 The exercise was repeated in 1962.108 Until 1959, assessments raised £4000 a year but, as a result of the surveys, annual contributions reached a level of £15,000.109The diocese provided full-time hospital chaplains, religious education and social service workers, and contributed to building vicarages in new parishes.110This was a significant advance and although the committee never managed to raise annual contributions above £15,000, the scheme benefited the diocese for over a decade. Diocesan life was transformed by the Wells’ surveys. It was the first time most dioceses had taken stock of their assets, drawn up priorities, shared this information with the people in the parishes, and made a direct approach to vestries for pledged contributions over a three-year period.
Sources of Diocesan Incomes
An analysis of expenditure in seven dioceses over a 65-year period is beyond the scope of this exercise. It would likely reveal that between 1945 and 1960 most dioceses offered basic services and contributed a minimum level of support to the province.
Then, mainly as a result of the Wells’ campaigns, they expanded their programmes,
contributed to ecumenical activities, and raised the level of the General Synod
assessments. All dioceses followed a similar course and differences were of scale rather than of substance. Waikato was typical: between 1972-73 and 1977-78, its assessment budget increased from $65,000 to $122,000.
106 This was allocated as follows: church extension work £30,000, ordination candidates fund £7709,
social services council £4500, university chaplaincy £1100, diocesan youth council £2000, hospital chaplaincy £975, interest equalisation on parochial loans £823, ‘Church and People’ £700, Christchurch College building fund £10,000, and Cathedral extension £10,000.
107 This is equivalent to $50,000 in 2012.
108 The 1962 renewal canvass was organised by the Ven. W.S. Southward who had been appointed