Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10419] 
Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill 
Second Reading 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Following discussions at the Business Committee and with representatives of the various parties I seek leave for this bill when it has concluded its second reading to proceed to its Committee stage and third reading. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill be now read a second time 
. I am very pleased that the Local Government and Environment Committee has dispatched this bill and I would like to acknowledge it straight out as part of my initiating remarks. I would like to compliment and thank Jeanette Fitzsimons who is the chairperson David Parker who is the deputy chairperson Shane Ardern Larry Baldock Dr Ashraf Choudhary Sandra Goudie Ann Hartley Nanaia Mahuta the Hon Damien O’Connor Jim Peters the Hon Ken Shirley and the Hon Dr Nick Smith for their contributions throughout the committee’s deliberations. 
This bill was referred to the select committee on 4 December 2002 so it is only just over a year since it first went before it. The committee heard a number of submissions—seven to be precise. I would like to thank the committee for finding the time to deal with this bill. I recognise and acknowledge its very heavy workload. It got through the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill as expediently as it could. 
The committee has come back with some recommendations which I support. I think the recommendations are fair and also are consistent with more modern legislation that has come to pass in recent times. The Government supports the legislation. I have to say that I personally heard select committee members wonder from time to time why on earth a bill like this actually needed to be before them. However with the new powers now delegated to local government under the new Local Government Act 2002 there will be less of this type of legislation coming before the committee in the future one would hope. 
The Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill establishes public afforestation in the Masterton district. It gives more flexibility to the council as trustee of the Trimble Forest and to the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd as trustee of the Trimble Trust. For example the foundation created by this legislation will be able to undertake activities in areas outside the boundaries of the former Masterton County Council subject to the marginal discretion allowed by the bill. Also it will distribute proceeds outside the original county boundaries but still for the benefit of persons within those boundaries. It also sets up the Montfort Trimble Foundation as a publicly elected body corporate that promotes public afforestation. 
To give a little bit of background the bill establishes—as I have just mentioned—the Montfort Trimble Foundation as a charitable trust with the intention to administer proceeds arising out of the Trimble Trust and the harvesting of the Trimble Forest. Under the will of Dr Montfort Trimble who died in 1940 a charitable trust was established for the purposes of public afforestation in the then area of the Masterton County. In 1942 the Masterton County Council used income from the Trimble Trust to purchase a 127-hectare forestry block known as the Trimble Forest which was administered under separate trust arrangements. Currently the Masterton District Council administers the Trimble Forest trust while the Trimble Trust is administered by the Guardian Trust. The Trimble Forest is now being harvested and the proceeds from the sale of harvested timber are expected to exceed the cost of replanting. 
I shall give a quick summary of some of the recommendations from the select committee. On the powers of the foundation the select committee recommends that the Montfort Trimble Foundation’s capacity to carry out or undertake any business or activity do any act or enter into any transaction in order to further its objectives should be limited to activities related to public afforestation so the committee recommends inserting the word “related” in clause 6(1)(a). 
The select committee also discussed the matter of the removal of board members. It recommends adding a new clause to specify that the Masterton District Council or Guardian Trust may remove a board member only if the board member is unable to perform his or her duties adequately or for neglect of duty or misconduct. 
The committee also recommends on the matter of casting votes amending the bill to omit the provision for the chairperson to have the casting vote because under the Local Government Act 2002 chairpersons are not allowed a casting vote and this amendment will ensure consistency with the Local Government Act. 
Some of the wider distributions that this bill enables will help to enhance such things with regard to afforestation as amenity and flood protection. The beneficiaries of such afforestation because of the establishment of this foundation will be primarily those living within the former trust areas of the Masterton County but also a percentage—although it is capped—of the proceeds can be distributed outside that particular area but inclusive of what are now known as the Masterton District Council boundaries. 
I add that in the Committee stage I have a small amendment to make because officials omitted to do a small thing that is a consequential effect of a unanimous decision to strike out a piece of the bill. I flag now to members that I will propose that amendment which is currently on the Table for members’ information. 
In conclusion I thank all those people who I hope will support the passage of the bill. It is primarily non-controversial and will be of benefit to the environment I might add. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I was not fortunate enough to serve on the select committee for this bill I have followed its passage with some interest. It affects parts of the electorate just over the ranges from my own so I have taken a quiet and understated interest in the passage of the bill. 
