Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) : I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Charities Bill that it take the bill part by part.

KATHERINE RICH (National) : It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Part 1. Looking at the part, I find it very interesting to see how much of it the Government has changed. It is not often that one picks up a bill and finds that more or less an entire part has been rewritten, word for word. The only thing I can see that has not been rewritten is the definition of “chairperson”, which means the chairperson of the board. The rest of it has been struck out by majority, and new provisions have been put in. I am not surprised as to why, either, because after 753 submissions, all of which have said that the legislation as originally drafted was nuts, the Government did not like being bagged by charitable group after charitable group and being told that the bill was an absolute nonsense.

One of the first things to be struck out was the idea that if a body was not registered under the new Charities Commission, it would not officially be able to receive funds, and that groups, community trusts, or financial groups would not give one funding if one was not an approved donee. That was one of the major things that this bill created concern about. Members of group after group said that it was hard enough being a volunteer and being involved in a charitable group without the level of bureaucracy and registration required, plus the cost, which will make their work more and more difficult in times when it is harder, not easier, to collect funds. So the Government has done a total flip-flop.

The Government has rewritten this entire part. It has taken out the bits of heavy-handed regulation, because it knew they would be unpalatable in an election year, and it has put in a few clauses that it thinks will get the bill through, with the help of a few parties in this Parliament. I think that that will backfire. We have already heard the Minister introduce this part with as little passion as could possibly be used in such a delivery. That is because her heart is not in it, either. She knows that this bill will provide a level of regulation and cost that we have not seen before. Thousands and thousands of charities will find it harder, not easier, to do charitable work in this country.

A lot in this part was an absolute joke. My learned colleague Judith Collins told me in the House today that 37,000 groups will be looking to register through this new organisation. What a waste of money! It will not put one more volunteer on the street. It will not make their work any easier. It will not help one single New Zealander to get any better service. It is all about Government control. It is about the Government sticking its nose in so that it can collect more tax. That is all it is. That is what we are seeing here. The Government wants to collect more tax from some of those groups and get its hands on money that it does not actually earn. As to saying that the whole point of the bill is to protect people, I tell members that those organisations that rip off New Zealanders will not bother to register through the Charities Commission. They will not bother to go through the processes to become legitimate charities. That is the whole point—they are criminal. They will go ahead and rip off New Zealanders without getting the registrations and things that this bill requires. Even some of the reporting required in this part is just absolutely outrageous.

I wonder whether any members of the Government have been involved in a voluntary group of late, because if they have, they would have heard people saying: “What is the point of becoming a volunteer when we’re going to be in the gun if things go wrong?” So we have seen a total rewrite. Part 1 does not look anything like what was in the original bill, because the Government knows that the bill as first drafted was an absolute joke that was designed to create problems—and boy, it is not like the criticism from some of its mates when they turned up to give submissions on this part. Time and time again this legislation was bagged, and Government members sat like sad sacks—

Judith Collins: Like they are now, really.

KATHERINE RICH: Like they are now, but they are probably thinking more about John Tamihere than anything else. It is interesting, though, that while we are talking about the Charities Bill, the Government has shown the ultimate charity to Mr Tamihere by allowing him to stay. So why is the Government being so charitable to Mr Tamihere when it is being super-uncharitable to those charities and organisations?

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I want to take a brief call on Part 1 of the Charities Bill. Let me just say for a start, in response to the remarks from the member Katherine Rich, that I would have thought it was actually quite meritorious for the Government and the Social Services Committee that considered this bill to have changed the bill significantly in response to the genuine concerns of the many submitters whom we heard. I do not find it a very convincing argument that having heard those submissions, it is some kind of cardinal sin to change the bill accordingly.

The other point I make is that under this bill registration for charities is not compulsory. Indeed, because of my involvement in the sector a number of charities have already come to me and said they are not sure whether they really want to register, because of the compliance costs involved. I have said to a couple of them that they should think carefully about that. The purpose of registration in Part 1 is to enable charities to remain exempt from income tax. Many smaller charities do not have any taxable income as defined in terms of the Income Tax Act. For a lot of charities, whatever comes in on one hand in terms of income is immediately applied to charitable works on the other, so they do not actually have any taxable income.

