McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill

I move, That the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a second time.

It’s a real pleasure to come to this House to assist the McLean Institute with the work it’s doing. This is a trust that was set up out of the will of Allan McLean some years ago. It’s a fascinating bit of parliamentary procedure to see how a private bill like this is managed. Essentially, Parliament has been asked to assist in the redrafting of the trust purposes. The reason for that is that the trust was, in fact, contained in a piece of legislation, and the McLean Institute did its very level best not to trouble this House with the details of its trust deed and, in fact, went to the High Court and asked for a trust deed variation under the Charitable Trusts Act. But the court was of the view that, because the trust was established and its tenets were contained within legislation, it was for this House. So they were sent here, and we’ve obviously got to this stage in the process. I thank the members of the Social Services and Community Committee for, actually, a really useful process. They’ve gone over the proposals and made some improvements that might not be world changing but they increase the workability of this trust deed significantly.

I won’t trouble the House for too long, because I know there’s other members’ business, which we’ll be keen to get to, but, essentially, for the record, the trust deed was outdated, and if you look at what’s contained in a preamble—which we don’t see in many Acts—in the purposes of the old trust deed there, it refers to the furniture and property to be used for “gentlewomen or women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances and the children not being over the age of ten years of any such gentlewomen or women my special intention being that the Holly Lea property shall be reserved exclusively for the use of gentlewomen or women (including their children as aforesaid) who either by their birth education previous life or manner may be able to live in harmony under the same roof.”

Now, those words are from a different age. We don’t have a system of colonial aristocracy—at least I hope not—and so the new purposes in the legislation simply reframe that purpose of the trust to provide assistance and to promote the welfare and wellbeing of disadvantaged women residing in the region, being Canterbury, who the board considers are in need of care, support, and assistance due to poverty, ill health, or other circumstances, whether temporary or long term. So just modern and much more embracing and encompassing language, and that’s a great change. Basically, it will enable the trust to really do what the donor, Allan McLean, really wanted, which was to help out women in need in the Canterbury region.

There are some other, essentially, bits and pieces in the legislation: tidying up, for example, the removal of a trustee for incapacity—again, using some old language. The select committee has gone through and said, “Well, we don’t really say ‘unsound mind’ anymore. It’s a little bit of a vague term.”, tying it in with existing law relating to things like “loss of capacity” rather than “unsound mind”.

So, again, the McLean Institute’s done some great work. It’s offered accommodation over many years to people and women in difficult circumstances. It’s now largely a fund, which will be managed, again, for these purposes. This is a modernisation. Importantly, the other one thing I will mention, because it is really important, is we won’t be seeing the McLean Institute trust before this House again, because this makes it clear that the High Court will have the power to make trust variations, which will be a much more efficient process and quite possibly a lot cheaper. So that’s another important improvement in this bill.

So, as I said, I won’t trouble the House any longer. I do want to thank the select committee, because they did go through it in real detail. There are a number of technical changes in the trust deed, which is attached as a schedule to the Act, and it makes it a much more workable document. So thank you again. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I begin my contribution by commending the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for bringing the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill through the process in the House and now on to its second reading. It is a timely variation bill. It is timely because the McLean Institute Act, which established the McLean Institute, was enacted in 1909. This was two years after Allan McLean wrote in his will that he wanted to provide care for women and their children should they come into difficult circumstances—just bearing in mind that the will was written in 1904 and then amended in 1906. That led to the establishment of the McLean Institute Act in 1909.

This is timely because the fact that the McLean Institute was created in legislation required that amendments to the McLean Institute trust that was created by the will that was embedded in the Act could not be amended without resorting to the High Court and/or through legislation again. So, in 1930, the Act was amended again—then in 1934. Both amendments dealt with issues that were, essentially, the sign of the times and the changing need for the trust to carry on with the intent of the will of Allan McLean. What happened in 1930 was that the original Act had provided that women and their children who had already been receiving a type of pension then existing could not be given assistance by the McLean Institute Act. That was amended in 1930, and then again in 1934. Another amendment through legislation again had to be made in terms of providing specific funding to specific women and their children.

So one can see very clearly that to go through a process to amend the Act through legislation, like we’re doing, entails considerable cost. I repeat what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb pointed out, which was that the institute board had tried to amend the Act through the High Court, which the High Court pushed back on and declined, saying that they were not empowered by the then trusts Act of 1957 to deal with the amendments that the McLean Institute board were asking for—hence, this legislative process. The amendment that the bill seeks to make is to take the McLean Institute out of the legislative process, thereby saving on cost and allowing for the McLean Institute board to make decisions administratively with regard to the changing needs of the intended beneficiaries of the trust. Also, there was need to ensure that the trust’s objectives, however, could not be changed without the High Court going through the process and approving such changes. So those are the two changes, essentially—that it’s taken out of the legislative process and then, administratively, the board could make decisions without resorting to the process. And, if there were changes that needed to be made to the trust deed, the High Court would have to go through and approve those changes.

At first glance, the McLean Institute Act really spoke about a time that we only see in movies. I have four daughters and a wife, and I must have watched Pride and Prejudice so many, many, many times. This is a house favourite. There are 17—there are 17—movie versions of Pride and Prejudice. I was shocked to find that out, but I would have probably watched the last four versions over the last 30 years at least—

💬 Hon Dr Deborah Russell: The BBC’s the best.

