Wilkinson Kate: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1404] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I support the Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill on behalf of the National Party. I am delighted to be given this wonderfully exciting opportunity to support the bill which I am sure will be of intense and general interest to everybody. By way of background there are four trustee companies—not to be confused with trust companies—established by private Act that may undertake the administration of estates and personal trust work. These are the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Trustees Executors Ltd—formerly TOWER Trust Ltd—Perpetual Trust Ltd and PGG Trust Ltd trading together and New Zealand Permanent Trustees Ltd. 
It may be useful to backtrack in history somewhat and relate the reasons for the existence of these trustee companies. I will quote from the original Trustees Executors and Agency Company Act of 1882. Apart from being a history lesson this illustrates some of the changes in drafting styles bearing in mind that the Act was passed by this Parliament. It states: “Whereas from the uncertainty of human life and from other causes great difficulty often arises in securing the services of suitable persons for the office of trustee executor liquidator guardian and other similar offices: And whereas”—[ 
Interruption 
] I know!—“in order to secure the more certain discharge of the duties of such offices a company has been formed … with the object among other purposes of affording persons the opportunity of obtaining the services of a permanent corporation for the performance of the duties of such offices and thus to remove much of the uncertainty and insecurity which attends the appointment of private individuals:”— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I knew that. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: I knew that my colleague Mr Williamson knew that. It continues with a further “whereas”: “And whereas it is expedient”—[ 
Interruption 
]; there are plenty of “whereases”—“to enable the said incorporated company … to act as liquidator executor … and to perform and discharge all the duties of such offices and to receive remuneration for such duties and also to act as receiver and committee of the estate under any law now in force or hereafter … in the colony”—no less—“relating to lunatics”—I kid members not; this law of 1882 relates to lunatics—“… and to perform and discharge … such duties and to confer upon the said company the powers and privileges hereinafter set forth in order to enable the said company more effectually and usefully to carry out the objects sought in its incorporation.” That is the 1882 drafting style of the original Trustees Executors and Agency Company Act. These days we would just say in simple terms that this Act enables a trustee company to be paid. 
Under general trust law a trustee cannot charge for work done as a trustee unless this is specifically authorised in either the trust document or the will creating the trust. In legal circles this is known as the charging clause. In effect the trustee company Acts creating these trustee companies are similar to that charging clause merely enabling trustee companies to charge for the work that they do. Each time there is a change of the parent company a trustee company must secure changes to its private Act to authorise it to transact business with its new parent company. 
This is surprisingly enough a very sensible bill. It is a technical bill. It is not new law. It has happened before and no doubt it will happen again. What I find surprising about this bill though is that when a similar situation was presented in 2004 in a very sensible bill the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill—and at that stage it merely wanted to enable the Guardian Trust to transact with its parent company Promina Group Ltd—the Labour Government representatives decided by majority that they were not willing to support the proposal. In 2004 the proposal was not supported; in 2006 it is suddenly a wonderful idea. 
I am pleased to say that in 2004 National at least displayed common sense some business acumen and the nous to take the minority view supporting the proposal to approve that new parent company. How times have changed! Now we have the same situation albeit with a different trustee company being supported and proposed by a member on the opposite side of the House. I am pleasantly surprised at this sudden but no doubt momentary and fleeting discovery of common sense by the Labour Government. But where was that common sense when it was decided that our farm dogs our working dogs should be microchipped? Where is the common sense in that? I have yet to find anyone who can explain to me how microchipping farm dogs will stop urban dogs biting and attacking people. 
Bob Clarkson 
: They thought they were Labour dogs. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: They may well be Labour dogs. All this does is add an extra nonsensical compliance cost to our farmers with no hope whatsoever of addressing the mischief. Is the problem in relation to microchipping aggressive dogs in the country? No. Is the problem rural farm dogs? No. Is the problem with the farmers? No. This microchipping will not address the problem whatsoever. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the bill. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: OK I will come back to common sense. This is a surprising turn-round where common sense has suddenly eluded the Labour Government. The microchipping bill is ludicrous dumb and lacks common sense. I would like to see this fleeting example of common sense displayed by the Labour Government remain with us for a wee bit longer. Returning to common sense I say that National supports this bill. All the bill does as Marian Hobbs has said is to rename the Act from “TOWER Trust Ltd” to “Trustees Executors Ltd” and it enables that trustee executor to transact with its parent company Sheffield Investments Incorporated (NZ) Holdings Ltd. The bill is only technical in nature. It is commercial reality. It is wonderful common sense. Therefore National supports this bill.