Hutchison Paul: Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11762. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition worked very well with the other members of the Social Services Committee to get the submissions on this bill heard and to progress it through to the second stage. 
As has been said this bill is a result of the recommendations made in the Law Commission’s 2001 report published as  
Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney 
. But one does wonder why it has taken 6 years under this Labour Government for the bill to finally reach the House. Yes it is worthy legislation but why has this tawdry Labour Government once again taken so long to get this sensible legislation here? It is good that we Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition can support and add our— 
Darren Hughes 
: Her Majesty’s eternal Opposition! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I say to Mr Hughes that Labour has about 12 months and it is out. Never mind. We in National are happy to participate in and support constructive legislation and this bill indeed is constructive legislation. 
I just want to make a few comments about some of the submissions we received. One submission came from the Trustee Corporations Association of New Zealand. The submission stated that in the association’s experience abuse has come from family members and neighbours and that there is no record of lawyers or trustees in New Zealand being involved in abuse. I must say I was slightly surprised to hear that but the association states that the impetus behind the bill arises from a concern to prevent elder abuse. 
As my learned colleague Kate Wilkinson said in the first reading of this bill in actual fact the bill is really applicable to all ages—young and old—to the mentally incapacitated and to those with a variety of disabilities. The bill has a wide variety of uses and it is very important that we get it right. 
The second point I want to make is that the committee received a very good submission from the New Zealand Institute of Legal Executives. The submission stated that witnessing an enduring power of attorney should not become the exclusive work of lawyers alone because the costs could escalate. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: That’s rubbish! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: One of my learned colleagues says that is rubbish but never mind. The institute said that the right to take statutory declarations recognises good professional standing character values ethical conduct and a sound knowledge of law and that these standards apply equally to those granted rights under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. The New Zealand Institute of Legal Executives fellows meet the standards and are thereby worthy of being acknowledged under this bill as being qualified to advise clients and to witness signatures. 
I was a little surprised when I saw further on in the submission that the institute stated: “Senior legal executives have their own client base and are significant fee earners for their employers. The 2006 triennial survey indicated the average annual revenue target is $171000 with 20 percent of respondents expected to generate fees of more than $200000 per year.” This is certainly not an inexpensive process. 
Chapman Tripp went on to endorse the view of the legal executives by saying that in its view the legal executives fulfil the sort of expertise required for this form of witnessing. 
I also want to make a comment on the Mental Health Commission’s submission. One of the points it made was that one cannot assume that someone who is under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 is incompetent. That is absolutely right because undoubtedly that presumption is totally inappropriate given the fact that even if that person is under the Act he or she may well have considerable insights into both his or her property and personal care. That is one of the very important protections that has come out in this bill. 
Finally I just want to comment on Minister Dyson’s proposed amendment. That too relates to the new section 100A: “New section 100A enables a donor of an enduring power of attorney who has been but is no longer mentally incapable to suspend the attorney’s authority to act under the power. An attorney whose authority is suspended may not act under the power of attorney unless a relevant health practitioner has certified that the donor is mentally incapable again.” I believe that the Supplementary Order Paper is appropriate. 
This bill is worthy of going further through to the Committee stage. I am pleased that the National Opposition is supporting it. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time.