—yes—hmm—well, about 20 times, you know. So it’s always a house favourite. Thinking about that time helps us understand what Allan McLean wanted to do. He envisioned that women should not have to go through hardship and that he wanted them to be provided with accommodation and care, especially for them and their children. When Allan McLean referred, in his will, to women—“genteel women”, “educated women”, “women educated by their families”—it really conjures up the images of Miss Elizabeth as against Mr Darcy in those movies. I must admit I’m a fan after so many viewings!

So, thinking about what he intended, it was actually quite admirable that he had that intention. Now, that intention needs to be broadened out, because the challenges to women have expanded dramatically and radically and now women have mental health issues, addiction, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, poverty, dislocation. It’s expanded so much from the time of Miss Elizabeth, and it is time to expand the ability of the trust to address these new world issues. Allan McLean should be commended. I thought that he must have loved his family so much that he wanted to extend that to others, something that we would like to be able to see more of. But the McLean Institute board, in recognising that the challenges to women have become so complex and so, so many and so varied, must be given this opportunity to make this amendment and carry on with this expanded use of the McLean Institute and the Holly Lea, which was the entity that was set up to care for women and their children. The trust also expands application to children from just 10 years old up to 18 years old—so, again, recognising the challenges that our young people face. So I commend Allan McLean and his will and this trust variation bill to the House.

I rise today in support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill and its amendments provided by the select committee stage. This bill represents a crucial step forward in updating and in refining the terms of the McLean Institute trust deed, ensuring its continued effectiveness in serving our community’s most vulnerable members.

Our Christchurch, our Ōtautahi community—my community—knows how to care for each other and give back for the betterment of our people. The people of Ōtautahi have been through so much. Like the phoenix that rises from the ashes, Christchurch and its people are creating a resilient and connected community. It’s why I choose to raise my children in Christchurch, so that they can grow up in a community that leads with generosity and manaaki. There are many reasons why there are structurally disadvantaged people in Christchurch who need support. This bill allows the spirit of manaaki and generosity to lead and brings the trust deed into current times.

Established in 1909 by Allan McLean, the McLean Institute holds a venerable legacy of providing financial assistance to women and their children. However, times have changed, so the language must change and come into the scope of its charitable objectives. The current trust deed, while notable in intent, has become outdated and restrictive, hindering the institute’s ability to adapt to modern societal norms and to adequately serve those in need.

I commend the work of the Social Services and Community Committee and the member. The amendments proposed in this bill seek to address these limitations by broadening the purpose of the trust. By allowing for this application of trust assets to a wider range of good causes, we ensure that the McLean Institute remains relevant and responsive to the evolving needs of the community. This is not merely a matter of legal technicality but it is a moral imperative to ensure that the institute can continue on its mission and to bring it into the 21st century.

The legal commentary provided on this bill, as well as the recommendations made by the Social Services and Community Committee, underscore the importance of these amendments. From ensuring the accuracy of the trust’s status, to clarifying jurisdictional matters, these amendments are essential to the bill’s success in achieving its objectives.

The Greens are happy to see this progress. By doing so, we reaffirm our dedication to supporting our community, fulfilling Allan McLean’s original intentions, and ensuring that the McLean Institute can continue its legacy of manaaki, based in the beautiful community of Ōtautahi. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill and the variations from the Social Services and Community Committee. Being a member of the select committee with this bill, it was quite interesting to learn a little bit more about the McLean Institute and their role. Being from Christchurch, I think it was a really nice tie-in, because Holly Lea, or the McLean estate, is a pretty magnificent, large building that was left to us from Allan McLean.

It’s actually kind of funny that Paulo touched on Pride and Prejudice, because Allan McLean himself was a Scottish philanthropist but he was also a bachelor. And he had a little bit of a reputation—I think he was quite well liked by the ladies. So when he made a home for “women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances”, I have to wonder if there was a potential ulterior motive. He built this home in the 1880s and the architects were wondering “Why are you building such a large mansion; really stately home?” It wasn’t until his will was actually presented that they realised that this home was going to be for women to, obviously, find a safe place to stay if they had, in fact, been divorced.

So that was his original kind of purpose, but as a philanthropist he was obviously really involved with the community and he wanted to make sure that women were looked after. So I think, obviously, the trust had gone to the High Court to try and change the deed of settlement and given the fact that this is actually a piece of legislation, because it was so long ago—1909, as they mentioned before, this was set up—it, basically, fell back on us, the legislators, to actually change this deed.

We can say that the language was antiquated—and it really was antiquated; I’m not going to lie, it was pretty antiquated. So the reason this bill obviously sits before us is to change the deed and adjust it so that we can expand on the scope and the operations that we need in our community in 2024. Look, I can tell you: in Christchurch, there is a big need for safe housing, and for women to find a safe refuge. So I’m really happy that this bill’s before us and that the McLean Institute is actually going to be able to change and broaden their scope to adjust for the needs of the community. So that’s awesome.

The select committee spoke in depth with the trust and their lawyers about the intentions of Mr McLean and his goals and aspirations for the trust. While we do believe the original language is a barrier to the trust providing extra finance and services to the community, we obviously wanted to make sure that the scope was still encompassed. So it’s leaving it with women and, obviously, expanding it to children, as well, in the community. The bill’s wording is now more generic: “The purpose of the Institute is to provide assistance to and promote the welfare and well-being of disadvantaged women residing or located in the Region”, which I think is far more appropriate and brings it back into the 2024 realm.

This bill will allow the institute to adapt to the needs of all women living within Ōtautahi Christchurch; it will allow for emergency accommodation—mental health assistance, for example. So we support this bill and we commend it to the House, and I have no further things to say on that. Thank you.

Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. I too was on the Social Services and Community Committee, and it was an interesting process, because it was the first time that I was going through the process of a bill being amended and discussed, and having people come and give submissions. So it was a bit of a learning process, for me, and one that I’m really enjoying, I must say, to see it all the way through. It’s really good to be able to now speak on it. Thank you to the Hon Duncan Webb—he’s not here—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, the member’s not allowed to say the member’s not here.

Oh, beg your pardon, you’re right—yes, you’re right. Yes—beg your pardon.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a thankyou will suffice.

Thank you, and he’s not here but thank you for that—

💬 Cameron Brewer: You can’t say that he’s not here.

Oh, right!

💬 Hon Members: Just thank him.

I thank you, and I appreciate you showing me how to speak correctly in the House. Thank you very much.

💬 Hon Member: I think it’s out there now.

It’s out there now—ha, ha! [Interruption] Yes, yes. So this trust does address the need to update the charitable purpose and the administrative purposes of this trust, which was established over 100 years ago by Mr Allan McLean and it was really lovely to actually hear a bit of the story about him, so thank you to the member opposite for giving us that information; it was really good to hear.

It was originally intended to provide support for the “destitute women”—I haven’t heard that word for such a long time—“of refinement or good character”. As you can see, there was a need for this language to be updated. This bill seeks to repeal and replace previous Acts which have been related to this institute, to enable these updates, so ensuring that this trust can now better serve the needs of the “disadvantaged women”—the new language that has been introduced—and children.

Does New Zealand First support it? Of course we do. Before we deliberate on bills and that, we really look at how these align with our policies and our principles of the party. We really did see how it aligned with the things that we believed in which was, of course, our dedication to social welfare of all of those people in our society who need support, those who are marginalised in whichever way, or disadvantaged. So it really did align with us during our discussions there. Also, the emphasis on social responsibility, for those of us to really acknowledge who does need help. Our party, New Zealand First, really believe that the Government and society as a whole does have a duty of care to those who are most vulnerable in our society. It’s about identifying who they are and really providing for them. Also, New Zealand First are real advocates for equality here, and we really believe that it’s important to help people in some way, whichever way we can, to lift them up and for them to feel valued in society. We feel that helping people—women who are disadvantaged, and their children—is one way that we can assist them in providing this confidence and just so that they don’t feel that there’s any inequalities there.

What are some of the parts of the bill that we support? Well, of course, modernising the operations of the trust. That is very important for the trust to be able to be effectively understood, and going through the process correctly; also the adaptation to contemporary challenges. This bill provides the necessary framework for the trust to remain relevant during our modern times, and also for us to be able to streamline the administrative processes. That is one of the beliefs that we have: to ensure that by making everything as streamlined as possible, more people can, in fact, be assisted.

During the select committee process, there were some parts of the original wording that we were not as aligned with, and alongside our coalition partners, we made the decision that we wanted some wording changed. In New Zealand First, we have always believed in speaking up for people who at times feel that they don’t have a voice, and we really campaigned on and we continue to address issues around gendered language, and some of the original wording that was brought before the committee in this deed—it was clause 5.4—originally said the reference to “women” is to be interpreted “in [this] broadest possible sense, having regard to both biological sex and gender identity.” This was one area that we did not feel aligned with, and we all made the decision that it was to be changed. That is something that was changed during the select committee process. So that was just the one area at this point that we felt that we needed to speak up on, and we see that it has now been changed.

Look, apart from that, there’s nothing really more to add. The documentation now is in alignment and is more easily interpreted in this modern day. So thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealand First supports it and commends it to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Matua, Tama me Te Wairua Tapu, ngā Anahera Pono me te Māngai. Āe.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the House. Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, the Angels and the Prophet. Amen.]

Firstly, on behalf of Te Pāti Maōri, it’s been—can I say this bill was my very first select committee bill to ever be a part of. So it is good to see my fellow colleagues talk about the bill and see it get to this stage. So congratulations to our Social Services and Community Committee.

Secondly, I just want to acknowledge the McLean Institute and their mahi, because, you know, we all want to see our communities, our wāhine, and our tamariki being supported, being looked after, being taken care of. In the McLean Institute, the variation and amendments proposed in this bill will allow the institute to broaden their horizon and broaden their scope to be able to support more wāhine and tamariki in this current day for what they propose to do.

One of the things I remember in select committee when we were talking with the trust was that they wanted to be able to provide more support, for instance, for more Māori wāhine who were vulnerable. So that was always something that I acknowledge with the McLean Institute trust. You know, with the day and age, with the cost of living we’re currently in, with the price of petrol, with the increase in rental prices, we need an organisation like the McLean Institute trust who are taking on some of the responsibility of this Government, where whānau are being sanctioned with benefit sanctions and they can no longer afford to live day to day. So we, Te Pāti Māori, support this bill to the House, to ensure that organisations and charitable trusts, like the McLean Institute, can continue to do their work. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m so pleased to take this call today in supporting this bill, firstly because what a great opportunity to highlight great people doing great deeds in Ōtautahi Christchurch—of which there are many—but, secondly, it’s about supporting this bill that embodies the spirit of positive evolution and change. It really underscores the importance of taking action to help others, and we know we so desperately need more of that in this world today.

We’ve heard outlined from the Hon Duncan Webb about the purpose of this bill being about updating the charitable purpose of the McLean Institute trust, and I wanted to touch on specifically—which has been mentioned by previous contributions—the vision and where that stemmed from, from Allan McLean. I’ve read that it stemmed from his personal experience with seeing his mother struggle after his father’s death and being unable to make a life for herself, providing for him and her family, falling into poverty. I wanted to touch on that—particularly with Mother’s Day coming up this weekend: really, a shout-out to our inspirational mums everywhere—and it’s so cool that Allan took that inspirational story from his own life and his mother’s life and turned it into actual action.

