Webb Duncan; O'Connor GregMCLEAN INSTITUTE (TRUST VARIATION) BILLFirst ReadingHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. I move That the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.It's a very great pleasure to be here as the member for Christchurch Central to bring this bill before the House. The McLean Institute's charitable trust is based in the heart of Christchurch and the institute was set up pursuant to the will of Allan McLean. And here we have it. This is the problem. The will of Allan McLean which is phrased back in the early 1900s—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh come on Doctor you'd be able to work that out.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well it tests Mr Brownlee even my legal skills. There are sentences in there that I think are over 600 words long and I simply can't hold my breath that long.So this is a challenge. Because as often happens when people have great intentions they frame those intentions in the language of the time. Whilst some might be familiar with that language I am not. So if we look at the will—and I've got a copy of it here if anyone's interested—it does things like bequeath all wines liquors and consumable stores and provisions and things like that and also gold watches chains and sleeve links to I'm imagining a daughter to Emily Phillips. That's not the sort of drafting we see in common wills. But they're only little points of interest which kind of sets this will in the time in which it sits. Mr McLean had some great objectives and they were to support indigent women in Christchurch. But back in the early 1900s the framing and value of those intentions wasn't exactly what we'd expect. Whilst I think we would all agree that the focus of the trust being to provide long-term housing and daily necessities to indigent women was a good thing I think the wording itself might be a little problematic.The real crux of the matter if we go through the will—and I have in fact read it—right through to clause 6 is the main bequest to the institute was a large chunk of land and then some residual property as well. The land was called Holly Lea" on the corner of Manchester Street and Colombo Street—many will know it. "As to the Holly Lea property and furniture [that's for the benefit] only to gentlewomen or women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances and the children not being over the age of ten years of any such gentlewomen … my special intention being that the Holly Lea property shall be reserved exclusively for the use of gentlewomen or women (including their children as aforesaid) who either by their birth education previous life or manner may be able to live in harmony under the same roof."So we can see there's a fairly antiquated approach to the charitable purpose there. As to the rest of the bequest which was not so constrained to gentlewomen that was to be left to people of "the female sex"—interestingly didn't use the word "women" there but—"not being under the age of eighteen years and [their] children…but no person shall be admitted to the Institution but…as are poor and of good character and such as have been resident in the Colony for a period of three years at least prior to the application for admission and who have not been in receipt of a pension under 'The Old Age Pensions Act 1898'…". But of course one of the challenges here is that the Old Age Pensions Act 1898 is now essentially the national super and everyone of old age receives national super. So it's a great thing the national super but what it means is that the purposes of that will back from 1906 really don't work.So we know that one of the challenges of a bill of this nature is if it can be done another way it should be done another way. I've been in constant communication with the trustees of the trust and in fact because they know the law and are well advised they went to the High Court. So if we want to see that we can see this decision of the High Court from 30 September 2021 where they went and attempted to amend the trust deed. One of the challenges of course is that that will deed—the trust that's created out of the will—was encapsulated in legislation shortly after Allan McLean died. So the challenge that was posed was that the court was being asked to amend a legislative trust. It's quite interesting for those nerds amongst us—Rachel Boyack—you might want to look at this decision because the Cawthron trust is mentioned because it has also been to the court in an attempt to amend its trustee.So the guts of this decision is that because the 1909 Act and some subsequent Act kind of encapsulated the trust's powers in legislation Justice Doogue ultimately concluded that it would be inappropriate for the courts to essentially meddle with the legislature—pretty fundamental constitutional principle that perhaps we'd like to see applied a little more often.But the fact of the matter is that the bill itself takes those rather antiquated terms and has done a number of things—not just in respect of the purposes of the trust I must say. It also has some very unusual language around who the trustees are relating to some bodies that no longer exist and so on. So the appointment of trustees is a lot more flexible. But really the fundamental and very laudable purpose of this bill is to take what is a very constraining and antiquated purpose clause and reframe it in this new piece of legislation in a much more broad and encapsulating way which I think fairly reflects the very good intentions of Allan McLean when he set up this trust. Essentially the purpose as set out in clause 5 of the trust deed which is a schedule to this bill which is now before the House simply says "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 (and the children in the care of such women)" and it goes on to talk about what that may mean.I think it's very good that they've done that. It talks about providing temporary emergency or transitional housing or assisting women with housing needs to find locate obtain and retain secure housing and providing housing at an affordable cost. Then a much broader clause in clause 5.2.5: "Providing support to women in distress due to mental health or addiction issues disability trauma violence homelessness poverty or dislocation;". So there is a significant shift here. It must be said that from the original framing of "gentlewomen of good standing" who had essentially fallen on hard times—a very aristocratic approach if you would—to saying "Look we're actually now going to direct this not to women of the upper class to be perfectly honest who have perhaps struggled and aren't living in the way to which they're accustomed but to just disadvantaged women." A much more modern and appropriate framing of that.So here we have it. A good piece of legislation and I congratulate trustees and their advisers on bringing this through the House process. So I'm very happy to have it here. Can I say that this is an institute of some standing in Christchurch. It's done a lot of good work in difficult circumstances over a long period of time. Like many trusts it's faced the challenges of having to manage real property and provide accommodation and the like in a situation where they may not be expert at that particular skillset. This gives them far broader powers not just to own property and accommodate women but also to now bring in the assets of the trust turn it essentially into a cash asset and be a lot more flexible and strategic about how they assist women and their children.So this is a really good bill and it will modernise this trust in a way that will bring it into the 21st century. It's a great thing for the women of Christchurch and that means it's a great thing for Christchurch more generally. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."