Hutchison Paul: Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11822] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of this Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. It is good to see the Minister in charge of the bill Ruth Dyson in the chair and I hope that at some stage of events she will answer the question that has been on my mind for quite some time: given that the commission’s report was in 2001 why has it taken so long for the Labour Government to finally bring this legislation to the House? Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition is supporting this bill—we believe that it is sensible—but we are concerned that the Labour Government has prioritised other things and indeed that it has taken it so long to bring in something sensible. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why it has taken so long. 
I would like to start off by commenting on new section 93B “Presumption of competence” inserted by clause 6. I make the point here that new subsection (4) states: “A person must not be presumed to lack the competence … or as the case may be the capacity described in subsection (1)(b) just because the person is subject to compulsory treatment or has special patient status under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.” I am sure the Minister would agree it is absolutely appropriate that that is clearly spelt out. 
We go on to creating the enduring power of attorney. I was very pleased to see that some of the constructive submitters caused a change to be made to the bill in terms of witnesses to the signature of the donor. It will be possible for not only a lawyer or an officer or employee of a trustee corporation but also a legal executive who meets the requirements of new section 94A(9) inserted by clause 7 to witness a signature. I must say that the New Zealand Institute of Legal Executives made an excellent submission. It pointed out the range of things that legal executives do and that they currently undertake this work anyway—both large and small drafting. It mentioned an informal email survey of its members that had something like a 76 percent response rate and that these executives are regarded as highly competent in their explanations to their donor clients. Much to my surprise on average legal executives are doing this two or three times a week—up to 200 times a year. The institute had very strong support from both the Law Society and Chapman Tripp in its submission so it is very pleasing to see that indeed the institute’s submission has been taken notice of and that provision is within the bill. 
Finally I want to comment on one of the Minister’s amendments in clause 15. I agree that we should support the point made in new section 100A(1) which states: “A donor of an enduring power of attorney who has been but is no longer mentally incapable may suspend the attorney’s authority to act under the enduring power of attorney …”. It is absolutely vital to have that correct. It would have been an awful anomaly if it were not so National will be supporting that very very cogent issue. 
It is with pleasure that I have spoken on this bill. National will support it as we go on in the debate.