The Green Party supports the newly proposed purpose: to provide women in distress with aid—and that’s across so many areas where they might be in need—and we really support that, in that it will be a broader range of needs that can be addressed through this bill.

The Hon Duncan Webb already touched on, as well, that the bill streamlines the process of, actually, future updates of the trust purpose and avoiding the need for it to come back here to Parliament, and clarifying that the High Court has jurisdiction to approve changes to the trust. This is a great evolution, ensuring that it evolves with the needs of community into the future.

The importance of this bill to real women in real need in Ōtautahi Christchurch—and indeed across Canterbury, Waitaha—cannot be overstated. Without these changes, the number of people benefiting from the trust would decrease over time. So we really support this bill in the way that it enables positive change in Ōtautahi Christchurch. We really want to honour the legacy that Allan McLean will leave in embracing the future.

We support this bill and how it is one important piece of the puzzle in paving the way for a more equitable, more inclusive future for all. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to stand in support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. As others have covered the purpose and context of the bill, I thought I would pay tribute to the select committee, ably led by our colleague Joseph Mooney, and I know he’s disappointed not to  be here today, but I suspect he’s watching online and wondering what we’re going to say next.

Now, the bill was referred to the Social Services and Community Committee at the 53rd Parliament back in June, and the committee called for submissions. It was reinstated, like a lot of pieces of legislation, by this incoming Government for ongoing examination on 6 December, and the Social Services and Community Committee considered submissions from three interested individuals and groups. They heard oral evidence from two submitters via video conference and in Wellington, and they received advice from officials, including from the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Clerk, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office with legal drafting.

So, as others have traversed, this bill is updating old England terminology, and it goes to show that we can change, and I want to be able to put it forward to those that are thinking—the wealthy amongst the community of philanthropy—as to whether things will stick in this fast-changing world, if they were to bequeath something. This is proof. This is proof—

💬 Tom Rutherford: It’s over 100 years old.

—that’s right, Tom Rutherford; this is over 100 years old—that things have stuck. So many women have benefited since and will continue to, and the legislation and the wording and interpretation and definitions can change accordingly.

I also reflect, as an Auckland MP, if I may, on Sir John Logan Campbell, almost a contemporary of Allan McLean, and how he bequeathed Cornwall Park and One Tree Hill Maungakiekie. And that’s been in trust because he wanted to bring farm animals to the people, the children of Auckland, and he knew that Auckland would grow, and he foresaw that. And so he was a contemporary. He also lived a big age—not unlike Mr McLean. Mr McLean was well into his 80s—85—when he died in 1907. Sir John Logan Campbell was 94. So, Stuart Smith, I can only think that, perhaps, if you’re generous in life, you might live a little longer. Who knows, for those wealthy that are considering philanthropy?

I also reflect on the days of this that New Zealand, when this was first established, was a country, as we heard during the Anzac Day once, of less than a million people. So for people to have this foresight as to the challenges that lay ahead and the complications with society pre - World War I was quite phenomenal. You also have to reflect that only a decade earlier, Kate Sheppard and her fellow suffragists gathered 32,000 signatures, and, subsequently, this Parliament passed the Electoral Act against the wishes of Richard Seddon in 1893, and, of course, it took effect on 19 September.

So this is the kind of era and landscape and context that this operates in. So my contribution is about highlighting to those that might be watching or listening, to encourage those that they know that might have something that they want to leave the public, going forth after this life, that it can be locked up in statute, it can be changed, and it can be delivered. This is, kind of, action in motion as we’re seeing.

💬 Tim Costley: Keep going!

You also have to think, Tim Costley, that Julian and Josie Robertson, some of the great modern-day philanthropists that gave $178 million worth of art to the Auckland Art Gallery, including Picassos—as Americans, they bequeathed that to New Zealand—

💬 Katie Nimon: And to Hawke’s Bay.

—and in 120 years’ time, our descendants—and you’ll be in one of your final terms by then, Katie Nimon—will be able to still enjoy that $178 million art collection, thanks to the late and great Julian and Josie Robertson. So it is good to see that philanthropy is alive and well and needs to be encouraged.

I also want to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill and a passionate Christchurch MP, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, for shepherding this through. And, just to reiterate to those that might have joined our TV audience in the last few minutes and are wondering what we’re up to, this is a bill that seeks to vary the charitable purpose of the McLean Institute trust, which was established through the will of Allan McLean, who passed away in the 1900s. It would also vary aspects of how the trust is administered and the powers bestowed upon the board of the McLean Institute and all those definitions that have been mentioned before that are up for due change.

Aren’t we lucky that the McLean building, the McLean mansion, remains? We have got to do a trip down to Christchurch to have a look at this 1900—amazing; it was one of the largest timber buildings in the world when it was constructed in 1899 to 1900 and then, of course, the Christchurch earthquakes. There was actually a call for it—well, the owner wanted it demolished—

💬 Tim Costley: Oh no.

—but a charitable organisation, Mr Costley—good, willing—intervened, the courts heard it, and they saved it. I understand that there has been a restoration project under way ever since McLean Mansion looks like it should be on any New Zealand historian’s general charter of going through Christchurch and having a look at the fabulous buildings that have been retained, thanks to the generosity of community and the generosity of trusts—just like the McLean Institute that continues its good work. I also note that I think he arrived on a ship called the Tory. So maybe—

💬 Hon Member: Hey, one of us!

