1.16As part of its work programme the Commission has issued five issues papers:
1.18After the Preferred Approach Paper was published, the Commission undertook an extensive programme of consultation with trust practitioners around New Zealand to “road test” the proposals. We were fortunate to be assisted in this by the New Zealand Law Society, which organised meetings with their members in various centres around New Zealand. The Auckland District Law Society also arranged two meetings with its members in Auckland for us. We had meetings with special interest groups of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants in Wellington and Auckland. The Institute also organised a general consultation meeting with its members. We met also with lawyers who provide advice in relation to the trusts that have been set up as part of the Treaty settlement process with the Government. In addition to consultation with the private sector, we also consulted with various government agencies with an interest in trust law.
1.19We have received 73 submissions on the Preferred Approach Paper. We have been fortunate in these submissions and the submissions we have received on the original issues papers, and have given them careful consideration. In part, the strength of the submissions on the Preferred Approach Paper has led us to defer final recommendations on some proposals until we can fully consider the matters raised. For example, the submissions relating to companies acting as trustees have meant we have deferred final recommendations until our planned corporate trustee review.
1.20In countless areas of detail, we have taken account of comments in consultation meetings and formal submissions. This Report and our recommendations are considerably improved as a result. Inevitably, we received submissions that we have not agreed with, and we have not adopted some suggestions made. Criticism of the proposals that we made in the issues papers or the Preferred Approach Paper has often deepened our understanding of the issues involved. Urgings to go further than we had proposed in particular areas were an invaluable check on the limits to reform that we had perceived, even if we did not ultimately agree that particular reforms were appropriate, or appropriately pursued within the scope of this Report or the proposed Trusts Act.