Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. This bill has arisen out of the Law Commission’s paper: Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney in 2001. As I noted yesterday it is now 2007—an extraordinary time, in fact 6 years, since that paper—and finally this bill has come into Parliament. It does seem that it has taken a very long time for this Labour Government to finally get this legislation before the Committee, given that it has the support of Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition. National regards this as a reasonable bill, but we are very concerned that it has taken so long to be brought here, and that perhaps reflects quite directly on just how lackadaisical this Labour Government has become.

I note that there is a curious statement about commencement in clause 2. It states: “This Act … comes into force 1 year after the date on which it receives the Royal assent (unless it is earlier brought into force on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council).” It does seem curious, given the very long gestation of this bill after the commission’s report, that it could be another year before the legislation comes into force. I would certainly exhort the Government to make sure that it actually is brought into use far earlier than that date. Perhaps the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, may take a call and assure us that his Government will bring that about.

Part 1 is really involved with miscellaneous amendments around persons who may apply for exercise of the court’s jurisdiction and it revolves around repealing paragraph (f) of section 7 and substituting the following paragraph: “where the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction is sought in respect of any person who is a patient or a resident in any place that provides hospital care, rest home care, or residential disability care within the meaning of the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001, the principal manager of that place:”. It is important to point out that some have thought that this bill is to be confined to just the elderly, whereas clearly, and as I know my learned colleague Kate Wilkinson has mentioned earlier, this bill does, indeed, apply to young and old. It applies to those who are disabled and to those in the whole spectrum of either mental disorders or physical incapability that may occur. So it is not just confined to one particular area; it is broad in its perspective.

Clause 5, “Persons who may apply for exercise of Court’s jurisdiction” states: “Section 26 is amended by repealing paragraph (g) and substituting the following paragraph: (g) where the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction is sought in respect of any person who is a patient or a resident in any place that provides hospital care, rest home care, or residential disability care within the meaning of the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001, the principal manager of that place:” Once again these miscellaneous amendments in Part 1 are important to make sure the coverage of the bill is comprehensive.

Might I say once again that it is of concern to National that this bill has taken so long to come through—something like 6 years after the commission’s paper on the Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney. That is a lot of time, and it does, as I say, reflect very badly on the Labour Government that probably tens of thousands of New Zealanders have not had the opportunity to benefit from this bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

It is my pleasure to rise tonight to speak to Part 1 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. Part 1 is a very small part—there are only two clauses in it—and basically it applies to persons who may apply for exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in terms of being “a patient or a resident in any place that provides hospital care, rest home care, or residential disability care within the meaning of the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act …”. The bill itself is very important. It is one that has been underestimated, I think, in respect of the impact enduring powers of attorney have on people’s lives. This bill has been extremely well written. The officials are here tonight to listen to us talk to their bill. I congratulate them on the good work they have done. This bill will be in place for quite some time before it will need to be amended, in years to come, to stay relevant for our society, for our ageing population, and for the people who choose to use enduring powers of attorney. We had many submitters on this bill, and I believe that none of them spoke to Part 1.

The main issues coming out of the submissions related more to the cost of this legislation and the impact that that will have on enduring powers of attorney and the cost of enduring powers of attorney going forward. We had quite a few submissions from the community law centres around New Zealand. Really, their main concern coming through in respect of this bill was the cost going forward, and the regulations and conditions that will be imposed on enduring powers of attorney going forward, because this bill is actually intended to safeguard and protect those users of enduring powers of attorney in our society.

This has been great legislation, which we are very proud to be part of. I was on the Social Services Committee that considered the bill, along with Judith Collins—who is the deputy chair—Paul Hutchison and Bob Clarkson from the National Party, Heather Roy, Judy Turner, Sue Kedgley, the chair Russell Fairbrother, and some others. It was a good select committee. We worked hard, and we listened to the officials’ advice. We heard some very, very good advice from the Law Commission. As always, the commission put in a wonderful submission and had some great points, which we took on board when we put this legislation together.

Part 1 is very small, very direct, but also very important. These small amendments are normally the ones that trip people up as they go through, so it is important that we get these little ones right, especially for those people who are more needy. The more needy people are the ones who are actually using enduring powers of attorney, and those who are in the hospitals and the rest homes and have respite care. Part 1 is very important for the most needy in our society, whom it addresses.

The Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1998 related to enduring powers of attorney. Obviously, this bill came about through recommendations made by the Law Commission after a 2001 report was published on the misuse of enduring powers of attorney. There has been a little bit of a time lag between the 2001 Law Commission report being published, and 2007 where we are today. It has taken a little while to get this legislation in front of the House, but it is here now, and that is the important thing. It is important that this legislation is here, as it is a safeguard for all those who have been abused by not having an enduring power of attorney that worked well for them.

It was interesting to hear from submitters that most of the people who were abused by their attorneys were abused by family members, who were taking advantage of their parents or grandparents who were reliant upon them. These family members had the rights to do things and were abusing those rights. So this legislation has been very important going forward. We look forward to supporting it, and I will be speaking to it later in the night. Thank you.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments relating to enduring powers of attorney