McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. We come first to the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.

I move that all parts be heard as one question.

The question is that all parts be heard as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that the preamble, clauses 1 to 7, and the Schedule stand part.

I will just, if I may, make a few introductory remarks for members’ benefit. This bill is really a bill which tidies up the purposes of the McLean Institute trust deed because it’s a deed that’s over a century old, it made reference to “destitute women of good character”, and it really was not fit for purpose in a modern sense.

The main objective of this bill is to provide an updated trust deed but, at the same time, it does a couple of other things. The main other thing it does is make it clear that should the trust deed need amendment in the future, it need not come back to this House, but, by an amendment in clause 6, it’s made clear that it’s the same as any other charitable trust, and that the objects and purposes of the deed and so on could be amended by application to the High Court rather than this rather cumbersome and pretty resource-intensive process. I’m hopeful I won’t be challenged too much. It won’t be a contentious bill, but—

Hon Member: You never know.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —I never know—I’m happy to answer any members’ questions that there may be.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t rise to say too much, to be frank, because I think this is a matter that we’re in agreement with. It is updating a will that was settled nearly 120 years ago. Maybe I’ll just give the member an opportunity to elucidate for any of those watching in the Chamber just what the intention is in terms of expanding it from its original purposes, to who it can support—those changes that this bill will allow.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m very happy to just respond to these questions as they arise. The original trust deed had two classes of women who were able to be supported: one, in respect of the majority of the assets, was women of good character and high social standing who had fallen on hard times, and the other was destitute women—basically, the lower classes. Clearly, in the modern world, that’s not appropriate. The new deed, in modern language, simply says any woman who’s in need of financial support can be supported by the trust fund.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just confirming that the charitable purpose has been expanded to assist any women in the Canterbury area who are in need of support, regardless of social status, formal education, or other characteristics?

Yeah, that’s exactly right. The deed itself refers to the region, and you’re right: the region is the Canterbury region. The trustees are various dignitaries, including, I think, the Bishop of the Anglican Cathedral.

Thank you. Now, there’s just one small amendment that we would like to make, and currently, it is the definition of “children” in the proposed trust deed. Now, the definition as it states at the moment says “A reference”—it’s clause 1.1.17 of the proposed trust deed—“a reference to ‘children’ is a reference to children and young persons of any gender under the age of 18 years old, and is otherwise to be interpreted in its broadest possible sense”. We would like to make an amendment for the clause to be replaced and made simpler by saying “a reference to ‘children’ is a reference to children and young persons under the age of 18 years old”. Now, we just felt that the phrase “and is otherwise to be interpreted in its broadest possible sense” could have possibly been a bit of a concern due to its vagueness and could lead to misinterpretation and some potential bias.

Now, New Zealand First, as a party, we have always campaigned on and we continue to address and meet with groups who are concerned about gender ideology and how it is now affecting language, and the gradual creep that now seems to be appearing in legislation. So that is why we are recommending this change. We will continue to be a voice for those who feel unheard, particularly women who feel that their identity is being abandoned. Hence, we are tabling this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for her contribution. The trust deed has been carefully reviewed, and I don’t think there is any lack of clarity in the proposed deed, in clause 1.1.17. It is really just making sure that although you’ve got a trust which is predominantly for the protection of women in need, that any child can fall within that, regardless of whatever gender they are. So I really don’t think it is an issue, and I would suggest to the Chamber that that amendment is not needed, and I won’t be supporting it.

The question is that Tanya Unkovich’s amendment to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 40 be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.