McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I move, That the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a third time.

It’s a pleasure to discharge my duty as a local MP and to marshal this bill through the House. The McLean Institute is a charitable institute, established in Christchurch in accordance with the will of Allan McLean, who actually passed away in 1907. He was a generous advocate for women, supporting them and their children to be housed long term, and assisted beneficiaries to ensure that they had daily necessities.

The aim of this bill and the McLean Institute is to continue Mr McLean’s legacy. The difficulty has been that with the passing of time, the purposes set out in Mr McLean’s will have become difficult to give effect to. They’ve become dated, the language wasn’t appropriate to modern times, and the original charitable objectives don’t really fit with modern societal norms and language. So the bill really just needed an update to the terms of the trust, allowing the board to continue to support women and children in need of welfare assistance in a way that takes into consideration today’s social challenges, and it also returns the institute’s assistance to the original charitable purpose as envisaged by Allan McLean.

The bill is entirely appropriate, and, obviously, I very much support it. It supports the institute to provide temporary, emergency, and transitional housing for women and their children who are in need, and provides women with housing at an affordable cost, where they require assistance to locate or retain suitable housing within their financial means.

It also enables the institute to provide accommodation and other support for young women and their children transitioning out of foster care. It also provides support for women in distress due to mental health or addiction issues, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, poverty, illness, or long-term disabilities. It’s really seeking to enable women to live independently and to participate in their communities and to promote awareness of family violence and the abuse of that nature, which is entirely unacceptable.

At its core, the bill changes the purposes in the trust deed by confirming that any woman and child can be assisted by the trust, making it more accessible, and by removing any suggestion that the previous wording had that women had to be of particular standing or from a particular social class. It also broadens the purpose of the trust to support women who need support for assistance with financial, health, or other situations.

It’s members’ day today. This bill is not a contentious bill. It’s supported across the House, and I don’t propose to dwell on the bill any further, other than to say it has been a privilege to make sure that this bill does progress, that the charitable purposes of Allan McLean are furthered, and that the assistance rendered to women and their children will continue as originally contemplated in 1907. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a contribution to the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. The McLean Institute is a charitable institute established pursuant to the will of Allan McLean, who passed away on 12 November 1907, 120 years ago. The language of Mr McLean’s will that established the McLean Institute was couched in the language of 120 years ago. It referred to “women of refinement or education in straightened circumstances”, along with their children—so women who were going through a rough patch but who were otherwise refined or educated, in line with the time that Mr McLean worded his will.

It is a nice time to look back to, and the will of Mr McLean is an amazing reminder of that time. But the time has passed, and the changes that we are now going through in this bill, which are supported across the House, make the will of Mr McLean more applicable, and the trust that he created more enduring with today’s time.

The institute was established by will in 1904 and by a codicil, an addition to the will, in 1906. Through his will, Mr McLean established the Holly Lea, a property located in Christchurch. The residue of his estate was later settled as well into the institute, the object of which was to make sure that women were given the support they needed at the time they needed it.

The bill now speaks of a little tweak, which has to do with the provision of the will which referred to women and their children in Canterbury now applying to women who are from Canterbury and who may be transitioning elsewhere for various reasons, possibly including family violence or having to relocate their children or themselves away from Canterbury. So the bill includes opportunities to support women in such circumstances.

The object of the bill has always been to provide housing—accommodation; temporary emergency transition housing to women and their children. The trust is also empowered to locate, obtain, or help retain accommodation for women, if not to provide for that accommodation themselves in the property that the trust runs and operates. It is very worthy of support from everyone in this House as there will never really be a shortage of women who due to their circumstances will be transitioning or moving in and out of a space of relative stability and having to deal with having to source and relocate themselves and their children in alternative accommodation.

The time that Mr McLean created his will and the trust refers to situations where women may find themselves in where they need support. It happens that, 120 years later, in today’s scenario, one could say that the need of women for the types of help that the McLean Institute is able to provide has actually become much more expanded, and the need much more in demand—the need has risen. There are many drivers of that: young women transitioning out of foster care, which they may have find found themselves in, along with any children that they may have; providing for women in distress due to mental health situations or addiction issues, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, poverty, or dislocation. For one of the reasons or another. The McLean Institute also wishes to provide support for women suffering from possibly terminal illness or long term or permanent disability due to such illnesses.

What the bill seeks to do is to continue to empower the McLean Institute to continue to provide the support that they have been established to provide for women and their children, whether in Canterbury or whether they find themselves in a situation where they have to move away from Canterbury. So it is interesting to note that while the times have changed, the need has not changed, and the need has actually just become more defined and more varied in the need for that application of Mr Allan McLean’s desire to help women and their children who find themselves—maybe temporarily or over a long-term period—in need of support, whether financially to retain accommodation or to find accommodation for themselves and for their children.

This is a worthy piece of legislation. Accordingly, in support of the others in this House, we in the Government support this bill. We commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today in enthusiastic support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill for its final reading. This bill represents a vital opportunity to enhance our beloved Ōtautahi Christchurch, a city renowned for its resilience, generosity, and deep sense of community.

