Chauvel Charles: Trustee Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeChauvel Charles: Trustee Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12337. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I rise briefly to speak further to the informative speeches of the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson. The Trustee Amendment Bill is based as we have heard on a Law Commission report that dates back to 2002 as I recall entitledSome Problems in the Law of Trusts. The Law Commission’s report is well worth reading. It is a short report and if members who are not familiar with the work of the commission want to start with a paper that is easily digestible well explained in layperson’s terms and about an area of the law that is not a simple or everyday one they could do well to look at this Law Commission report. “There is much to be said” states the report “for the view that the Trustee Act 1956 is in important respects confused and confusing”. The Government agrees with that statement and it has taken on board the opinions of the commission hence this legislation.The bill is omnibus in its nature; it amends as we have heard the Trustee Act 1956 the Administration Act 1969 the District Courts Act 1947 and the wills legislation. Clearly these amendments will have to be divided into three separate but related bills at the Committee stage.There are four key features of the bill that I think are worth mentioning. As a result of the Law Commission’s report there are changes to what trustees can lawfully do including a provision allowing them to insure against loss or damage due to any event. As we have heard from the Minister there is a provision permitting advisory trustees to work alongside ordinary trustees in the administration of a trust property. That provision will be of enormous use to ordinary trustees. The legislation will allow trustees to employ an agent or attorney and in doing so be exempt in certain circumstances for liability for acts or defaults of that agent or attorney. That is a departure obviously from the current state of the law. Finally the bill will move proceedings taken against a trustee from the District Court to the High Court which is probably consistent with the sorts of matters that are dealt with by trusts these days and the quantum of disputes that arise.Mr Deputy Speaker you kindly allowed me in my third reading speech on the Willis Bill earlier this week to speak of the Government’s record in enacting Law Commission legislation and I am grateful for that opportunity to do so. I wonder whether I might just take a minute or two to finish the observations that I began on that occasion because this is one of the last bills that will come before the House in a non-systematic way from Law Commission proposals. From now on projects for the Law Commission will be able to be proposed by any Minister. Each year the Minister responsible for the Law Commission will present a Cabinet paper putting forward those projects—supported by portfolio Ministers—including their resource implications. IfCabinet approves a project departmental resources will be made available for close collaboration during the life of the project so that officials can be kept in touch with developments and provide advice. Where consensus cannot be reached and differences of opinion remain these will be identified and discussed.The Law Commission will then complete its recommendations give a report to the relevant Ministers and seek their views. A draft Cabinet paper will be prepared and unless the Minister otherwise directs the Law Commission will do that on the portfolio Minister’s behalf. Once the Minister is satisfied with the draft paper he or she will present it to Cabinet and seek approval for the recommendations. If Cabinet accepts those recommendations it will invite either the Minister or the Law Commission to issue drafting instructions and there will be no further need for a Government response. The bill that ensues will be introduced in the normal way in the name of a portfolio Minister. If Cabinet rejects the recommendations the Government will continue to be required to respond formally as at present by way of a paper presented to the House.In conclusion I just note that this is the procedure that will be adopted from now on in respect of the Law Commission. It is an excellent and systematic way to deal with law reform matters. Obviously this procedure ought to be commended to the House along with this bill.