—that indicated his political preferences—one of us, one of us—and so we treat this man with great dignity. Another thing: he was described as a New Zealand runholder and, of course, a philanthropist. He moved from Scotland to Australia as a child and to New Zealand.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What colour was his hair? Keep going!

Well, I can see, Carmel Sepuloni, that by the end of it, at 85 years of age, he had grey hair. He had grey hair, but these days, of course, as a man with such means, he would have the Just for Men, and he would have dark hair like Tom Rutherford and I—Tom Rutherford and I will never go grey. Unfortunately, for McLean, there was not the technology to colour his hair. So to answer that very insightful question of the colouring of his hair: at the time he reached the big age of 85, photographic evidence shows him with grey hair. And, of course, like most of that generation and that time, Tim Costley, bearded—a bit like our MP for Maungakiekie.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I think the member is straying from the bill.

I am talking about the centre of this institute, the late, the great Allan McLean, who sailed here on the ship Tory, built a fabulous house, left a fabulous legacy, and, today, we improved the institute’s direction and definition, and it continues on not just for the 20th century and 21st century but well into the 22nd century, as well. Thank you.

So, clearly, there’s something on the Order Paper on this members’ day that that side of the House don’t want to get through, given that they are reduced to talking about the hair colouring of a man who donated millions of dollars 100 years ago.

I do want to re-traverse this bill very quickly because it’s important for anyone that may have just tuned in and is wondering what this bill is about. The bill is a private bill which seeks to vary the charitable purpose of the McLean Institute trust, established through the will of Allan McLean, who passed away in 1907, and who we have had explained to us in great detail by the former speaker, Cameron Brewer. Originally, it was set up to provide benevolent asylum for the benefit of destitute women. The trust board wants to vary the charitable purpose to better address the current needs of women and children and establish a new deed of trust, reflecting this new purpose.

It’s nice when we have bills in front of a select committee where everyone agrees. This was non-controversial. In fact, we really only needed to look at the level of detail in the change and agree to some different wording; otherwise there was no dissent within the Social Services and Community Committee. It certainly was non-controversial.

I do acknowledge that this philanthropist has donated a significant amount of money, and that has been used to serve a wonderful purpose with respect to women and their children. I also do want to acknowledge the person who has barely anything in their pocket that gives their last $5 to charitable purposes as well.

We will be supporting this bill, and there really is not much to add to this. I acknowledge the McLean Institute trust and all the work that they have done over the course of the years that they have been established and I wish them well moving forward into the future.

It’s a pleasure to speak on this, the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. I would like to bring this back to values, if I can. There’ll be some watching—maybe they’ve just tuned in, and I think it’s worth recapping—thinking “Why is Parliament spending time looking at a charitable trust?” I mean, many people in our community have vast experience with different charitable trusts. I, for one, formed a charity called the Missing Wingman Trust that looks after Air Force families when someone is killed, injured, wounded, or ill—we call them our KIWI families: killed, injured, wounded, or ill. Of course, that was incorporated through a trust deed registered with the Charities Commission at the Department of Internal Affairs. So the question that some might asked is: why would this one go through Parliament? Some of those watching this may have missed the earlier part where it was explained that, obviously, this was taken to the High Court, but because it was incorporated by an Act of Parliament, it needs to be adjusted now through Parliament—the trust variation comes through this. This will, in process—

💬 Katie Nimon: Set them free.

Well, it will set them free, Katie, and it will allow this, in future, not to have to come through Parliament for variation. But we are caught in a situation where it’s necessary to come back to the House of Parliament to put this trust variation through.

I, for one, would like to be focusing Parliament’s time on some of the other members’ bills instead—for example, the Crimes (Impeding Major Bridges, Tunnels, and Roads) Amendment Bill, a great member’s bill in my name, which I’d love to see come before the House. But instead, due to process, we have to speak about this one, the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill.

I thought that to understand some of the values, it’s important to understand the history of Allan McLean. We’ve heard a little bit, particularly about the end of his life, but I don’t think we can understand why this trust was set up in the way that it was, and ensure that we are maintaining that alignment with values, unless we really understand the man and his thinking at the time. I was really interested, as many others in this House may well might be, to read about his early life. Obviously, McLean from the island of Coll; my ancestors would be Maclean of Duart, but we’d probably share a tartan somewhere along the way. So that was a nice little personal touch.

But, of course, he had a tough upbringing. His father, tragically, was killed in a boating accident when he would have been around 14 years old, from my reading. His older brother, John, and he and his younger brother were left to run the family farm—his older brother only 18 at the time—plus two sisters. A family of five kids and the mum left to run the family farm. If that wasn’t tough enough, four years later, the crops failed. They could have been left destitute. And we see that early sign of why he would be thinking about women that were left, through no fault of their own, in a tough situation, because we saw that right at the start of his upbringing.

His mum was a strong woman by all accounts and actually took the very bold step of moving the family to Australia. They were close to the final solution—to that place that the McLeans would call home. But they moved to Australia, pursuing gold mining near Ballarat, situated near Melbourne, in Victoria. It looked like the family had got themselves back on top, when they were tipped off by a Chinese friend by the name of Fan So that someone was plotting to kill his older brother, John, to steal the gold that they had found—literally, it was hidden in their tent and they were going to be killed in the process. So, once again, they sold up the property they had acquired in Australia, and moved to New Zealand. That’s when they came and they arrived in Canterbury, and I think this is important, with the small means—“the small”, it says; the small—they had, which included 500 ewes, cattle, and horses—not that small.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): And this is going to come back to the bill.

