The Carter Trust Amendment Bill (private) rewrites key governance rules for the Carter Trust (created by Charles Rooking Carter’s 1896 will). It treats the will as amended so Public Trust can terminate the trust, distribute the remaining fund to the Carter Society Incorporated and a fixed $50,000 payment to the Anglican Parish of Carterton, and limit its trustee liability except for dishonesty, gross negligence, or wilful breach of trust.
The bill also strips several older statutory controls that tied the Society’s rulemaking and resident charge levels to Minister of Health approval. Those repeals and definition updates remove a layer of ministerial oversight and move decision-making and financial control closer to the Society and the trustee, while requiring brief notification to the charities regulator when the trust is wound up.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act treats the 1896 will as amended to permit termination of the Carter Trust and requires Public Trust to distribute $50,000 to the Anglican Parish of Carterton and the balance (after reasonable expenses) to the Carter Society. It limits Public Trust’s legal exposure for actions taken as trustee except where dishonesty, gross negligence, or wilful breach of trust is shown, and removes the Minister of Health’s power to approve the Society’s rules or to set maximum resident charges.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are Public Trust (the trustee), Carter Society Incorporated (operator of Carter Court Care Home), the Anglican Parish of Carterton (fixed annuity recipient), current and future residents of Carter Court (who lose the statutory cap previously imposed by the Minister), and the charities regulator (chief executive under the Charities Act), which must be notified after termination.
Why It Matters
This private bill substitutes a statutory amendment for long-standing will terms and regulatory controls, enabling a near-immediate wind-up and asset transfer while narrowing trustee exposure. For compliance officers and care-home managers it changes who sets resident charges and removes a ministerial safety valve; for trustees and lawyers it alters litigation risk and the timing and mechanics of distributing trust assets.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is a targeted rewrite of the Carter Trust Act 1961 to allow the Carter Trust to be wound up and its assets distributed. It inserts clear definitions (identifying the Carter Trust and the 1896 will), repeals multiple legacy provisions, and—most significantly—treats the will as if amended to permit termination and specified distributions.
The statutory amendment functions as a shortcut: it bypasses the need to secure a judicial cy-près or other court-based reformation of the trust instrument and instead provides Parliament’s authority for the change.
Termination mechanics are statutory: Public Trust must pick a termination date within six months of the commencement of the termination section, complete distribution of the trust fund after deducting its reasonable expenses, and notify the charities regulator (the chief executive under the Charities Act 2005) within two weeks of that date. ‘‘Trust fund’’ is defined to mean the balance after Public Trust deducts reasonable expenses, which puts the trustee in control of what is available to distribute but leaves ‘‘reasonable’’ open to later dispute.The bill narrows trustee exposure by immunising Public Trust from liability for consequences of acts or omissions done in carrying out its duties, except where conduct amounts to dishonesty, gross negligence, or a wilful breach of trust. That creates a statutory safety net for the trustee during wind-up and distribution but preserves remedies where the highest standards of misconduct are proven.Separately, the bill removes the Minister of Health’s statutory ability to fix maximum charges for residents of the new Carter Home and repeals the statutory requirement that the Minister approve the Society’s rules.
Practically, that transfers operational control—pricing and internal governance—back to the Society, with reduced direct ministerial oversight. The Act also stages its coming-into-force: most of the Act takes effect the day after Royal assent, but the provisions enabling termination and the liability rules come into force six months after assent, creating a short window for winding-up activity to be scheduled.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2 inserts explicit definitions: 'Carter Trust' (the charitable trust under the 1896 will) and 'will' (the will dated 6 June 1896 of Charles Rooking Carter).
The bill requires Public Trust to select a termination date within six months of the commencement of the termination provision and to distribute the trust fund on that date.
On termination, Public Trust must pay $50,000 to the Anglican Parish of Carterton and transfer the remaining trust fund balance—after deducting its reasonable expenses—to the Carter Society Incorporated.
Public Trust receives statutory protection from liability for acts or omissions in carrying out trustee duties, except where the conduct is dishonest, grossly negligent, or a wilful breach of trust.
The Act repeals the statutory provision that allowed the Minister of Health to set maximum resident charges and repeals the requirement that the Minister approve the Society’s rules, returning those powers to the Society.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Context and legislative purpose
The preamble sets out why Parliament intervenes: Public Trust and the Carter Society seek statutory authority to wind up the trust and to make distributions that the original will and the 1961 Act have constrained. For practitioners, the preamble signals a narrow, private-object focus rather than a broader policy reform agenda.
New definitions and removal of legacy terms
The bill inserts two precise definitions — identifying the Carter Trust and the specific 1896 will — and removes older definitions tied to Carter Homes, Carter Homes Committee, Carter Reserve, and trust lands. That pruning suggests the Act no longer contemplates the older land- or committee-based governance structures and clears the way for a simpler wind-up and transfer regime.
