Formal Opposition to
Carter Trust Amendment Bill
(Private Bill 193–1, Mike Butterick)
From: Ukes Baha | 01 October 2025
Submitted in response to the call for submissions on the Carter Trust Amendment Bill
Summary of Position
I ask the Committee to reject the Bill.
I oppose the Bill in its current form. The Bill undermines donor intent, rewrites a will by statute, and dissolves a historic charitable trust without adequate safeguards for accountability, equity, or public benefit. It privileges certain beneficiaries, removes ministerial oversight, weakens liability standards, and sets a troubling precedent of Parliament interfering with private testamentary gifts. The six-month wind-up period is rushed and risks value destruction, while reporting and oversight duties are minimal.
Core stance:
- Parliament should not amend a will by statute where established cy-près mechanisms exist under the Charitable Trusts Act.
- The fixed $50,000 grant to one parish is arbitrary and privileges one beneficiary without public interest justification.
- Transferring the balance to Carter Society Incorporated without purpose lock-ups, reporting, or audit invites mission drift—especially as ministerial checks on its rule changes are removed.
- Public Trust’s liability is cut back to “dishonesty, gross negligence, or wilful breach,” stripping ordinary negligence remedies and weakening accountability.
- Costs can be deducted without cap or audit, reducing funds available to the community.
- The termination period (six months) is dangerously compressed, risking rushed disposals and reduced transparency.
- Notification to the regulator occurs only after the fact, not before approval, which undermines oversight.
- The Bill disregards Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and equity considerations.
Recommendation: Reject the Bill. If Parliament proceeds, substantially amend to require independent judicial or regulator oversight, extend timelines, safeguard funds for Carter’s charitable purposes, restore accountability for Public Trust, and ring-fence outcomes for genuine public benefit.
Constitutional & Democratic Framework
- Precedent of interference: Parliament rewriting a private will is constitutionally troubling and discourages philanthropic giving.
- Bypassing cy-près safeguards: Existing law already provides court-supervised variation with Attorney-General oversight.
- Compressed scrutiny: Introduced as a Private Bill, promoted by Public Trust and the Society with minimal public debate.
- NZBORA / Treaty gaps: Human rights vet declared “No Issues” but did not address equity, Māori impacts, or Treaty obligations.
Clause-by-Clause Concerns
s7A(1)(a) – $50,000 to the Anglican Parish of Carterton
Problem: Arbitrary earmark without rationale; no requirement that funds be used for public-benefit purposes.
Position: Remove or condition earmark; require regulator or court approval tied to Carter’s charitable purposes.
s7A(1)(b) – Balance to Carter Society Incorporated
Problem: No binding link to original charitable aims; no reporting, audit, or spending guardrails; ministerial oversight removed.
Position: Lock funds to defined charitable purposes; require audits, reporting, and regulator approval of rule changes.
s7A(2) – Termination within six months
Problem: Rushed process risks undervaluation and poor consultation.
Position: Extend to 12–18 months with extension powers on regulator advice.
s7A(3)–(4) – Regulator notification
Problem: Oversight occurs after distribution, not before approval.
Position: Require regulator or High Court pre-approval of termination and distribution plan, with public reporting and audit.
“trust fund” definition — after deduction of “reasonable expenses”
Problem: Undefined costs; Public Trust self-certifies its own expenses.
Position: Cap or benchmark expenses; require independent cost audit and published schedule.
s7B – Liability of Public Trust
Problem: Liability limited to dishonesty, gross negligence, or wilful breach; excludes ordinary negligence.
Position: Reinstate statutory duty of care and liability for negligence, not only gross misconduct.
Evidence, Equity & Effectiveness
- Donor intent: Carter’s will is explicit. Amending it undermines his legacy and sets a precedent for override.
- Public confidence: If wills can be rewritten by Parliament, donors may withhold future charitable gifts.
- Equity: Bill privileges one parish and one Society without consultation or wider public benefit criteria.
- Te Tiriti: Bill ignores Treaty obligations and Māori equity in charitable distribution.
- Effectiveness: Rushed termination, undefined expenses, and weak oversight risk dissipating funds.
Recommendations
- Reject the Bill.
- If proceeding, amend to:
- Require regulator or High Court approval under cy-près principles.
- Remove or condition the $50,000 earmark to ensure charitable use.
- Lock Carter Society’s funds to charitable objectives; mandate audits and reporting.
- Extend termination period to 12–18 months with extension powers.
- Cap and audit Public Trust’s expenses.
- Reinstate liability for ordinary negligence.
- Insert consultation, equity, and Treaty obligations.
- Require publication of final accounts and reports for transparency.
References
- Bill text: Carter Trust Amendment Bill (Private Bill 193–1, Mike Butterick) — esp. ss7, 7A, 7B.
- Charitable Trusts Act 1957 — cy-près provisions.
- Charities Act 2005 — regulator oversight powers.
- Human Rights vetting advice (“No Issues” note).
- Public Trust promotional materials on Private Bill.
Respectfully submitted,
Ukes Baha
Public Health Advocate | Counsellor | Policy Analyst
ukesbaha.com