The Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill replaces the trust deed’s energy‑only mandate with a defined test of “Charitable Purposes” and gives trustees a formal route to amend the deed in future. The change lets the trust apply income and capital to any charitable object that benefits the district (directly or indirectly) and adds a power for trustees to vary the deed by unanimous written resolution, subject to High Court approval under section 133 of the Trusts Act 2019.
This is consequential because the trust holds more than $200 million in assets but has been constrained to a narrow set of energy‑related grants for decades. The bill clears a legal barrier—New Zealand courts have interpreted the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 as preventing courts from materially broadening a trust’s objects—so only legislation can expand the trust’s scope.
Practically, the bill transfers the decision point from settlor‑level constraints to a trustee/High Court process and removes the settlor’s prior approval for rule changes in Schedule I of the deed.
At a Glance
What It Does
Substitutes the trust deed’s definition of ‘Energy Related Purposes’ with a broad ‘Charitable Purposes’ test and replaces key deed clauses on purpose, application of income/capital, variation, and winding up. It authorises trustees to vary the deed by unanimous written resolution, but any such variation must obtain High Court approval under s133 of the Trusts Act 2019.
Who It Affects
Trustees of Trust Horizon, charities and community groups operating in Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki and Kaingaroa, the Charities Services (chief executive) who must be notified, and the High Court when asked to approve variations. Energy‑focused projects that previously relied on the trust are indirectly affected.
Why It Matters
The bill frees a large, long‑accumulated pool of charitable capital for broader local use while establishing a judicial check on trustee amendments. Compliance officers and trustees will need processes for unanimous resolutions, court applications under s133, and notifying the Charities Register.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites the core purpose and mechanics of the Trust Horizon deed. It deletes the specific catalogue of “Energy Related Purposes” and inserts a new definition of “Charitable Purposes” that captures any object charitable under New Zealand law so long as it benefits members of the district directly or indirectly.
That change expands the universe of permissible spending from narrowly energy‑related projects to the full range of charitable activities recognised in New Zealand law.
Alongside the definitional change, the bill replaces the deed’s operative clauses governing purpose, application of income and capital, variation, and winding up. The revised application clause gives trustees broad discretion to use income or capital as they think fit for Charitable Purposes, including expressly permitting administrative costs, debt repayment, depreciation reserves, and other provisions the trustees consider appropriate before distribution.To manage future changes, the bill inserts a variation mechanism: trustees may vary the deed by unanimous written resolution if they consider the change is in the Trust’s best interests and advances Charitable Purposes, but any variation is subject to High Court approval on an application under section 133 of the Trusts Act 2019.
The trustees retain a separate ability to amend the procedural rules in Schedule I by Special Resolution without seeking court approval; however, prior settlor approval is removed.The explanatory material frames the amendment as necessary because the courts, under the old Charitable Trusts Act regime, will not permit judicially broadening a trust’s objects. The bill also requires the trustees to notify the chief executive responsible for the Charities Act of the changes, which triggers administrative updates to the charitable entity register.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces the deed’s ‘Energy Related Purposes’ with a new ‘Charitable Purposes’ definition that allows any charitable object under New Zealand law so long as it benefits members of the district directly or indirectly.
Trustees can vary the deed by unanimous written resolution, but any variation must then obtain High Court approval under section 133 of the Trusts Act 2019 before taking effect.
Trustees may alter the procedural rules in Schedule I by Special Resolution without High Court approval; the settlor’s prior approval for those rule changes is removed.
The amended application clause explicitly permits trustees to pay administration costs, create reserves for depreciation, repay liabilities, and set aside amounts before distributing income.
Trust Horizon has accumulated over $200 million in assets; the bill requires trustees to notify the chief executive under section 40(1)(e) and (f) of the Charities Act 2005 of the deed changes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Update and simplify the deed preamble
Part 1 replaces the recitals to remove historical references that tied the trust explicitly to energy‑sector reforms and to acknowledge the trust’s continuing receipt of donations or grants. Practically, this clears textual obstacles in the deed that could be used to argue a continued narrow focus on energy projects when interpreting the trust’s purpose.
Broad legal test for permitted activities
Part 2 inserts a catch‑all definition: any purpose charitable under New Zealand law qualifies, provided the application benefits the district’s community directly or indirectly. That geographic‑benefit condition preserves a link to the district while allowing funds to support activities outside the district if a tangible benefit flows back. The phrasing ‘directly or indirectly’ is intentionally expansive and will be subject to interpretation if contested.