Statutory amendment of the will and a forced wind-up timetable
Section 7 treats the will as amended to permit termination; section 7A requires Public Trust to determine a termination date within six months of the section’s commencement, distribute a fixed $50,000 to the Anglican Parish of Carterton, and pay the residual trust fund to the Society after deducting reasonable expenses. The provision also requires a two-week notification to the charities regulator following termination, assigning Public Trust responsibility for closing the trust and providing a short statutory notification window.
Statutory limitation of trustee liability
Section 7B shields Public Trust from liability for the consequences of acts or omissions in performing trustee duties during the wind-up, except where the conduct amounts to dishonesty, gross negligence, or a wilful breach of trust. That shifts the litigation landscape: claimants must establish one of these high thresholds to overcome the statutory protection.
Removal of Ministerial power to cap resident charges
The Act deletes language that had allowed the Minister of Health to fix maximum charges for residents of the (new) Carter Home. Practically, the Society now sets charges subject to its rules rather than a ministerial cap, which increases the Society’s pricing discretion and reduces direct public-sector rate-setting oversight.
Repeal of legacy governance and rule-approval provisions
The bill repeals a cluster of older sections, including the statutory mechanism requiring Minister approval of the Society’s rules. Those repeals remove structural controls embedded in the 1961 Act and simplify the statutory framework for the Society and trustee to operate without ministerial sign-off; they also eliminate provisions that previously regulated trust lands and committee structures.
Staged commencement to allow a short wind-up window
Most of the Act takes effect the day after Royal assent, but the provisions enabling termination and the liability rule become effective six months after assent. That staging gives parties a brief lead time before the statutory termination mechanics must be executed.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Carter Society Incorporated — Receives the residual trust fund after a $50,000 payment and reasonable expenses, regains control over resident charges and internal rules, and obtains legal clarity to proceed with the care-home’s operations without ministerial approval.
- Anglican Parish of Carterton — Receives a fixed $50,000 distribution on termination, converting a recurring annuity or uncertain legacy into a specific statutory payment.
- Public Trust (the trustee) — Gains statutory protection from liability for ordinary acts or omissions during wind-up, reducing exposure to post-distribution litigation unless high-threshold misconduct is proved.
- Local community and care-home management — Benefit from finality: the wind-up and transfer create a clear funding and governance outcome that resolves long-running statutory constraints on the Society.
Who Bears the Cost
- Residents of Carter Court Care Home — Lose the statutory ceiling the Minister of Health could impose on charges, which may expose current or future residents to higher fees set by the Society unless internal rules constrain them.
- Minister of Health/government oversight bodies — Lose a statutory lever to protect residents through price caps and rule-approval, diminishing direct ministerial control over care-home governance.
- Public Trust — Must organise the wind-up on a compressed statutory timetable, bear reasonable winding-up costs up front, and manage notification and administrative obligations; disputes over what counts as 'reasonable expenses' could create contested litigation or administrative work.
- Charities regulator (chief executive under Charities Act) — Gains a statutory notification duty and may face queries or interventions arising from the wind-up, placing administrative and oversight costs on the regulator.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades external oversight and judicial/administrative safeguards for speed and local control: it clears a legal pathway to wind up a 19th‑century trust and return funds to local beneficiaries while limiting trustee exposure, but in doing so it removes ministerial protections for care-home residents and narrows remedies against the trustee—forcing a choice between efficient finality and broader accountability and consumer protection.
Two implementation tensions deserve close attention. First, the bill gives Public Trust discretion to deduct 'reasonable expenses' before distributing the residual fund but nowhere defines 'reasonable.' That invites post-distribution disputes about what the trustee charged to the estate, and because the trustee is insulated from liability except in cases of dishonesty, gross negligence, or wilful breach, claimants face a high bar to recover.
Practically, contested expense accounting could consume a meaningful share of the fund and frustrate beneficiaries.
Second, removing ministerial oversight of resident charges and rule-approval increases local autonomy but reduces an external consumer-protection safeguard. The Society gains pricing flexibility, but residents and their advocates lose a statutory backstop.
The statutory timetable—sections enabling termination and liability protection coming into force six months after assent and a two-week regulator-notification requirement after termination—creates a compressed schedule that prioritises rapid finality over phased stakeholder consultation. Finally, because this is statutory 'amendment by Parliament' rather than a court-supervised cy-près, the bill raises separable fairness and precedent questions about Parliament directly rewriting private wills and trust instruments without an open judicial record or express mechanisms for absent or non-consenting beneficiaries.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.