So it is still an option for such charities to decide not to register. It does not make them some sort of second-class citizen. They are still legitimate charities—it is just that they will not get tax relief if they have some taxable income, which might be just a few bucks of interest, for example, that they have to pay tax on.

That is an option for charities. In contrast, the large, prominent public charities will certainly, of course, need to register and so forth in order to continue to access income tax relief, and also to ensure that money given to those charities is eligible for what we call donee tax rebates.

I really want to talk about just one aspect of the amendments to clause 4, as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 357, which changes the definition of “officer”. This is a very worthwhile amendment. It arose as a result of submissions received from the Inter-Church Working Party on Taxation, and, in particular, from the representatives of the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches. Those Churches are governed by bodies—in the Anglican Church referred to as synods—that comprise several hundred people.

It would be quite impossible to have all those several hundred people designated as officers of the charity. For example, we have to ensure that every one of those people is not disqualified from being an officer in terms of this bill, and it would be quite an impractical way to proceed. Accordingly, this amendment is aimed at ensuring that the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches, and to some extent the Methodist Church, will be able to register themselves and have a definition of “officer” that will fit the circumstances of their organisations. That is a very good step forward.

Furthermore, the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper omits and substitutes a new definition of “officer” and adds subclause (c) and subclause (d) to do with regulations, just in case the submitters, the select committee, and the Government itself have missed something and a problem arises about registration to do with officers. Regulations may then be put in place to overcome whatever difficulty arises.

The intent is to give complete flexibility to the new commission so that it can register charities that come to it, having regard to their particular circumstances. Those circumstances vary enormously. For example, the situation as between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church is quite radically different. This is a good step forward and I commend the Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I note that Mr Copeland explained to the Committee why United Future is voting for this part and, indeed, for the whole bill—which is with some reluctance, as I understood his speech. It is because Michael Cullen has promised he will increase the tax-free threshold for charities if United Future supports the bill.

Judith Collins: Did you check all the words!

RODNEY HIDE: I do not know whether Mr Copeland checked all the words. He has just said that to say “promise” might be a bit rich. But, to be honest, he has just explained United Future’s voting for this bill in a most unparliamentary way—that is, there will be a quid pro quo for charities, and that is why United Future is voting for it. It is not voting for the legislation because it thinks it is a good idea; it is voting because Michael Cullen, who—we know from John Tamihere—dupes and tricks United Future most days, has promised them, some time in the future, some more money.

Gordon Copeland: Dream on!

RODNEY HIDE: I think that Mr Copeland is dreaming on about this promise from Mr Cullen.

I notice that Mrs Rich has explained just how much this bill was gutted at the Social Services Committee, so I do not need to go there. But I draw members’ attention to the functions of that commission, that quango, that Mr Copeland wants to vote for. It is truly extraordinary. There will be a quango of seven Labour Party flunkies and an army of bureaucrats, and when we see the calibre of the people that Labour has as MPs and JPs, we can imagine the sort of people that Labour will have on the commission.

The commissioners’ job will be to educate and assist charities in relation to matters of good governance and management. Can one imagine Helen Clark lecturing and educating anyone on good management and good governance, or John Tamihere lecturing anyone on good management or good governance? What a joke! The commission is there to make appropriate information available in order to assist persons to make registration applications under this legislation. So it sort of exists to teach charities how to fill in the forms that the commission requires to be filled in. Under clause 10(a), its function is to: “receive, consider, and process applications … and (b) compile and maintain a register of charitable entities;”.

I remind Mr Copeland that the charities sector has survived 400 years without that sort of bureaucratic nonsense. The commission is also to (e) “receive, consider, and process annual returns submitted by charitable entities … —thousands and thousands of them. It is to supply information and documents to the Inland Revenue Department, and to monitor charitable entities. So charitable groups that are getting on with doing the business will find an army of those types of people—the sort who run the Labour Party and whom John Tamihere described as narrow; who have no family life or outside life, but who just sit around plotting late at night—

Judith Collins: Parlez-vous français?

RODNEY HIDE: Parlez-vous français? Those people will be crawling all over those charities to monitor them. They are to inquire into charitable entities, so we will suddenly find that they have nothing better to do but plot and plan when inquiring and investigating into charities.