Members of the National Party will be supporting its passage through its stages. That is not to say that we will not be questioning or looking very closely at the amendment the member wishes to propose during the Committee stage of the bill as one would expect. It would be only right that Opposition members were able to give this sort of scrutiny to the last-minute clauses that this Government is prone to pop into legislation willy-nilly. I am surprised it has not been completely rewritten by way of Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute. We will watch with interest as the Committee stage proceeds. 
Georgina Beyer the local member for the area this bill relates to has done a good job of outlining the contents of the bill. I certainly do not want to waste the House’s time any longer than necessary over the provisions of the bill. It is important from time to time that the House does enable local legislation such as this to proceed in a timely fashion. Putting aside the issue of the one amendment that the member proposes which as I say we will be looking at in detail we will be supporting the passage of the bill. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a real pleasure to speak to the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill. I would like to thank the member for Wairarapa Georgina Beyer for bringing the bill to the House for the legislation changes required to assist the foundation to widen its scope in the area of forestry. That was well overdue. As a local boy in the district I know that forestry is a major employer taking over from the rural sector. As a bit of background I would like to mention that my great-great-grandfather landed at Castlepoint in 1845 being the first European to drive Romney rams inland cutting his way through the virgin bush. 
Simon Power 
: Yeah? 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Yes I say to Mr Power. He was one of the first to meet the local tangata whenua which is my whakapapa on my mother’s side. 
I would like now just to quietly go through the bill and mention some of the areas the member for Wairarapa has mentioned. The first of these is the introduction. “The bill establishes the Montfort Trimble Foundation a charitable trust intended to administer proceeds arising out of the Trimble Trust and the harvesting of the Trimble Forest. Under the will of Dr Montfort Trimble who died in 1940 a charitable trust was established for the purposes of public afforestation in the then area of the Masterton County. In 1942 the Masterton County Council used income from the Trimble Trust to purchase a 127-hectare forestry block”—which was mentioned by my colleague from the Labour Party—“known as the Trimble Forest administered under separate trust arrangements. Currently the Masterton District Council administers the Trimble Forest trust while the Trimble Trust itself is administered by the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited. The Trimble Forest is now being harvested and the proceeds from the sale of harvested timber are expected to exceed the cost of replanting. The bill provides” [ 
Interruption 
]—Mr Ken Shirley knows all about forestry owning a block in my little valley of Tinui—“for the trustee of the Trimble Forest to make distributions to the Foundation from the proceeds of the harvest of timber and for the trustee of the Trimble Trust to make distributions from capital and income. The main object of the Foundation is to promote public afforestation as defined in clause 5(1)(a) … The bill also defines the Foundation district as being the area that constituted the Masterton County as described in the 1931  
Gazette 
 and is shown in Schedule 2 of the bill. This will be the area of primary benefit and reflects the requirement in Dr Trimble’s will that the bequest be used for public afforestation in the Masterton County as it was at the time of the bequest. The bill therefore allows for distributions to be made outside the Foundation district provided the distribution is made either in respect of objects within the Masterton District or for the benefit of residents and ratepayers of the Masterton District. The bill also limits the percentage of distributions that can be made outside the Foundation district. 
“Objects of the Foundation … We are concerned that the extended objects contained in clause 5(1)(b) may override Dr Trimble’s intention as expressed in his will to provide for public afforestation. … For example the Foundation’s object would not cover riparian planting where tree planting on a riverbank is used as a form of flood protection. We believe such planting constitutes public afforestation and would therefore be a legitimate activity for the Foundation. Accordingly we recommend the inclusion of a new clause 5(1)(a)(vi) inserting the phrase ‘amenity and protection plantings and their maintenance’ as part of the Foundation’s object. 
“Powers of Foundation … We believe the Foundation’s capacity should be limited to activities related to public afforestation and consequently we recommend inserting the word ‘related’ before the word ‘business’ and before the word ‘activity’ in clause 6(1)(a). This should ensure that the Foundation has the capacity to perform any task necessary provided it is pursuing its objective of promoting public afforestation. … 
“Remuneration of Board members. We recommend inserting a new clause 22 to provide that Board members are entitled to receive remuneration to be determined by the Minister of Local Government in accordance with the fees framework for members of statutory and other bodies.” 
New Zealand First has the pleasure of supporting this bill going through to its third reading tonight. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 As some have observed there has been a revolution in the Chair and it is about time. ACT New Zealand is delighted to support the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill. It was indeed an honour to serve on the select committee that considered this bill. The point I would like to make at the outset however is that when it was introduced we were told it was a matter of some urgency. A number of very sincere local folk came to the select committee and stressed the urgency associated with this bill. I have to say that this Government has shoved this bill back and back and back down the Order Paper because of Steve Chadwick’s “Restriction of Freedom (Smoking) Bill” which was rammed through tonight. All members of the House would observe that this bill has been shunted down the Order Paper. 
