Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a very short question here. I just want to clear something up for the member in the chair. Nobody has been suggesting that we should put into legislation criteria for decision making or indeed prescribing amounts that need to be ring-fenced. It has more been asking the member in the chair whether the member who was sponsoring the bill discussed this and had advice on it. They are absolutely things that should be asked at this committee stage.

The question I have here in the purpose clause—which is obviously that the purpose of the Act is to amend the terms by broadening the trust’s objectives from energy-related purposes to charitable purposes. The member who’s sitting in the chair has told us at some length the way that this is an elected trust—it’s democratically elected for four-year terms. We could all learn from this trust, maybe, that it has elected. But these were members that were elected to run a board for energy-related purposes. I just wondered if there had been any advice or any discussion with officials about whether or not they needed to be seeking a new mandate from the local communities and population that this was a board now that was going to be fulfilling a very different function—it wasn’t just going to be making decisions on energy-related matters and purposes; it was now going to be broadened out to charitable purposes, which we’ve canvased when discussing the preamble—and whether the member who sponsored this bill sought advice about whether it was advisable that a new mandate and perhaps fresh elections may be required for the trust board.