It is, because I think we need to understand that not just once but twice, his family were left in a terrible situation, not because of anything his mum or his family had done, and this speaks to the motivation of the bill.

When we consider varying a bill like this, one that was written, as my great colleague Paulo Garcia said, in a completely different time to what we speak in now, we talk about different cultural norms, we talk about different practices. The language we’ve heard from many members across the House is so different. We have to fundamentally understand the values that would have driven this, the values as he arrived on that farm in Waimakariri—good Matt Doocey territory, that one. We have to understand the values.

I’d like to speak to what the values of this man and his family were. They were known for having, and I quote, “Loyal heart, gracious manners, and the will to work hard”—loyal hearts, gracious manners, and the will to work hard. People spoke of their steadfastness, their courage, their faith in each other, and Allan Mclean’s fundamental faith in other people. This is why, I believe, he wanted to form this. You know, this trust that we’re speaking of here today was formed without anyone knowing until the time of his death. People said, “Why is he building”—Cameron Brewer just gave us a great example of this—“this massive wooden mansion?”, as it was known at the time. Why was he building this? He was a bachelor, he never married, and he didn’t have his own children. But his secret plan all along was to use the wealth that he had accumulated for the betterment of others. It was this altruistic principle that drove him—that drove him.

So when we consider amending this—and his will is spoken as being one of the most detailed, written by three lawyers—we have to run this through a filter of: is this the intent? We can modernise the language, but are we maintaining that original intent? Would Allan McLean be proud of what we’re doing here today? We are proud of the great work that the trust he formed, his charity, has done for so many people. Are the changes that we are making today, as we send this through, aligned with his original intent?

💬 Katie Nimon: And will they last another hundred years?

As I read well—well, it is important that they would last another hundred years, because this is the last time that Parliament will have to look at this, as it moves through this process now and then is taken outside Parliament. I think we owe it to the Allan McLeans of this world to ensure that we are sticking to those original values—values like strong families and caring communities; values like personal responsibility, for working hard, competitive enterprise, and reward for achievement; loyalty to his country. These are the kind of values that we read of when we read the history of Allan McLean. Great values. Values that every Kiwi would, I think, want to be proud of.

So the language may have been different back at that time, but the values, I think, that we can extract are really important and something I’m proud of to stand here today—and I hope that Allan McLean would be proud of the new version of the bill. Modified, I think positive changes have come out of the Social Services and Community Committee; it certainly removed a few questions that some might have had.

But, I think, when we think back to that experience—I mean, Madam Speaker, can you imagine being put in a position where, as a 14-year-old child, you’ve lost your father, you have seen the only source of income, your farm, completely wiped bare by crop failures, as was around that whole community?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Come back to the bill.

Well, this is the bill, because this bill is about the McLean Institute and why he would have founded that, what he would want us to have at heart.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Madam Speaker knows what the bill is about.

I think—well, some members in this House may not care—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: She spoke more on it at select committee than anyone else.

—to spend more than two minutes on this and just dismiss it; they’ll be back to the island in no time, or maybe they got voted off the island.

But this actually matters because values are important. Values are what drive us. Values come from the unique and harrowing experiences that someone like Allan McLean had—that drive to ensure that we are caring for people in our community, that women and their children have a means to be looked after, where otherwise they may not, and not because it’s their fault in any way that they found themselves in these circumstances. That is very clear from the bill. We need to care for them and help them.

Here is a man that took his entire life’s work and was willing to dedicate it to others. I think that’s something we can learn from. I think that’s something that we can take heart in. Those great values that we saw from Allan McLean—caring community, strong families, competitive enterprise—are great values for all of us—great values for all of us. That’s why, as I read this bill, the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill, I have no hesitation—thinking about his life and the values that would have underpinned him and what he would want from this—in commending this to the House.

This is an interesting bill, and there have been some interesting matters discussed today. I want to refer back to a speech given by the honourable member Paulo Garcia. He referenced Pride and Prejudice and talked about the values expressed in Pride and Prejudice. I just want to update him on a couple of things. He said that this trust deed was originally set up in a time which had the same sorts of values as Pride and Prejudice. He’s out by about 100 years. Pride and Prejudice was published in 1813, and the trust dates from 1907. However, there is a particular relevance to this, and I wish to advise Mr Garcia to watch the 2005 movie of Pride and Prejudice, with Matthew Macfadyen and Keira Knightley—

💬 Tom Rutherford: She’s great.

—getting there—Brenda Blethyn, who plays Mrs Bennet, and one of the things that drives Mrs Bennet in terms of marrying her daughters off is the sheer economic necessity of doing so. There is no other support for a gentlewoman other than being married, and I think this is partly what Mr McLean was referencing. It is that particular concern for women, in particular, of how they could support themselves and that there often were no options for women. That was a particular value he was expressing in 1907. So I do advise Mr Garcia to watch that particular version of Pride and Prejudice; it is really worth the time.

Of course, our sensibilities have changed in the 100 years or so since Mr McLean set up this trust, and we have now taken a fair amount of pride in changing this trust deed to fit with our new senses in these days. It has seemingly taken little persuasion for the House to actually all agree on this bill.

In updating it, we have updated this bill to ensure that the trust still supports women and children, but we’ve updated it to modern times. Instead of being children aged 10 and younger, as in the original trust deed, now they’re children aged 18 and younger. That’s to do with whether or not children work in paid employment, and, of course, we’ve changed the laws around paid employment as to what age people may work at. So we have suitably updated this trust deed in order to make sure it reflects the sensibilities, the sense of our times, and yet it still achieves the charitable purpose of supporting women and children in need. I commend the Social Services and Community Committee that has worked on this bill, I commend the member for bringing it to the House, and, indeed, I commend this bill to the House.