I want to mihi and congratulate the member Hon Dr Duncan Webb on his work across the House to ensure the bill passed, which allows the legislation to reflect the 21st century and allows the trust to continue the fantastic mahi they do.

In our vibrant city, we have witnessed the extraordinary power of people coming together, especially over the last decade following the earthquakes. Ōtautahi is a place where we care for one another and where kindness and support flow freely, especially towards our most vulnerable members. The journey of our community has been filled with challenges, yet we have constantly risen, like the phoenix from the ashes, creating a resilient and connected environment for all. This is why I choose to raise my children in Christchurch so that they can grow up surrounded by a community that embodies generosity, manaaki, and the spirit of collaboration.

However, even in this strong and caring community, there are people who face significant hardships. It is institutions like the McLean Institute, which has been there for our community since its establishment in 1909—it’s amazing. As has been well-canvassed in this House already, in previous readings of this bill, the current trust deed is outdated and restrictive. I don’t wish to relitigate what has already been spoken about in this House, but I am so pleased that the Green Party is supporting this change. It is crucial that we update its language and objectives to reflect the realities of today and to ensure that we can effectively support those who require our help.

The House has already outlined extensively the need to change the outdated and restrictive language of the current deed, and I do not wish to relitigate this. However, I do want to draw the House’s attention to, and put on record, my strong disappointment with the select committee recommendations to remove rule 5.4 of the Schedule, which would have truly reflected the bill moving into the 21st century. Rule 5.4 of the Schedule specifies that the term “woman” in the deed of trust, should “be interpreted in its broadest possible sense, having regard to both biological sex and gender identity.” The select committee recommended removing it. Our trans and takatāpui community in Aotearoa and across the motu are taonga. They’re my sissies and the most fun.

Our community deserves to be represented and reflected within the words we, as change makers, pass into legislation. As such, I want to put on record my disagreement with the removal of rule 5.4 of the Schedule, which specifies that the term “women” in the deed of trust should “be interpreted in its broadest possible sense, having regard to both biological sex and gender identity.” It was a lost opportunity to support some of our most marginalised women and their children. Our trans and takatāpui community are such a vibrant, integral, and joyous part of Ōtautahi and must be protected and supported.

This bill not only honours Allan McLean’s legacy but also celebrates the amazing qualities of Christchurch. It exemplifies our commitment to supporting one another and nurturing a community where everyone can thrive. Let us embrace this opportunity for positive change and continue to build a more inclusive future together. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. This will be a short call because we’re looking at agreeing with some of the changes that have been made to the 1909 original trust deed that was implemented. Basically, this bill is looking to modernise the charitable trust and some of the clauses that are within it. It includes flexibility on trustee criteria and being able to remove some trustees if need be.

The welfare and the wellbeing of disadvantaged women in Canterbury will now be captured and it will be captured because they are stated within the amended bill as being eligible to participate with the trust as opposed to what was, and I quote, “gentlewomen or women of refinement”, and with children under the age of 10 years old.

Allan McLean’s will did want to make sure that we looked after those disadvantaged women and children in Canterbury. By modernising the terminology within the trust, it means that we’ll be able to give more access to more women and more children, and on that basis, we do support the bill.

Thank you. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. The member who has introduced the bill isn’t in the House, but I’d like to congratulate him on all the work that he’s done.

I will speak on this third and final reading. Just as a bit of a summary: the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill addresses the need to update the charitable purpose and administrative processes of the McLean Institute Trust, which was established in 1907 by the late Allan McLean. Originally intended to provide support for destitute women of refinement or good character, the trust’s purpose has become outdated in light of societal changes. Now, this bill seeks to repeal and replace previous Acts relating to the McLean Institute to enable these updates, ensuring that the trust can better serve the needs of disadvantaged women and children in contemporary society. Now, by clarifying the process for future variations to the trust, the bill aims to streamline these administrative procedures and enhance the trust’s effectiveness in fulfilling its charitable mission.

New Zealand First does support this bill, and some of the reasons that we support it is because it is in alignment with our principles. We are committed to promoting social welfare and addressing the needs of marginalised communities. We believe in the importance of ensuring that charitable trusts remain relevant and effective in serving their beneficiaries, and, of course, it aligns with our principles of social responsibility and equity. I’m actually going to be open and transparent, Mr Speaker. I will continue with reading—I’ve just this minute heard that my auntie passed away. Literally, just a couple of minutes ago.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Oh. I’m sorry to hear that.

TANYA UNKOVICH: I’m fine, but, you know, you stand and do this. So she was my—and then reading this and thinking about women back in that age, my mother was brought up in that age and my aunt, so it’s very nice to reflect on the women of that time, and how hard they worked. That is what I’m thinking of as I’m reading this, is the women of that time and the difficulties that they faced. So, yeah. And honouring all women of that time.

I will continue on. I was on the Social Services and Community Committee for this bill and, in all honesty, it was my first experience of going through the select committee and a bill. So it was quite a learning experience for me, hearing the submissions. We only received three submissions and it was an interesting process. I sat and was quiet and made sure I learnt how things worked. So that’s why I suppose this bill will always be a reminder to me and a memory of my very first experience in a select committee. So the three submitters were—two of them were very technical kind of submissions and one was, I would call her rather animated. So, again, it was interesting to see that process worked through.

One of the reasons for this bill is, you know, over time, society changes and it’s rendered this trust’s original purpose actually outdated, hence the need for the amendments to better address the needs of these marginalised groups. Now, New Zealand First are going to support this bill. As I’ve said, it aligns with our principles of promoting social welfare and ensuring that everyone has taken care of in our community. I think, on that note, I will commend the bill to the House, if I may. Thank you.

Condolences to the member. The next call is a split call between Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party.

E te Pīka, tēnā rā koe. Otirā e mihi ana ki ngā āhuatanga i roto i tēnei o ngā huihuinga, me tēnei o ngā pire. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō tēnei o ngā pire i hua mai ai tēnei tarahiti nō roto mai o Ōtautahi i Te Tai Tonga. Nō reira kei ngā uri o Te Tai Tonga, tēnā rā tātou.

[Mr Speaker, greetings to you. Indeed, I acknowledge the characteristics within this sitting, and this bill. I stand to give voice to statements regarding this bill from within which arose this trust from Christchurch in Te Tai Tonga. And so to the descendants of Te Tai Tonga, greetings to us all.]

The McLean Institute, a charitable trust based in Ōtautahi Christchurch, incorporated in 1909, was established, pursuant to the will of Allan McLean, who wished to provide financial assistance to women and their tamariki who were in destitute circumstances. The initial focus of the trust was to provide long-term housing and daily necessities for the beneficiaries. While the trust was set up to support women and their tamariki who were in destitute circumstances, the language used at the time had limited who was eligible for support, and it is rare for persons to qualify for support today.

I’m glad to stand today in support of the amendments made to this bill and glad that the McLean Institute may finally progress their crucial, critical work in support of the Ōtautahi Christchurch communities. What resonated with me in particular was the focus that this trust places on to the women and tamariki and their ability to access safe housing. It seems absolutely appropriate, given the current climate and state of liveability within this country, that the amendments to this bill be addressed today in this third reading.

I say this as I have been listening to the responses of the proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act. What seems to be a recurring issue amongst these responses was the challenge that minority, vulnerable, and disadvantaged groups are facing when it comes to housing. One particular response referred to our gang whānau and the absolute challenge our women, our wahine, and our mothers and tamariki within this community are facing when it comes to discrimination, particularly around housing.

It is most appropriate that the select committee has approved relevant changes to the trust deed so institutions such as the McLean Institute can commit to helping those that this Government has so far failed to reach. I want to tautoko the words of my colleague Takutai Tarsh Kemp, who in the second reading of the bill acknowledged the mahi of the McLean Institute and the desire we have to see our communities supported and housed well. So we at Te Pāti Māori support this bill and look forward to seeing the wonderful mahi that the McLean Institute can now engage with in their communities of Ōtautahi and beyond.

Nō reira kei ngā uri o Te Tai Tonga, otirā tēnei o ngā tarahiti, tēnā rā koutou. Ka tuku nei i te pire ki te Whare. Tēnā koe.

[And so to the descendants of Te Tai Tonga, indeed to this trust, greetings to you all. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Look, I want to start by firstly acknowledging our colleague across the House Tanya Unkovich in your very sad news. Our hearts go out to you at this time—really, really devastating to hear that.

Look, it’s a really awesome day to celebrate awesome people doing awesome things, especially when it comes to the fantastic people of Ōtautahi Christchurch and the wider Waitaha region. I do want to note, though, my disappointment too, as outlined by my Green Party colleague Kahurangi Carter earlier, about the removal of clause 5.4 of the Schedule, but I don’t want that to lose sight of what is at the heart of this bill. What I love about this bill is that it’s really, ultimately, about enabling people to help each other, but a little bit more than that: it’s about enabling those people, or, in this case, the trust, with the means to help, who have the capacity, be it the resources, the money, whatever form that help may take, to help those who have so much less, who actually are in need of such help. Sadly, we know we so desperately need more of that in this world today, and in this Parliament in particular.

The second thing I really love about this bill is the founding history of the McLean Institute trust, in that it originated from its founder, Allan McLean, and the inspiration that he took from his mum in the formation and the purposes of the trust. He talks about—and it’s in the guiding materials—her journey of struggling after his father’s death and being unable to make a life for herself, to provide for not only Allan but for his siblings and actually falling into poverty.

Now, like many of us, we take so much inspiration from our mums, and I wanted to use the reflection on this bill and also the news that we’ve just had shared in the House as an opportunity to shout out to my own mum. Her name’s Rosalie, and I want to do this because her birthday comes up in a few days and she would be turning 71 this year, as our whānau sadly said goodbye to her, at least in the physical form, 19 years ago when she passed away as a result of skin cancer. She was an incredible woman: a mum of six, a teacher, a social worker, and just a human being who really, truly cared about people, who would go out of her way to love them, to help them and hold them, and to nurture them. I’m reflecting on that because that is exactly the aim and purpose and mahi of this trust, and te Pāti Kākāriki wholeheartedly support that. I love that Allan McClean took that story, the inspiration from his mum, and turned it into actual action. So we absolutely support the newly proposed purpose.

We really want to shout out as well, as my colleagues have across the House today, to Duncan Webb, who has stepped this through the process, and we really want to support the absolute importance of this bill for real women and real children in need in Ōtautahi Christchurch and, indeed, across Canterbury and Waitaha. The changes that are a result of this process will help them to really target that care and help, and we’re so glad to see those positive changes. I think, as my final reflection, with this care and love that is in this bill, we need to evolve, and we need to do it more in this House and take our role and our duty of care for the people of Aotearoa more seriously. We’d love to see better outcomes coming out of this very Chamber. Kia ora.

It’s a pleasure to speak again on this bill. I’ve become quite a fan of this bill, and not just because I believe that our country is at its best when our community is at its best and when we are looking after each other and we’re not reliant on the Government for everything, but we work together and we contribute what we can—and no better example will we find that back at the start of the last century than that of Allan McLean—but also because, I guess, my ancestors were MacLeans of Duart, and my dad was a good Canterbury man. So if he were here, he’d still love to know that we were—

Hon Nicola Grigg: I knew there was something I liked about you.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, we all have our secrets, don’t we? Now, I want to start by reflecting on some of the notes that we did get back from the select committee themselves when they considered it, and, in particular, on their belief that the changes proposed in this bill were consistent with the wishes of the late Allan McLean. There’s a couple of key changes I’d like to focus on—particularly recitals (6) and (10A) in the preamble of the bill and clause 24 of the Schedule itself—but I want to first just reflect on this comment that these changes are consistent with the wishes of the late Allan McLean. Of course, it can be difficult for us to know. As previous members have reflected, it was a different time, it was a different age, there was different language and there were different customs at the time, and different social norms.

To try and understand whether this is the same and whether we are keeping with that original intent—particularly for those joining us in the gallery today and those that may be watching or listening from home—let me take you back. Let me take you on a journey back almost 200 years ago—200 years back—to when the young Allan McLean was just a 14-year-old boy in the Scottish Isles. His dad was working in copper mines and trading between Ireland and Scotland, and, tragically, he was killed in a shipwreck. They managed to get the body ashore, but they couldn’t save him. Young Allan McLean, with an older brother, a younger brother, two younger sisters, and his mum, was left to work the family farm to try and make a living.

As we’ve heard, just four years later, there was crop failure after crop failure. A terrible time struck this family, and so they made the tough decision that the five kids and mum would move overseas. They’d heard about this fantastic country at the other end of the world. A paradise in the Pacific—what better place could there be? Unfortunately, they ended up in Australia, but you can’t get everything you want.

They travelled to Australia and they made a new life for themselves there, and they lasted a few years, working in the goldmines, trading gold, collecting gold, and selling it. They set up their own store at the time because there were no banks and there was nothing else in this area, and they worked hard. They made a living for themselves until disaster struck again. They found out about a plot to kill the oldest brother, John. But they were warned by what’s described by the McLean Institute as a Chinese man, who swam across a nearby river to get to the other side to warn them in time so that they could escape, and, indeed, they did.

They made good their escape, and they never forgot that goodwill. In fact, they took this Chinese gentleman by the name of Fan So with them to New Zealand. He became a lifelong companion and lifelong friend and someone they always looked after, and that tells us a little of that character of the McLeans.

In fact, they were known—and I’ll read the quote. They were known in Australia for having “loyal hearts, gracious manners, and a real will to work hard.” When they got to New Zealand, they were known for their courage, for their steadfastness, and for their faith in others. I looked back through the Hansard from the second reading of this bill to try and find what other values we can learn about Mr McLean, and here are the values that I’ve found mentioned specifically—and I quote—strong families, caring communities, personal responsibility, loyalty to country, and competitive enterprise. I googled those values because they sounded fantastic. I could only find them collectively in one place, and that place was the National Party website. So I’m not suggesting that he was a foreman to the National Party, but, indeed, he shared the values that a vast number in this House share, and great values they are for every Kiwi.

He made his money and he made his living there, and I think it’s a great story that tells us of him. As he has moved, he retired from the farm into a small cottage in Christchurch, and he said, “I want plans drawn up for this house.” They came to him with plans for a four-bedroom house and he said, “No, I didn’t say a four-bedroom house; I said a 40-bedroom house.”, and they were thinking “Why would this old gentleman want to have a 40-bedroom house at this late stage in life?” He hadn’t married and he had no children of his own, and it wasn’t until his death and until his will was read that they realised this benevolent intent behind it and that he wanted to set up what we now speak about today as the McLean Institute: to look after others.

When we think about this bill and when we think about the changes that we’re considering, I think we have a real taste of who Allan McLean was. He was someone who cared for others and someone who wasn’t afraid to work hard for himself and for his family and who was faithful to those around him but who was also intent on helping others, and we must reflect—as the member opposite did just before—on what it was his mum went with. He was in those dark places, those dark times, with his mum. They were what was known as the dark ’40s—the 1840s, of course—when those crops failed, when he lost his dad and his mum was widowed, and when they went to Australia and she saw her son’s life threatened and they had to once again flee the country, and hence maybe that’s the spring of his intent to look after others.

We move to the bill itself and the technical changes, and I did just want to reflect on a couple in particular. One of the key ones that is being made here is the change not just to recital (10A) in the preamble, which sort of highlights it, but it’s perhaps better captured—in view of the time—in clause 6, where it talks about the fact that although the McLean Institute was incorporated in this Act of Parliament in 1909, from that point on, Part 3 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 applied to the institute and the fund. What that really means is that instead of having to come to an Act of Parliament to make changes, it can be done by the trust board itself or it can be done through the High Court, and those specific clauses for each one are set out in recital (24) in the Schedule to the bill, where it sort of goes through them.

If I can just give an example of a modern-day charity to kind of help people to understand what the difference might be, I was the founder of a charity called the Missing Wingman Trust. It’s a charity that supports air force families when someone is killed, injured, wounded, or ill—what we call our Kiwi family. I’m grateful for the advice we had when setting it up from, firstly, retired Air Commodore Tim Walshe but also to Tim Foss, the accountant, and particularly to Mark Sinclair, who was the lawyer who gifted his time and his services to help us set up the trust. His guidance was very appropriate, and I am mindful of it today as I read these changes to this trust.

It was set up in such a way that if changes were needed to be made, as can be done now with the McLean Institute, they can be made by either the trust board—for example, we just went from six trustees to seven, in order to bring in a little bit more diversity to the trust. Having the ability to do that as a trust board without having to go through Parliament and without having to make significant variations to the trust deed and register them with the court makes the trust more efficient and it makes it more effective, but it also saves us from having to go through this particular journey that we go through with this unique one because it was founded through an Act of Parliament.

As well as that, there was advice to keep the objects of the trust—i.e., what it is that the trust can do—broad and to keep the definitions of “beneficiaries” broad. In fact, Mr McLean was very specific in his definitions, and we’ve heard about some of those. But they were only to look after gentlewomen, or “women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances”, and “children not being over the age of ten”. He went on to say that it was for “persons of the female sex not being under the age of eighteen [or] children … over the age of ten”, and I did hear the comments from members on the other side of the House who were concerned about omissions of this definition or another. I guess the point that I would make as I reflect on this is to ask what’s most important to us. Is it to set broad objects and broad beneficiaries, and then to pick good trustees and to trust them to do the job? You don’t want to have them hamstrung at every corner.

You’d want people to be able to go out and make good decisions, and I think about some of the families that we’ve supported through the Missing Wingman Trust—air force families. They weren’t the ones you might expect—those that were, tragically, killed in some high-profile crashes or who were injured in aircraft incidents—but, in fact, it was those ones that can slip through the cracks. I think of a young woman who had a child that was, tragically, stillborn. Actually, she needed far more support than some of the more high-profile or public ones. I think of a young dad who lost the mum of his three kids, and now he has to give up work and to work part-time to look after the kids as well, and he needed more support than perhaps those we might expect.

What matters here is that we set the conditions that allow them to thrive into the future. We can’t predict the future, but we can plan and protect ourselves from it, and that’s what this bill is doing. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My speech certainly will not be as long as the previous member Tim Costley’s speech—you did really well to fill your 10 minutes. As a previous whip, I know what it is like to request your members to fill the 10 minutes. So, well done to you.

I was on the select committee, so I feel like I can talk to this with some qualifications. What I wanted to really acknowledge was the board’s representatives in bringing this issue forward and assisting the select committee so that we could understand what it was that they were seeking and needing to do to modernise this and to update it. I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, whose name this bill is in, for bringing it here.

I want to say that for a small bill—you know, we don’t get too many private members’ bills from outside of the House being brought in here—we actually gave this a lot of time and attention and we thought really hard and asked a lot of the officials and our parliamentary counsel to help us with this and make sure that we got it right. I think that’s because we do want to honour, as much as possible, what the original intent was of the person who set this up, but we understood the challenges that the current board has and that because the courts had ruled that they couldn’t do the things that they were being asked to do and wanted to do and, in order to be able to do that, they had to come and get the Act changed through Parliament. That’s why we are here today. I can tell the House and anybody who’s listening this afternoon that the committee did actually put a lot of time and energy into this and that we agreed unanimously with the recommendations for the changes to be made.

We hope that now, once this passes, shortly, after a few more filibustering speeches, this will pass, finally, and the board members will be able to get on and implement their deed in the way in which they wanted to. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Thank you—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: 10 minutes.

RIMA NAKHLE: Ha, ha! Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think Mr McLean deserves the honour of at least 10 minutes, if not more.

Look, it is a pleasure to arise today and make my contribution in this third and final stage of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. This bill is a private bill and I think it’s important to just rehash some of these administrative points. But for parliamentary nerds like me—I used to listen from work and from home—this is a private bill in the name of the Hon Duncan Webb. What a private bill is—it’s referred to as a private member’s bill. A private member’s bill is a bill that asks for an amendment to or an exemption from a certain law for the benefit of a particular group or individual. This request needs to be supported by a member of Parliament. In this situation—which is not as common as other bills—this bill is supported by the Hon Duncan Webb, on behalf of the McLean Institute Trust.

The bill was introduced in the 53rd Parliament last year. It was introduced into the House on 16 June 2023. The first reading was in June of that year; the second reading in May of this year, in the 54th Parliament; and, as I said earlier, the third and final reading to this noble bill is today.

Now, what does this bill aim to change on behalf of the McLean Institute Trust? Well, very essentially, the purpose of this bill—the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill seeks to update and vary the original trust to better align with contemporary needs and circumstances. This involves, in a way, modernising the trust governance, expanding its scope, and addressing legal and practical challenges that have arisen since its establishment. The impact of this variation aims to ensure that the McLean Institute can continue to fulfil its charitable mission effectively. Now, this variation may also allow the institute to adapt to changing social conditions and continue providing valuable support to women in need.

The creation of the McLean Trust—it was established as a result of the will of a Mr Allan McLean. It’s heart-warming that we’ve mentioned his name many times today and in the former two readings on this bill. As was mentioned before, Mr McLean was born in 1822 in Scotland, and he made his way to Aotearoa New Zealand via Australia—just like me. In his adult life, he arrived on our beautiful shores here. Not that this matters—what I’m about to say, but I will say it anyway—Mr McLean became one of the most influential and wealthiest landowners in Canterbury. But what I do take from this point is that his love for his fellow man and woman was so much so that he was well known for his generosity both during his life and continuing beyond the veil of his passing. He was and still is known as a philanthropist.

If you’ll allow me, Mr Speaker, I’d like to honour him a little bit more by taking a moment to share the etymology of this noble reference, philanthropy. “Philanthropy” comes from the Greek language: “philos” means love, and “anthropos” means humanity. What Mr McLean has achieved over 100 years past his death is indeed philanthropy. Now, I’d like to delve into the background, if I may.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): You may.

RIMA NAKHLE: The purpose of the Allan McLean trust—it established the trust to create and maintain the McLean Institute, which aimed to provide, as we’ve heard, assistance to women in need. This institute was specifically tasked with helping destitute women and widows, reflecting McLean’s beautiful concern for the welfare of vulnerable members of society.

The formation of this institute—it was formed according, as we said, to Mr McLean’s will. It provided for the establishment of a home for women in need. The trust was to use his estate to support and sustain this home, ensuring long-term assistance for its beneficiaries. Now, we’ve heard that if we were to reference it or categorise that, that’s transitional housing—and I would say emergency housing as well; when women found themselves in need.

I’d like to add just a bit of personal experience here. As many of my colleagues across the House know, the business I was involved with before I became an MP was an emergency and transitional housing facility in South Auckland. You definitely see the struggles and the complex needs that people find themselves with when they are in a situation where they need help finding some emergency accommodation, and transitioning from emergency to semi-permanent and then permanent homes. We’re talking about needs like blankets for their children, sometimes being taught how to how to cook a hot meal for their little ones.

Again, it warms my heart reading about the late Allan McLean and what he did and how important he felt it was—and, actually, how beyond his time he was in bequeathing the amounts needed, and the estate, to form this housing facility, amongst others, that he bequeathed in his will.

I’d also like to tackle what Lan Pham said earlier. We’d like to share our condolences for Tanya Unkovich—I’m sorry for the loss of her aunt. And, Lan, as you approach the time of the birthday of your mother, your late mother, I’ll be thinking of you as well.

Since the subject of this trust is women, if you’d allow me, Mr Speaker, I’d like to just share a little bit about my mother. As I’ve mentioned before, my mother was raised in the mountains of Lebanon. She was raised with a lot of love, but the environment was, clearly to me, one of poverty—for different reasons. My mother is almost 71 and she continues to work. She says to me she will retire when she dies. When I delved into that line of thinking—I’ve learnt from my mother, she says that once you’ve lived in poverty, you never forget the feeling and you do everything in your power to never be in that situation again.

Also on the subject of women, mum came from a small village—beautiful people. But what I learnt from my mother is that women had to show their society that they’re working and they’re hard workers, because, if not—and this is very rudimentary thinking—they wouldn’t find a good husband. No one would think they’d make a good wife. How far we’ve come from that type of thinking. But it breaks my heart that my mother feels she needs to continue working because, somewhere in her mind, that thought is ingrained. I love the fact that Mr McLean kind of laser-visioned his focus on women, and women in need, but also the fact that women can achieve with a little bit of help.

It’s sad to say that Mr McLean didn’t have any children. I’m sure the children and their grandchildren, etc., would have contributed amazingly to our society. But I’d like to think that his children are those that he managed to save with his philanthropy, with his help.

The importance of this bill is continued relevance. Updating the trust terms ensures that the McLean Institute remains relevant and capable of meeting the needs of its beneficiaries in today’s context. May we always preserve the memory of good, decent philanthropists like Allan McLean. The National Party and I are honoured to commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. I call Jo Luxton.

It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. Can I first acknowledge my colleague Dr Duncan Webb for bringing this legislation to the House and seeing its passage through. Can I acknowledge the select committee; my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime mentioned before that they spent quite a long time really looking hard and working on this bill to make it what it is that we have before us today. I’m not part of the select committee, but I have enjoyed listening to the contributions that have been made this afternoon and hearing the pretty amazing and powerful back-story of Mr McLean and what brought his vision to life. It is nice to have some collegiality in the House. Can I say it’s actually quite refreshing for a change; we haven’t heard that a lot of late.

From what we have heard across the House, what this bill does is it just simply seeks to bring the purpose back that was envisaged by Mr McLean which is simply to support women and children in need of welfare assistance. It does make another change, as Mr Costley referred to before, where the trust board can make changes, or through the High Court, rather than them having to come back here and have it made through an active Parliament. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today in strong support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. This important piece of legislation seeks to update and modernise the trust established over a century ago by Mr McLean. The bill before us today is a testament to the enduring legacy of Mr McLean’s generosity and our collective responsibility to ensure his vision continues to serve those in need.

The McLean Institute was established in 1909 with the noble purpose of providing assistance to women and children in difficult circumstances. However, as we’ve heard from numerous speakers, the language and provisions of the original trust deed have become outdated and restrictive. This bill seeks to address these limitations and bring the trust into the 21st century.

One of the key aspects of this bill is the modernisation of the trust’s purpose. The original language, which referred to “gentlewomen” and “women of refinement”, no longer reflects the realities of our society today. The proposed changes will broaden the scope of the trust to assist disadvantaged women and children in the Canterbury region, regardless of their background or social status. This expansion will allow the trust to address a wider range of contemporary issues facing women, including mental health, addiction, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, and poverty.

Another crucial element of this bill is the streamlining of administrative processes. By allowing future changes to be made through the High Court, rather than requiring an Act of Parliament, we are ensuring that the trust can adapt more efficiently to future needs. This change will save time and resources, allowing the trust to focus on its primary mission of helping those in need.

The bill also updates outdated language and concepts. For example, it replaces the term “unsound mind” with more appropriate and modern terminology related to capacity, aligning the trust deed with current legislation such as the Trusts Act 2019. It is important to note that these changes have been carefully considered to maintain the original intent of Allan McLean’s bequest. The Social Services and Community Committee have done excellent work in refining the bill, ensuring that it respects Mr McLean’s wishes while adapting to modern circumstances.

This bill is not just about updating legal language; it’s about preserving and enhancing a valuable community resource. The McLean Institute has been a beacon of hope for countless women and children in Canterbury for over a century. By passing this bill, we are ensuring that it can continue to provide that support for generations to come.

Moreover, this legislation serves as an example of how we can honour and update philanthropic legacies. It demonstrates that the generosity of past benefactors can be adapted to meet the evolving needs of our society without losing sight of the original intent. As we consider this bill, let us remember the values that inspired Allan McLean: compassion, generosity, and a desire to help those in need. These values are timeless, even if the specific circumstances of need may change over time.

In conclusion, the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill represents a thoughtful and necessary update to an important charitable trust. It preserves the spirit of Allan McLean’s original bequest while ensuring that the trust can effectively serve the needs of modern society. By supporting this bill, we are not only honouring a legacy of support but also investing in the wellbeing of vulnerable women and children in Canterbury. I commend this bill to the House and urge all members to support its passage. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Gosh, it’s been quite interesting listening to all the contributions on this bill and listening to people give such colourful examples as we’ve traversed through the history of the McLean Trust and all of the good work that they’ve done. I’d like to acknowledge Dr Duncan Webb for ushering this bill through. He was quite excited about it when he was first approached and loves nothing more than a good member’s bill.

Labour has a long history of supporting women and girls, and I think it’s incumbent upon us whenever we face the opportunity to do something that can advance the needs of women and girls in society, and in New Zealand in particular, that we should grasp that with two hands and do what we need to do and take all opportunities to continue that good work. This bill is entirely appropriate. As many people have said, it allows it to be updated so that it’s relevant so that the types of circumstances that people may find themselves in reflect the environment of the more modern world, and, therefore, it’s allowed to focus on its core intentions, which was to provide that emergency transitional housing and all of the other social support to allow people to live independently and to allow them to live with dignity. So, having said that, I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

It gives me huge pride to be the final speaker in this. I know that the whip’s office carefully considered who would give the final speech on this. And, despite the strength of our South Island caucus and the great representation that they have here today on force and the great representation they give the South Island, they chose a boy from Hāwera to give the final speech.

I want to pay tribute to the Social Services and Community Committee for the work that they have done, and these are very simple and sensible tweaks, which National and, in fact, every party, from what I can make out, are happy to support as we put through this passage of legislation.

If we just reflect back as others have done—but I think my role is to kind of wrap it up and to reflect on the purpose of the institute that has served the Canterbury people, the region, and, in fact, the country, Mr Meager—the country, led from the mainland, of course. “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”—being the Canterbury region—“(and the children in the care of such women), 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.”

When we look at the other provisions of what the institute is focused on and the programmes, projects, and initiatives that they support, we see that they promote and support the empowerment of women—including enabling them to live independently; supporting women to fully participate within the context of family, whānau, and community; promoting public awareness of the problems of family violence and abuse; working to change social norms that support violence against women; promoting and provide parental support services; and promoting motherhood as a valuable force in our society. So their work, thanks to the generosity of the late Allan McLean, continues and, as other speakers have alluded to, is more important than ever before and more relevant than ever before.

I also want to take this opportunity not only to pay tribute to the late great Allan McLean, who, I think, in the second reading we heard came on the ship Tory. We don’t know how he voted, but he did come on the ship Tory to New Zealand. He did wear a plum-purple suit. This has been on record. And, in fact, when we all gave some very considered and passionate and a well-researched—Tom Rutherford, very well-researched—speech, we had people connected to the institute, the Allan McLean institute, the McLean Institute, that wrote a beautiful email to the member for Kāpiti—Ōtaki at least, Ōtaki; I’m still in the 1990s, I think—Tim Costley, and said how delighted they were that parliamentarians, us parliamentarians, had honoured the late Allan McLean and his enduring work. So we want to throw it back to those members associated with the McLean Institute as to—don’t thank us; today is about thanking you and the enduring work that you do in the great region of Canterbury.

This is also a time for reflection about philanthropy and the role of philanthropy. I want to allude to one of his contemporaries, one of Allan McLean’s contemporaries, the late Sir John Logan Campbell, described as the “Father of Auckland”, member of Parliament, big businessman, Mayor of Auckland, who, of course, bequeathed Cornwall Park to the people of New Zealand. And that Cornwall Park Trust board continues with its work every day since the 1900s, overseeing that enormous gift. In fact, Sir John Logan Campbell’s vision—he could see that the Auckland region was going to grow and grow and grow and this space was to provide open space and farm animals to the children of Auckland. What foresight he had to think that we can now go to Cornwall Park and see those spring lambs and run through the daffodils. So I want to pay tribute to the Father of Auckland—again, a contemporary.

Simon Court: Really?

CAMERON BREWER: But it’s not just, Simon Court, left in the early 1900s, in those Edwardian days, when the greatest generation was born, like my grandparents, although two grandfathers served on the home guard, so I don’t know if they were deemed amongst the greatest generation, but they were the same age group.

It wasn’t just the 1900s where philanthropy left off. We look also—today, as we reflect on Allan McLean and his enduring gift to this country—to the late Josie and Julian Robertson, who bequeathed 15 masterpieces to Auckland Art Gallery, worth $178 million—masterpieces including from Pablo Picasso, including from Monet. This is another incredible 21st century act of philanthropy. I think we can conclude, here we are 120 years on from Allan McLean’s gift, updating the McLean Institute’s trust variations and its scope and how it operates and—

James Meager: Modernising.

CAMERON BREWER: —and how—modernising the language and making it relevant to 2024 and going forward. It goes to show that philanthropy can stick and that that philanthropy should continue to be encouraged, because if we can continue—and you’ll see this legislation was amended accordingly throughout the 20th century. Now, we’re in the 21st century, and it goes to show that philanthropy can stick, generosity can endure, and it can be amended. Its interpretation can be amended to reflect the legal and societal changes.

I think if there’s one takeout message for today, that is, for those that might have wealth, whether it’s large or small, and might not have the descendants or an obvious place to bequeath within their family or circle of friends, that they consider philanthropy and that this Parliament be proof that it will endure, and that we, as parliamentarians, past, present, and future, will protect that bequeathment.

So “be encouraged to give”, I think, is the takeout message if we are to make this all relevant to the people that are watching this on Parliament TV, listening to it on Truth Radio, and hearing what is happening in Parliament today. Legacies can last and change lives centuries on. So, knowing that the institute’s members and connections are listening, today is a tribute to their work and a plea to New Zealanders and others from overseas that we will honour those that bequeath to our great country. And so I finish. I finish this historic moment with an ode to the McLean Institute:

There was the great Allan McLean,

Who left cash but sought no fame.

With the twill of his quill,

His will was a bill,

And now they’re one of the same.

I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.