Georgina Beyer the local member has done a good job in supporting her constituents up to the point where she bowed to her Government and to her shame let this very important matter be shunted down the legislative agenda. That is really not good enough for a local member with a very important local bill. When we look at our Order Paper we notice that local bills have a priority over members’ bills yet the local member for Wairarapa supported a Government-driven agenda to have it demoted down the Order Paper below that “Restriction of Freedom (Smoking) Bill” advocated by Steve Chadwick. 
This is an important bill. One could ask why it needs to come to Parliament which is always a valid question. This is very much a local issue. We know that the Trimble Trust forests are being harvested. I understand that harvesting started in 2002 and this will continue until about 2018. I just hope for the trust’s sake that the forestry price picks up a bit. It has to be rock bottom at the moment under this Government which has almost destroyed the forest industry sector in this country with its policies. We had quite a bit of publicity about that last year. We know that sawmills all around the country are closing and the exporters are really feeling the pinch and suffering badly. The current valuation of the assets of this trust are I understand about $1.98 million and that will be ploughed back into the local community. 
The issue does arise that it was set up under the old Masterton County Council which does not exist any more and it is always a difficulty through time with local body amalgamations to pick out a sector of what is now a much broader community and assign the benefits to what is now a relatively small part of the total community. I note too that the bill provides for some cross-boundary benefit and that is a good aspect of it. 
So ACT supports this bill. We regret that it has taken so long to get to this stage. It was quite urgent and I think it is disappointing that the local member did not stand out against her colleagues but allowed it to be shunted down the Order Paper in deference to Steve Chadwick’s “Anti-freedom Bill”. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave that the bill be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
Clauses 1 to 28 and schedules 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I understand why the Committee would make that move in order to expedite matters I am a little disappointed. I was hoping we would enter into a long debate about the title of this bill and we might have been able to have a pretty detailed discussion about whether it truly reflected the intentions of the legislation currently before the Committee. It is my intention to take two very short calls on this matter— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On the title? 
SIMON POWER 
: On the title that is right—and then two on the commencement date and so on clause by clause. But no I intend to take two short calls—the first on the bill in general and the second relating to the amendment tabled by Georgina Beyer which in my haste to take a call I have been unable to get a copy of. So I hope to return for a quick second call on that point. 
The substantive matters contained in this bill have been well canvassed by the member in the Chair as well as by my honourable colleague from New Zealand First who is clearly resident in the Wairarapa. I did not realise that but— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I did. 
SIMON POWER 
: The Hon Ken Shirley said that he realised that. That is because he has a forest on the man’s land does he not? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Just down the road. 
SIMON POWER 
: Is that right? Oh OK—very good. So all we are doing here from what I can gather essentially in respect of some public afforestation is allowing the areas outside what used to be presumably the Masterton County Council—is that right? [ 
Interruption 
] The Chairperson is nodding at me frantically. Presumably that was before Brian Elwood’s amalgamation in the late 1980s. He is a former senior partner of the firm I work for incidentally—in case anyone in the Chamber is interested while I try to kill 5 minutes. He is an interesting fellow and a guy who did a great deal for the law in Palmerston North as well as going on to be a long-serving mayor of that city before the amalgamations of local government occurred. But I digress in this wide-ranging debate. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank you. 
Obviously the major point here from what I can gather briefly is to extend the powers of the trust the trustees and council in order that matters outside the immediate jurisdiction of what was the county council can now be taken into account in respect of the administration of the various trusts involved. It seems to me to be legislation that nobody in the Committee would have good reason to object to. I look forward to a second short call on the amendment tabled by Georgina Beyer. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Again I take a very short call on behalf of New Zealand First. I note for the benefit of the Committee clause 5. The reason clause 5 is of minor importance is that it reflects the actual intention that was in the bequest and will of Dr Trimble so many years ago. Clause 5 also in this new unanimous subparagraph (vi) reflects the thinking of the Local Government and Environment Committee that a will or bequest ought to be carried through—no matter how many years ago it was stated—in the complete and comprehensive terms of the intention of that testator. 