I’m pleased to be able to take a split call on this bill because I really want to talk about the importance of keeping this trust alive. My colleague Paulo Garcia talked about Price and Prejudice, but I think it might also be important to add in a little bit of an ability for us to understand the difference between now and what was, with Bridgerton being perhaps a more modern version. But, look, I just want to come to a point about the fact—and it is something that has been mentioned a number of times—that the language is very archaic, and this is the very, very reason why this Act is being amended.

I want to make a couple of points on this because, of course, this is not the only time we’ve seen legislation like this having to be addressed for futureproofing reasons. Of course, the intention of Allan McLean was to help a great number of women in difficult situations, and certainly wording such as “in straitened circumstances” is perhaps not something that we would understand now, or it is something that is quite foreign to us. But the intention was to help women, and certainly not the cast of Bridgerton or Pride and Prejudice, but my hope is that the changes that we are seeing—and thanks go to the Social Services and Community Committee that has worked on this. We are aware of how much it has been thought through and deliberated on, so that it prevents the trust from having to come back and continue to go through this laborious process, which actually hinders the trust from doing what it has set out to do, which is to help women.

One thing that was brought to my mind when we’ve been discussing this bill was a novel that I read when I was at high school. Now, actually, I can’t remember the name of it, so I do hope that, in explaining this, someone can tell me, because I’d quite like to revisit it. But the book was about two young sisters that lived in Christchurch. It was set in the early 1900s, and it really talked about the different paths that these two sisters went on. It was a novel from which I learnt a lot about—given that I’m from Hawke’s Bay—the differences in Christchurch, and the suburbs and the schools and what they mean to people who live in Christchurch.

But what it talked about with these two sisters is the different paths they went down. Now, one of them was going on to higher education. People saw that there was a path for her that they didn’t see for her sister. Now, her sister’s education ended at a young age, but that meant that her path was incredibly different to her sister’s. It meant that she wasn’t able to perhaps marry into the same place that her sister was able to, or to have access to the same work or access to the same means. I’d like to think that what it is that Allan McLean has set up with this institute would have gone to help that one sister that for reasons that were very much distinctly of that time, it would mean that she would have a very supportive life ahead of her, because I think that’s something we have to consider here. Allan McLean would not have thought—and, look, he may well have, but I would doubt, going by the wording that is set out in his will and also in this Act in its most recent version—which is 1934, I might add—that it would have considered people living in 2024, or, for that matter, perhaps people living in 2094, and my hope is that as a well-managed trust, there would be funds that would continue to help women in those circumstances.

Now, to think about the fact that these two sisters lived in a time that I couldn’t even imagine. The fact is that the schooling for at least one of them would end at the age of 15, or even the age of 13, and that they would go down different paths, and, of course, this was the case for boys, as well. To think that I was able to go through high school and it was expected that I would go through high school to the age of 18, and then that I would have every opportunity to go on to university, no matter what my experience or background was—and to think that something like this was in place for those women that had perhaps lost family members and so wouldn’t have had that financial aid to marry well or to go to a technical institute, which would mean that they could have worked and supported themselves as well.

I think that the most important thing we need to address in this bill and with the changes that are here is that the work that has been undertaken by the Social Services and Community Committee is going to go a long way to help women in 90 years’ time or 100 years’ time who are going to be in equally difficult circumstances, but for very different reasons, because women that experience hardship today, in 2024, are not under the same circumstances for the same reasons that they would have been in 1924, let alone 1907, when Allan McLean died. So I’d like to think that this has brought back some hopeful and positive memories for those who have been helped by Allan McLean’s legacy, because there are a great number of women that have been helped from his philanthropy, and I am sure and I have no doubt that they will be absolutely thrilled that what we are doing will help—I can’t even tell you how many more women will be helped by the changes that we are seeing today. So I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I’d like to join together with members across the House in supporting this bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for bringing it to the House, and also the Social Services and Community Committee for the work that they have done on this bill.

I’m not going to repeat what everyone has said—I listened really carefully and there’s been some really good contributions. I just want to highlight the futureproofing aspect of the deed of trust, because, it seems to me, after going to the High Court and going through that process, and the High Court not having the tools to be able to give effect to the changes that were absolutely needed—that’s very clear—that this bill will now futureproof that and give the ability to the High Court in the future, because we don’t know what might be required in 100 years or 200 years. We know what’s required right now is significantly different than what was required in the early 1900s. So it’s really good that the select committee, and indeed the institute, has seen to make that significant change, which I totally support.

The second point that I wanted to make is around the legacy of Allan McLean and the ongoing future legacy that he created—and I want to acknowledge the many other trusts that perform similar functions throughout New Zealand, along with the whole community and voluntary sector. I think, as a totality, every Parliament and every Government is fortunate that that work is done, because it actually makes the work of Government a lot easier, and I think we should acknowledge that. That’s my contribution, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It has been a really interesting debate to listen to over the last hour or so, listening to a variety of contributions from each side of the House on why they’re supporting this bill, and the different provisions that they’ve seen in the bill that they think are really good, being updated in 2024 by this House. So it’s been engaging to listen to—particularly the contributions from some of my colleagues have been fantastic.

Before I sort of go through a process of picking apart the different aspects of the bill that are looking to be updated by the House, I actually did a little bit of a deep dive to actually want to know a little bit more about the man of Allan McLean and who he actually is. A number of my colleagues have talked about him already, but there’s some things here that I pulled out. One I would note says, “Allan McLean was a somewhat eccentric figure. He frequently wore a plum-coloured suit, bow-tie, and white socks”. Now, I wonder if that would be pressing the rules of Parliament if he were to wear that here today in 2024.