Objective reduced to a simple charitable mandate
Clause 4 is reduced to one sentence: the trustees must apply the trust fund for Charitable Purposes. Removing the older, itemised energy examples eliminates textual anchors that constrained what counts as a permissible distribution, shifting reliance onto the new definition and subsequent trustee judgment constrained by court oversight.
Explicit trustee discretion over income, reserves and costs
The new clause spells out trustee powers to pay administration costs, set aside sums for debt repayment, depreciation, reserves for contingencies, and to add such sums to capital if they decide. This is more granular than many older deeds and signals that trustees may legitimately retain or earmark funds before distribution, a practical concession given the trust’s long history of accumulation.
Two-tier amendment route: unanimous variation plus court approval; limited internal rule changes
The variation clause gives trustees a route to modernise the deed: a unanimous written resolution by trustees may change the deed but only with subsequent High Court approval obtained under s133 of the Trusts Act 2019. Separately, trustees can vary Schedule I rules by Special Resolution without court approval, but those rule changes must not conflict with the deed’s operative provisions. Notably, the bill removes the settlor’s prior veto for Schedule I changes, reducing an external check that previously constrained trustee action.
Winding up directs surplus to charitable purposes and requires regulator notification
The wind‑up clause requires a unanimous trustee resolution and directs surplus assets to charitable purposes on winding. Section 5(2) of the Act also imposes an administrative obligation: trustees must notify the Charities Act chief executive of the deed changes under the Charities Act 2005, which will prompt updates to the charitable entity register and may trigger further regulatory review.
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
- Local charities and community groups in Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki and Kaingaroa — they gain access to a much broader pool of potential funding because the trust can now support any charitable purpose that benefits the district.
- Deprived residents and service users — expanding the trust’s remit allows trustees to channel assets toward poverty relief, social services, education, and community development rather than being constrained to energy projects.
- Trustees of Trust Horizon — they obtain clearer, express powers to set aside reserves, meet administrative costs, and propose deed changes without returning to Parliament for every technical amendment.
- The charitable sector and local infrastructure projects — the change creates an opportunity for projects previously outside the energy remit (e.g., health, social housing supports) to be funded where there is a demonstrable district benefit.
Who Bears the Cost
- Trustees — they inherit the cost and complexity of preparing unanimous resolutions, drafting s133 court applications, and defending the proposed variations before the High Court, plus ongoing governance responsibilities for broader grantmaking.
- High Court and legal system — the requirement for judicial approval of deed variations will generate additional court workload and legal costs for parties seeking to implement substantive changes.
- Energy‑focused beneficiaries and legacy projects — organizations relying on the trust’s historical energy remit may face decreased priority as trustees reallocate funds toward wider charitable needs.
- Charities Services (chief executive) — the regulator must process the mandated notice and update the register, and may need to assess the changed public description of the trust for reporting and oversight purposes.
- Potential donors and settlors — the removal of settlor approval for many rule changes reduces donor control over future governance, which may affect donor confidence or future donations tied to original intents.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between unlocking a large, under‑distributed pool of local charitable capital to tackle pressing social needs and preserving the original settlor/donor expectations and external checks that constrain mission drift; the bill trades a statutory textual constraint for trustee discretion plus judicial oversight, but that trade creates cost and interpretive ambiguity about what ‘benefits the district’ really means.
The bill resolves a narrow but decisive legal barrier: courts will not stretch a trust’s original objects beyond their historic purpose, so Parliament is used to expand the permissible objects. That legislative route, however, substitutes one kind of safeguard for another.
Requiring unanimous trustee agreement plus High Court approval concentrates gatekeeping in two places: trustees control proposals, the court controls effect. The practical result will be a heavier administrative and legal cost to implement substantive changes, which could deter smaller but valuable adjustments.
Several drafting and implementation questions remain. The phrase “directly or indirectly” benefits the district is intentionally broad and will be litigated if parties seek to support projects materially outside the district.
The bill also removes the settlor’s prior approval for Schedule I rule variations; while this eases internal governance updates, it narrows external controls that originally protected settlor intent. Finally, the deed’s prior reference to acquiring equity in a company (up to 25% of issued capital) is not re‑expressed in the replacement clauses; whether that specific power survives in modified form depends on interpreting the substituted deed as a whole and may require clarification in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.