We had a suggestion made to the committee that the present council may have wished to have built a public stadium a sports ground or something else which would have been far far removed from the original intention of Dr Trimble. Bringing that to the minds of the Committee or of any people in other councils who are contemplating a change from the original intention of bequests they are handling I say that the integrity of the will and the integrity of its intention have been preserved here with the addition of “amenity and protection planting and their maintenance:”. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would also like to comment on clause 5 of this bill. As my colleague from New Zealand First Jim Peters observed this clause “Objects of Foundation” is the key clause of this bill. I particularly refer members to clause 5(1)(a)(v) which is to provide for the conservation of native and commercial forests. But the foundation is also for the economic use of timber—both of native and commercial forestry. I think that that is a very good provision. It is all about the multi-use of forests be they native or commercial exotic planted forests but it contrasts dramatically with this Government’s policy in the way it has closed down the conservation and management of West Coast forests. The Labour Government reneged on its accord by which we had the multiple uses of West Coast native forests. 
Perhaps the member in the chair the member for Wairarapa could comment on that because on the one hand we have here a trust being set up that is providing for the multiple uses of both indigenous and exotic forests—and I certainly support that; I think it is a very wise thing. But on the other hand how does she reconcile it as a member of the governing party that has closed down the commercial use of indigenous forestry elsewhere? Does she see an inconsistency in that? I think that this proposal is right and her Government’s policy is wrong. How does she reconcile the two? I would certainly like to have clarification from the member in the chair on that issue. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 In that brief interlude I have now had an opportunity to read the amendment proposed by the member in the chair. I understand it is the member’s first opportunity to sit in the Committee chair so I cannot let this moment pass without asking a question as my colleague the Hon Ken Shirley did and at least give the member an opportunity to stand and answer a question. If she cannot answer the one that Mr Shirley posed about the slight philosophical inconsistencies between this legislation and other Government actions perhaps she can answer this question. Presumably the proposed amendment in the member’s name is to address what looks to me like a drafting difficulty in the sense that although clause 8(1)(b) has been struck out in the report back on the bill a reference to “subsection 1(b)”—which would of course no longer exist—is still contained in clause 8(2)? I wonder whether the member would take the opportunity to— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Explain the point. 
SIMON POWER 
: That is what I thought Mr Shirley. I just wonder whether the member would take the opportunity while she is in the chair of the Committee to explain whether I have got that right or wrong and the implications if we left it in there and did not vote for her amendment. Through you Mr Chairman I now invite the member in the chair to address that issue. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am delighted by the member’s request in offering me this opportunity to give an explanation. However I am defeated because the honourable member has indeed answered the question himself. I can confirm that he is correct in his assumption as to why this amendment has been put. It is due to a drafting error because of the striking out by unanimous decision of clause 8(1)(b) as it was. So this amendment refers to clause 8(2). It precisely states: “To omit the words ‘together with the amount of distributions made under subsection (1)(b)’—lines 14 and 15 on page 4 of the bill.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Are you going to answer my question? 
Simon Power 
: Answer Ken Shirley’s question about the inconsistency of the philosophy behind this bill. 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: It is my understanding that the Government does not perceive that there is an inconsistency in its particular policy with something that is a local bill and is a local desire. I think the Government agrees that ideally these kinds of bills would be decided at a local level and given that the new Local Government Act would provide for less of this kind of legislation going before the Local Government and Environment Committee for example. So in answer to Mr Shirley’s question I think the difference is something that he obviously perceives to be there. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I cannot let it rest there because I thought the member had a grasp of the bill she has brought to the House but it would appear not. I just draw your attention again to the clause 5 “Objects of Foundation” which states that the objects of the foundation are “(a) to promote public afforestation by—(i) the production and care of timber for economic purposes:”. It also provides for the use of both native and introduced exotic species in that context. The point is this: people on the West Coast wanted to continue the sustainable management of their forests. They put a proposal to this Labour-led Government by which they were going to take out by helicopter only one tree per hectare on a 15-year rotation. That is considerably less than the wind blows down yet this Labour-led Government closed that proposal down completely and overrode local wishes. 
Here as the member in the Chair observes it is the local wish and the local wish should prevail. I think that is what I heard her say and I agree with it but could she explain the inconsistency of that with what she is supporting in this bill. She has brought to the House a local bill that is at variance with this Labour-led Government’s rhetoric of not letting people harvest even the timber that the wind blows over if it were an indigenous species. West Coast people talked of one tree harvested per hectare by helicopter extraction on a 15-year rotation and this Government closed that down. It overrode local wishes and reneged on the West Coast Accord signed by the Hon Phil Goff when he was the Minister for the Environment in the Labour Government of the 1980s which promised sustainable management of indigenous forests on a commercial basis in perpetuity. 
The Labour Government reneged on that promise; it would not allow it so my question is why is it being allowed in this local bill brought to the House by the member in the chair when it is apparently at variance with the rhetoric of what this Labour-led Government has done? 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I think the member might better direct his questions to the Minister who deals with those particular matters. However I have to say that the foundation being established will not be dealing with native forests which is what the West Coast Accord was about. It does not talk about the harvesting of native forest as was the situation with the West Coast Accord so in my view there is an inconsistency there with the member’s argument. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I intended to reserve my comments for the third reading but the Hon Ken Shirley has alerted me to the issue I was going to raise then. I can make a very clear distinction for the member in the Chair between the issue raised by the Hon Ken Shirley and the issue I wish to raise. That distinction was added to and I was so pleased—almost thrilled—to hear the member say that this was a local issue. 
This House will shortly be looking at the South Island Landless Maoris Act lands and those lands are a like situation. The situation in clause 6 of this bill—“In order for the foundation to further its objects”—is exactly as the Hon Ken Shirley has said. The member has helped us by saying that this is a local issue. The distinction though is that these are privately-owned forests—unlike the issue that the Hon Ken Shirley has raised. That involves State forests which are up to all but 15 percent of the West Coast. The Minister’s encouragement to me is really tremendous. Now I have an inkling that the Government must have waited for the bill—thinking about the South Island Landless Maoris Act land as well—and put together the like situation of privately owned forest incapable of being developed by the owners as they wished which was the intention at the time of the language of the South Island Landless Maoris Act. 
I am encouraged by the bill. I am very pleased to hear the member in the chair say that she supports local objectives. Clause 6(1)(a) states that the foundation “has full capacity to carry out or undertake any related business or related activity”—namely in this case providing for the supply of timber for public wants assisting the council to establish forests and providing for native and commercial forests. For those reasons alone New Zealand First gives this bill its enthusiastic support. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Georgina Beyer to clause 8(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “together with the amount of distributions made under subsection (1)(b)”. 
Amendment agreed to and clauses 1 to 28 as amended and the schedules agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill be now read a third time 
. In seeking the third reading I acknowledge the wide-ranging debate and discussion that have occurred on the bill. More seriously I thank first of all the Masterton District Council for bringing the bill forward and taking the initiative to have the Montfort Trimble Foundation established so that it may do what it desires to do. In the second reading debate I complimented the Local Government and Environment Committee on its deliberations. Notwithstanding that the committee had to seek an extension of time which I was happy to acquiesce to at one stage there was a slight delay towards the end as was mentioned in a previous debate. However we are at the third reading and I am most grateful as I am sure the people of the Masterton district are—most certainly the mayor and councillors of the Masterton District Council are—to members of this Parliament who have supported almost unanimously I would say the passage of the bill. It shows a great faith in the Masterton district and the purposes of the bill. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the member for cooperating in the chair during the Committee stage in answering I think three different questions during that short period. It is a shame frankly that other members when they are in charge of bills are not prepared to answer questions in such a forthright and open way. Members on this side of the House commented to each other during the Committee stage that it would be nice if the member were given a ministerial warrant because then we would have a member in the chair who would answer questions from time to time. That would be very helpful. 
The National Party has been happy to oblige the member in seeing this bill progress through the House at a reasonably rapid rate this evening. I thank the member for explaining to the Committee the detail of the amendment proposed and placed on the Table at the last minute. Members on this side of the Chamber did not object to that amendment to clause 8(2). As the member in charge of the bill said it was simply a drafting issue. I am pleased that members of the National Party have been able to support what essentially is an administrative technical bill in the sense that it now enables the trustees to distribute collect and operate outside the area that once was the Masterton County Council and which now incorporates a wider area as the Masterton District Council. 
I conclude by saying that it is a pity we are not able to progress sensible legislation in this way more often with members sitting in the Committee chair who are as cooperative as this particular member was in engaging in a legitimate way with members who had questions about the content of this bill during that process. The National Party will delay this matter no longer. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First along with my local colleague from the Wairarapa Edwin Perry we support the further movement of the Montford Trimble Foundation. The foundation trustees now have the constituted trust to move into the modern world. The nature of the board membership the nature of their remuneration the nature of their tax status—all these matters—can now be handled. It is unfortunate that the trustees have had to wait as has already been mentioned by the Hon Ken Shirley for some weeks because of a certain Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. In the mind of the Government that took priority over this important local issue. But putting that aside on behalf of New Zealand First I wish the trustees well in their endeavours and may the forest and afforestation in the Wairarapa confines right across to Pahiatua be able to be sustained in the future for the enjoyment of all. 
Bill read a third time.