He also travelled around the district in a white wagonette referred to locally as the “Yankee Express”. However, he was also known for his generosity to the poor and had a large bunkroom for swaggers built on his property. What a really generous man in his own individual right.

Then I looked into the history of McLean’s mansion, which we’ve discussed a little bit this evening already. This magnificent residence, containing 23,000 square feet and generally referred to as “McLean’s Mansion”, was completed in 1902. Allan, with the aid of his very capable housekeeper, Mrs Emily Phillips, and staff, then went into residence. And I thought, actually, I’m keen to know a little bit more about the residence and then tying that back into the bill, around how that residence still remains with us today.

I read that he commissioned his solicitors to prepare what was a very long and clearly expressed will. This document, after making generous provisions for his relatives, his housekeeper, and his staff, provided for the establishment of the McLean Institute. Upon Allan’s death on 12 November 1907, 90 years before I was born, the trustees announced his magnificent benefaction. His reason for building such a fantastic residence now became apparent to all. It had obviously been his intention to provide and endow this beautiful property to be used, as his will expressed—and I quote—as a “home for women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances”. The institute was incorporated by an Act of Parliament, the McLean Institute Act 1909.

And that brings me to the bill. That’s the journey we’ve taken to where we are today. The McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill is a private bill being led by the MP for Christchurch Central, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. The first private bill I’m actually aware of that we’ve had in the 54th Parliament. So it’s been an interesting journey for those of us that are new, seeing the processes behind a private bill versus the other bills we have coming before the House. I read through the report from the Social Services and Community Committee, and one of them, well, they talked about some of the amendments which were all recommended unanimously, just like this bill is tonight.

I want to talk about the five amendments from the select committee. The first was future changes to the trust, involvement of the High Court under the Charitable Trusts Act. Now, the Charitable Trusts Act consolidates aspects of New Zealand’s legislation and the common law relating to charitable trusts. The select committee noted that the board followed the process—the board being the board of the McLean Institute—under Part 3 of the Charitable Trusts Act in 2021, seeking to vary the terms of the trust as reflected in the Schedule of this bill. The court declined to make the requested changes because they were inconsistent with the McLean Institute Act 1909, 1930, and 1934. The court ruled that the changes sought could only be made by an Act of Parliament. That brings us to where we are today, why we are in fact debating this bill here in Parliament.

The second amendment the select committee talked about was proposed amendments related to the Charitable Trusts Act, and clause 6 of this bill, as introduced, refers to the Charitable Trusts Act and its functions in relation to the McLean Institute. It sets out that the Act would apply to the trust and the board as if the powers and constitution of the trust were set out in a deed and not in statute. The intent of this clause is to allow the court to approve the changes to the trust in accordance with Part 3, despite the trust and deed being set out in legislation. Then the committee went on to say they recommended amending clause 6 and adding 10A to the preamble to clarify this intent. The committee also recommended the deletion of clause 24.2, which would be unnecessary, given their proposed amendment to clause 6.

Then the third amendment the select committee looked into and has recommended was amending the trust’s charitable purpose. Now, the bill, as it was introduced, would set new charitable purposes for the McLean Institute’s trust, and the select committee heard from the board’s representatives that it feels it is no longer able to fulfil the charitable purposes laid out in the original deed of the trust, as societal changes have meant the criteria are no longer relevant. Now, the select committee, having heard from the board’s representatives, were satisfied that the changes to the trust’s charitable purposes are consistent with the wishes of the late Allan McLean, and that’s got to be the priority here. Mr McLean bequeathed this money and it needs to ensure that it is being utilised, as was his intentions and his wishes. So now the Schedule of the bill outlines a new deed of trust which would vary the charitable purposes so that the trust may be better administered and can continue to support disadvantaged women.

The fourth amendment from the select committee was around the incorporation of the trust board, and the select committee noted that the board was established through the will of Allan McLean and incorporated as a body corporate under the McLean Institute Act 1909. However, the bill as introduced incorrectly states that the board was incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act. Therefore, the select committee recommended several amendments to the bill to ensure that it accurately reflects the trust’s status and does not unintentionally change it. There are four recommendations in this part, and they are: affirming that the board continues to be incorporated under the McLean Institute Act 1909, despite that Act being repealed—[Bell rung] there goes the bell—rather than the Charitable Trusts Act by amending clause 4 and adding clause 4A, which clearly states this.

The next point was removing requirements in clause 5 for the trust deed to be lodged with the Registrar of Incorporated Societies. This would only be needed if the board was incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act. The third was removing the requirement in clause 6 of the Schedule for the board to remain an incorporated body and as amendments to clause 4 and the proposed new clause 4A already states that the board remains incorporated despite the repeal of the McLean Institute Act 1909. The final was changing any instances of the term “registered charitable trust” to “registered charity” to indicate that the trust is a registered charity under the Charities Act, not a registered charitable trust under the Charitable Trusts Act.

Now, the fifth and final recommendation from the select committee was removal of a trustee on the basis of unsound mind. The terms of the trust as originally written contains language that in 2024 is outdated. Therefore, the select committee recommended that there was some confusion of the term “of an unsound mind” and suggested that it be updated so that the language used aligns with the provisions set out in the Trusts Act 2019, which instead of being of an unsound mind referred to the “loss of capacity to perform the functions of a trustee”.

I have traversed the journey of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill and I recommend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill.