Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I'm pleased to be able to take a split call on this bill because I really want to talk about the importance of keeping this trust alive. My colleague Paulo Garcia talked about Price and Prejudice but I think it might also be important to add in a little bit of an ability for us to understand the difference between now and what was with Bridgerton being perhaps a more modern version. But look I just want to come to a point about the fact—and it is something that has been mentioned a number of times—that the language is very archaic and this is the very very reason why this Act is being amended. I want to make a couple of points on this because of course this is not the only time we've seen legislation like this having to be addressed for futureproofing reasons. Of course the intention of Allan McLean was to help a great number of women in difficult situations and certainly wording such as in straitened circumstances" is perhaps not something that we would understand now or it is something that is quite foreign to us. But the intention was to help women and certainly not the cast of Bridgerton or Pride and Prejudice but my hope is that the changes that we are seeing—and thanks go to the Social Services and Community Committee that has worked on this. We are aware of how much it has been thought through and deliberated on so that it prevents the trust from having to come back and continue to go through this laborious process which actually hinders the trust from doing what it has set out to do which is to help women. One thing that was brought to my mind when we've been discussing this bill was a novel that I read when I was at high school. Now actually I can't remember the name of it so I do hope that in explaining this someone can tell me because I'd quite like to revisit it. But the book was about two young sisters that lived in Christchurch. It was set in the early 1900s and it really talked about the different paths that these two sisters went on. It was a novel from which I learnt a lot about—given that I'm from Hawke's Bay—the differences in Christchurch and the suburbs and the schools and what they mean to people who live in Christchurch. But what it talked about with these two sisters is the different paths they went down. Now one of them was going on to higher education. People saw that there was a path for her that they didn't see for her sister. Now her sister's education ended at a young age but that meant that her path was incredibly different to her sister's. It meant that she wasn't able to perhaps marry into the same place that her sister was able to or to have access to the same work or access to the same means. I'd like to think that what it is that Allan McLean has set up with this institute would have gone to help that one sister that for reasons that were very much distinctly of that time it would mean that she would have a very supportive life ahead of her because I think that's something we have to consider here. Allan McLean would not have thought—and look he may well have but I would doubt going by the wording that is set out in his will and also in this Act in its most recent version—which is 1934 I might add—that it would have considered people living in 2024 or for that matter perhaps people living in 2094 and my hope is that as a well-managed trust there would be funds that would continue to help women in those circumstances. Now to think about the fact that these two sisters lived in a time that I couldn't even imagine. The fact is that the schooling for at least one of them would end at the age of 15 or even the age of 13 and that they would go down different paths and of course this was the case for boys as well. To think that I was able to go through high school and it was expected that I would go through high school to the age of 18 and then that I would have every opportunity to go on to university no matter what my experience or background was—and to think that something like this was in place for those women that had perhaps lost family members and so wouldn't have had that financial aid to marry well or to go to a technical institute which would mean that they could have worked and supported themselves as well. I think that the most important thing we need to address in this bill and with the changes that are here is that the work that has been undertaken by the Social Services and Community Committee is going to go a long way to help women in 90 years' time or 100 years' time who are going to be in equally difficult circumstances but for very different reasons because women that experience hardship today in 2024 are not under the same circumstances for the same reasons that they would have been in 1924 let alone 1907 when Allan McLean died. So I'd like to think that this has brought back some hopeful and positive memories for those who have been helped by Allan McLean's legacy because there are a great number of women that have been helped from his philanthropy and I am sure and I have no doubt that they will be absolutely thrilled that what we are doing will help—I can't even tell you how many more women will be helped by the changes that we are seeing today. So I commend this bill to the House."