Carter Trust Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few questions I want to ask the member in charge of this bill. It’s a local bill, a private bill in the name of Mike Butterick, who is the MP for Wairarapa, and the Carter Trust is an important part of his Wairarapa community. I think it is important for us to sort of go through the legislation and to get a bit of a greater understanding around the Carter Trust and the intention behind this bill and why Mr Butterick has brought it to Parliament, and the select committee process it went through as well.

The first question I want to ask is related to the purpose and the background of the legislation, and I would be keen to hear from the member in charge if he could just explain to us why this private bill, in the first case, is actually necessary. What’s the problem that the bill is intending to seek and to solve for the Carter Society and the Carter Trust?

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks very much to the member for that question, and a very good question that is indeed, and I’m sure there will be plenty of other questions. The bill is necessary because the Carter Trust Act is a 1961 Act and it’s actually just simply now outdated, and it’s actively impeding the efficient operation of the Carter Court care home.

Private bills generally affect an individual, group, or organisation with a specific interest, and follow a very prescribed process to get to this point. It would be remiss of me at this stage to not acknowledge the Social Services and Community Committee; the chair of the Carter Society, Sharon Parker, who’s been involved all through this; the Public Trust, for 129 years as trustee of the bequest from Charles Rooking Carter; David McLay, for his legal guidance and expertise in navigating the process that this bill is currently going through in this House, and the complexities involved there; and then, last but not least, Charles Rooking Carter for his bequest.

This bill is necessary to ensure that necessary changes actually do occur. When you look at the big picture, what began in 1901, as a home for six to 10 “aged poor men” or “inmates” as they referred to at the time, has now grown into a modern, 100-plus bed facility serving the wider Wairarapa—which, thankfully, now also includes women, as well. The 1961 Act imposes redundant ministerial approvals, leasing restrictions, and administration hurdles that no longer actually make any sense. This bill winds up the redundant trust, distributes the assets sensibly, clarifies the Public Trust’s liability, and gives the society the flexibility it needs while still honouring the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter.

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to, before I ask my short question to my colleague Mr Butterick, also acknowledge that this is putting into action the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter, who is an interesting character in that he was a wealthy landowner by the end of his life, but he also advocated for better working conditions and so forth. As a fellow import from England, I feel a great kinship, and I live in Carterton, named after Charles Rooking Carter. My question to the member who’s leading this bill is not about the substance of the bill, I’m comfortable with that. It’s been through an adequate select committee process, and I think we can all be comfortable with it. I would just like to know what steps the member has taken to convey progress through the different stages of this bill to the Carter Society and its members. Thank you.

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you very much for that question; a very good question. We’ve been in direct and continual contact with David McLay, the person providing the legal advice; Sharon Parker; and the Public Trust, as well. All the way through, everyone’s been on the same page and having very good conversations and keeping each other up to date in terms of the progress. Thank you very much for the question.

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to make a short contribution. We, the Labour Party, have no concerns whatsoever about this bill. We are fully in support of it. It has been a long time coming. I remember first having conversations with the Carter Society about this bill probably about five years ago. They’ve put a lot of effort into this, it is long overdue, and it is required. But of course, the risk in this place is that when you are fully supportive and content with the way that a bill was drafted and it’s progressing through the House, if you don’t say anything, it could be misinterpreted as a lack of interest, and that is certainly not the case. I wanted to put on record, yet again, the support of the Labour Party for this bill, and acknowledge the amount of work that has gone into it—and that includes the member who sponsored the bill, Mike Butterick.

It is important for local and private bills, wherever possible, to not be political. Too often in this House—as, actually, frankly, we’ve just witnessed in the general debate—we can’t help ourselves. In this instance, this is a bill that has been rigorously assessed, that has been debated in the House, has gone through a full process, has the full support of the local community, and it warrants passing. It doesn’t warrant being delayed, but it warrants due recognition of the effort that’s gone into it and the benefit that will be brought to the community. We commend it to the House.

Committee of the Whole House

I would just like to acknowledge the contributions from Kieran McAnulty and Celia Wade-Brown as fellow MPs that live in the Wairarapa. It is important and it is great that sometimes we can show that we do agree on issues. Thank you very much for your support.

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I actually do have a couple of specific questions relating to it, and I appreciate that there is general consensus and support across the House on the legislation, but it’s still important to scrutinise it as it goes through the committee of the whole House stage. That is our part in this Parliament, to ensure that we scrutinise the legislation even if it has universal support—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It is, Mr Rutherford. But I will make the point in the case of a private bill that it has been through a select committee, so I’m not going to look favourably on any prolonged debate on this in the Chamber this afternoon, out of respect for the people that bring it, so I am expecting genuine.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yep. Yeah. And unlike the other side, I don’t intend to take full five-minute calls to ask my questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In that case, you only need to ask your questions in one call.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, happy to Madam Chair, if you’d like me to. The first I want to talk about is in the Social Services and Community Committee’s report, they talk about the upkeep of Mr Carter’s grave. I actually think that’s a really important point for us as a House to just scrutinise, because the select committee have actually written quite a substantial part of their report on the upkeep. They’ve said things like “Section 7(a) of the Act includes a requirement for net income from the Trust to be used for ‘paying the costs of keeping in proper order the grave of the testator’ ”, which is Mr Carter himself. Why has the upkeep of Mr Carter’s grave not been included in the legislation, and can the member confirm that the grave ultimately will still be maintained? I’ll come to my next questions after that.

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you for that question. Yes, I can confirm that the grave will still be maintained. It’s a very good question, and I actually managed to sit in at the Social Services and Community Committee when they were asking about that—and quite right that they should be asking that. The Carter Society has already given a formal undertaking to continue maintaining the grave. The select committee was satisfied with that assurance. The obligation was actually never in the 1896 will; it was added in the 1961 Act. The society will continue this very respectful practice as a condition of the scheme.

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I also just want to talk about the staggered commencement, which are clauses 7 and 8, because that too is actually quite an unusual thing for us to see in legislation in that sense. In the bill, it says that clauses 7 and 8—and now 7A—come into force six months after Royal assent, rather than immediately. I’m keen to understand from the member in charge, why have the inclusion of a staggered commencement, rather than just having it straight after the private bill is passed?

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you for that question. Well, as anyone that’s ever run a business and has to file their accounts with the accountant and spends an inordinate amount of time waiting for the final accounts to be done knows, it is simply about that: giving the trust the necessary time to complete those final accounts and to make the distributions and wind up the trust in an orderly manner. The rest of the bill, including the immediate repeal of the outdated ministerial powers, can commence straight away, giving the society that immediate flexibility, while the financial housekeeping is, effectively, being completed.

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you very much, Madam Chair—I appreciate your patience with this. I am trying to move through a variety of different questions on the legislation. One I do really want to focus on, as we come to the end—as we come to the end. I see Ingrid Leary up there—I’m sure she’s got plenty to contribute from diary on the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. But my question’s actually on the impact on the residents who are in the care home that is provided by the Carter Trust. Now, the member in charge, Mike Butterick, said in his opening contribution that initially it was just for boys, and it was widened and the scope now includes men and women, but how’s the bill actually going to affect the residents of the Carter Court care home? For example, are those residents going to face higher fees? Will they see any material impact for them as day-to-day residents of the Carter Court care home—or, for example, will they see potentially reduced services that could impact them as well?

Committee of the Whole House

I would thank that member. It’s actually a very important question and one that does deserve some clarity as well. Residents will see no negative impact. Fees for contracted long-time residential care are actually already set nationally under the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Act 2018. Removing the outdated ministerial power in section 12 does not change what the residents may pay. Society will continue to provide high-quality care. The winding up actually gives it greater flexibility to focus the resources on the residents. Thank you for the question.

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair—it’s really great to hear the amount of due diligence that’s been done by the member on his bill. He may be aware of some of the advocacy I’ve been doing around retirement villages and capital payments. I can see that there is independent living under the auspices of the Carter Trust. With that in mind, I’m interested to know what the member has done to understand the impact of any potential legal changes to the retirement villages legislation certainly being flagged by his party and his Government to capital repayments—whether he is supportive of those repayments being within a mandated time period of a year and whether they should apply retrospectively or not.

I get that this is about—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s a very narrow bill and it’s out of scope. I will give the member in the chair an opportunity to answer that question, but we’re going very broad.

INGRID LEARY: That would be great, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Committee of the Whole House

Yeah, I thank the member for that question. Look, it’s not in this specific bit of legislation, so it’s not something that I’ve considered per se. That’s speculative in terms of what changes there may be, but this bill doesn’t speak to those as well.

Committee of the Whole House

Just my final question—thank you for the indulgence. Noting that by all accounts, Mr Carter was a really honourable and upstanding citizen—and there’s been acknowledgment of that in the committee today and in the other readings that we have—I do note that in one of the clauses of the bill, clause 2(2), it talks about trust lands. The member will be aware that at the period of time when the will first came into being was a period of unsettled time in New Zealand where there were confiscations of Māori land and there were other things happening around indigenous land. I am not at all suggesting that was the case with this particular will, but I am curious to know whether the member has researched that and has satisfied himself that he’s really comfortable with what happened at that period.

Of course, there’s no going back in history, but I’m curious to understand the depth of research that the member might have done around that to allay any concerns. I know that when we were speaking about this previously in the House, there may have been some sensitivities for some of those who were in the Parliament listening to a farewell speech from one of our Māori colleagues. I’m just curious to understand what the member has done to make himself very comfortable with the history of this, or reconciling the history of it, as the case may be.

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you for that question. Certainly nothing that I’m aware of, nor fellow Wairarapa MPs. It’s never been raised. I still come back to the very generous legacy of Charles Rooking Carter that he has left for his Carterton community that continues to provide for our elderly.

Committee of the Whole House

Just a quick question, and also congratulations to the member—great to see you in that spot. Why has the bill chosen to distribute $50,000 specifically to the Anglican parish of Carterton and the balance to the Carter Society? I was just wondering, is that fair and consistent with the original will, in your opinion?

Committee of the Whole House

Thank you for that question. It certainly is a very different position sitting up here in the House. Yes, so why has it chosen to distribute $50,000? Thank you very much—it’s a very good question. Is it consistent with the original will? Yes, it is. It’s fair and consistent. The original will provided an annuity to the Anglican vicar of Carterton. The $50,000 is an agreed lump-sum equivalent that both the parish and the society have accepted in full satisfaction of that obligation. The balance then goes to the Carter Society, which has been delivering actually care for decades. Public Trust, as executor, has confirmed that this is the most practical and equitable outcome.

Committee of the Whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Just don’t take a call might be another way.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Would you like to withdraw that motion and I’ll take the vote? Or do you want that motion to stand?

TOM RUTHERFORD: I withdraw the motion.

Preamble and clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Carter Trust Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): We’re at the beginning of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill, third reading. Members, this bill has been the subject of personal votes for previous readings. I’m aware that there will be many members who support and oppose this bill who will want to speak to the third reading. I propose that the member in charge of the bill, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, have the first 10-minute call in the debate. I propose that the remaining 11 calls be split into 22 five-minute speeches to give as many members the chance to speak as possible. Members who want a call should come to the Speaker’s Chair to indicate this, and also indicate whether they are for or against the bill. I will then endeavour to allocate the calls evenly amongst supporters and opponents of the bill.