Webb Duncan; Kuriger BarbaraMCLEAN INSTITUTE (TRUST VARIATION) BILLSecond ReadingHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move That the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a second time.It's a real pleasure to come to this House to assist the McLean Institute with the work it's doing. This is a trust that was set up out of the will of Allan McLean some years ago. It's a fascinating bit of parliamentary procedure to see how a private bill like this is managed. Essentially Parliament has been asked to assist in the redrafting of the trust purposes. The reason for that is that the trust was in fact contained in a piece of legislation and the McLean Institute did its very level best not to trouble this House with the details of its trust deed and in fact went to the High Court and asked for a trust deed variation under the Charitable Trusts Act. But the court was of the view that because the trust was established and its tenets were contained within legislation it was for this House. So they were sent here and we've obviously got to this stage in the process. I thank the members of the Social Services and Community Committee for actually a really useful process. They've gone over the proposals and made some improvements that might not be world changing but they increase the workability of this trust deed significantly.I won't trouble the House for too long because I know there's other members' business which we'll be keen to get to but essentially for the record the trust deed was outdated and if you look at what's contained in a preamble—which we don't see in many Acts—in the purposes of the old trust deed there it refers to the furniture and property to be used for 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 or women 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."Now those words are from a different age. We don't have a system of colonial aristocracy—at least I hope not—and so the new purposes in the legislation simply reframe that purpose of the trust to provide assistance and to promote the welfare and wellbeing of disadvantaged women residing in the region being Canterbury who the board considers are in need of care support and assistance due to poverty ill health or other circumstances whether temporary or long term. So just modern and much more embracing and encompassing language and that's a great change. Basically it will enable the trust to really do what the donor Allan McLean really wanted which was to help out women in need in the Canterbury region.There are some other essentially bits and pieces in the legislation: tidying up for example the removal of a trustee for incapacity—again using some old language. The select committee has gone through and said "Well we don't really say 'unsound mind' anymore. It's a little bit of a vague term." tying it in with existing law relating to things like "loss of capacity" rather than "unsound mind".So again the McLean Institute's done some great work. It's offered accommodation over many years to people and women in difficult circumstances. It's now largely a fund which will be managed again for these purposes. This is a modernisation. Importantly the other one thing I will mention because it is really important is we won't be seeing the McLean Institute trust before this House again because this makes it clear that the High Court will have the power to make trust variations which will be a much more efficient process and quite possibly a lot cheaper. So that's another important improvement in this bill.So as I said I won't trouble the House any longer. I do want to thank the select committee because they did go through it in real detail. There are a number of technical changes in the trust deed which is attached as a schedule to the Act and it makes it a much more workable document. So thank you again. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."