What about this? Under clause 10(k) they are to: “stimulate and promote research into any matter relating to charities,”—

Hon Member: Smarmy!

RODNEY HIDE: It is exceedingly smarmy; in fact, it makes one think that Steve Maharey must have had something to do with it—and “(l) carry out any other functions that the Minister may direct the Commission to perform in accordance with section 87;”.

I say to Mr Copeland that I think this bill proves what John Tamihere was saying about Michael Cullen and United Future. United Future is voting for this bill not because it agrees with it but because Michael Cullen has “promised” to increase the tax-free threshold for charities, and that is the quid pro quo. Well, there is a word for what Mr Copeland has just admitted to and I am not allowed to use it. But that shows us the sort of integrity that United Future members bring to this Parliament when they vote or do not vote for a bill. They are voting for this bill on a monetary promise that will never be delivered—and John Tamihere was right: they are so stupid they do not even know how duped they are; they do not even realise it.

If people want to know why charities are going to struggle in New Zealand, they have two groups to blame—United Future and New Zealand First. I say this about United Future: at least it was bribed to do it.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : I thank Mr Hide for his contribution and just say to United Future—

Hon David Benson-Pope: He visits Fiji regularly for a contribution.

SIMON POWER: That Minister should go back to sleep. I say to United Future to beware of legislation that sets up a commission. The Tertiary Education Commission was also created in a similar vein. That commission was to be a light-handed steering instrument to guide strategic priorities in the tertiary sector—whatever that means. Two hours and lots of paper later, I was none the wiser. The story with the Tertiary Education Commission is that it now has a staff of 324 people—

Rodney Hide: No!

SIMON POWER:—that is the light-handed steering instrument—and cost $210 million to set up and run. It has been restructured once already—every job readvertised in a complete restructuring of a governance system that parties in this House said would not work. The Government was told at the time that commission was set up that it would not work. But, no, the Government members sat opposite and said that we did not understand that that was a light-handed steering instrument and was not designed to get in the way of the tertiary sector. The same thing will happen in the charities sector.

I say to voluntary organisations and charities to beware of clause 7 that sets up a commission. I will tell those charities what is coming with that commission—320 bureaucrats will storm down the doors of their charities to monitor work that the charities have always done unencumbered, without needing to seek the permission of the Government to do too much, and with their independence never compromised. I tell charities to beware of legislation that sets up commissions. That means one thing: that the pitter-patter of an army of bureaucrats is on its way to disrupt the good work that charities throughout New Zealand do.

Where is the hint in the legislation that that is what is coming? Well, members and those interested should turn to clause 10. There we have a page and a half of the commission’s functions. It is very reassuring that it will be a light-handed organisation that will leave the sector to get on with its business! There is a page and a half of things it will do—a page and a half of functions to interfere with the workings of charities.

But my favourite clause is clause 10(i)—it is a doozy. This commission will monitor charitable entities to ensure that the entities that are registered as charitable entities continue to be qualified for registration as charitable entities. Look out, here comes the commission with its clipboards and pens, both red and green, for initial checking and auditing. That group of bureaucrats will be on the march to disrupt the good, independent work that charitable organisations have done up until this point.

The real questions the sector should be asking the Government are why do they need that commission, why do they need more people interfering in the way they conduct their affairs, and why do they need clause 10, with paragraphs (a) through to (o), outlining the functions of the commission. I say to those organisations that the same thing happened with the tertiary education sector. It was promised a light-handed commission that would guide the sector gently. Look at what has happened! The commission has 324 bureaucrats and costs $210 million. I tell the sector to beware of legislation that sets up commissions.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judith Collins to clause 10 be agreed to:

to add to clause 10, the following new subclause:

(2)When carrying out the functions of the Commission, the Commission must have regard to the need, where reasonably possible, to minimise the compliance costs of the registered charity.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : I want to look at one particular clause that really does strike at the heart of this legislation, which is too socialistic for even the Greens to support, as it has too much Government regulation. There may be a snigger coming from members opposite, but they know it is true. I refer to clause 26, “Grounds for removal from register”, which states that “The Commission may remove an entity from the register if—” and in particular, I refer to subclause 1(e)—“any person has engaged in serious wrongdoing in connection with the entity;”. What does that mean? I turn to the definition—

Rodney Hide: Would John Tamihere be interested in this?

JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, I think Mr Tamihere would be interested in this. But I turn to the definition of “serious wrongdoing” in clause 4, and that definition is given as “(a) an unlawful or a corrupt use of the funds or resources of the entity; or (b) an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to the public interest in the orderly and appropriate conduct of the affairs of the entity; or (c) an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes an offence; or (d) an act, omission, or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory,”—and what does that mean?—“or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement”.

What that means for charities is that if the charity is unfortunate enough to become the victim of a con man, the charity suffers. It is the charity that folds, and that has to be one of the most stupid provisions in this legislation. What does it mean? Well, the Problem Gambling Foundation a few years ago had a big chunk of money ripped of by Ralph Gerdelan, who was at that stage, I think, the chief executive. He stole money from that organisation, and under this law, when it comes through, that very victim, the Problem Gambling Foundation, would in fact be liable to have itself deregistered.

Rodney Hide: How would Stephen Ching get on?

JUDITH COLLINS: I think Mr Ching might also have some problems. How many laws do we have where the victim pays, yet again, because of the wrongdoing of the perpetrator of the crime? This is like having the poor old person who is stolen from suddenly lose his or her house, as well. That is exactly what this silly, silly law is all about. It is a complete overreaction. We have 37,000 charities in this country. We know the ones that get ripped off, because we discuss these matters in the House, day after day, and it normally involves people whom we all know. Yet what we have here is a bill that punishes the very people who are the victims. I can just imagine that if another party had put forward this sort of silly legislation, the Government would be screaming and saying: “Oh, no, we cannot attack the victim twice.”

This bill attacks the victims of crime by saying that they could lose their charitable status. What about the charities that provide homes for abused women? What if one of them happens to be ripped off by a con woman, a con artist, or whoever? What about them? They are liable to be stripped of their charitable status by some unfeeling Government body full of people who have never put themselves on the line, full of Government appointees and people who have never done a charitable act in their lives except at their last caucus meeting, as the Labour Party just did, and who make their living out of the taxpayers of this country and have never contributed a cent that they did not get from taxpayers first.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : This is an appropriate time for me to make my point in regard to clause 15 and the amendment I propose. The two provisions I wish to reinstate in the bill are clause 15(2)(c) and (d). They can be reinstated along with the new clause 15(2)(c), which states that the following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: “an individual who, or a body corporate that, has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. So if someone was sentenced in 1997, which is 8 years ago, this provision does not apply. So despite anything that someone did in 1997 or before—any type of dishonesty—that person is still entitled to be a trustee. In 7 years’ time the person who has just been mentioned by Judith Collins will be entitled to be a trustee again. That is what this legislation permits.

Rodney Hide: Well I’m pleased I’m not voting for it.

DAIL JONES: It is quite extraordinary, and that is why I am proposing my amendment. My amendment, which was originally in the Government’s bill, states that a person cannot be involved if that person has been “convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more”, or if one is a person “who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence”.

That is relatively minor, if we look at section 2(1) of the Crimes Act of 1961 and make our way inevitably through that. What we are concerned about in this particular part is people who may have been charged with offences from more than 7 years ago involving dishonesty; taking, obtaining, or copying trade secrets; or aggravated burglary. Those people could be trustees if they committed the offence and were sentenced more than 7 years ago. But for some reason if they did it in the last 7 years they cannot be.

What is the magic about 7 years? I am not suggesting that we should provide for such a big offence in the last 7 years; I am just saying it should be something involving a sentence of 2 years or more imprisonment, which is what the Government originally wanted. It is in addition to what the Government wants in regard to 7 years. It seems to me to be such a simple measure. The Government wants to do something to protect charities from people ripping them off, but it is quite happy to have people on charities who may have been the great train robber 8 years ago. Such people could be entitled to be an officer of a charitable entity. Any criminal who was sentenced 8 years ago on dishonesty matters can be an officer of a charitable entity. It is quite extraordinary. I just cannot believe that that is what clause 15(2)(c), put in by the majority, does.

All I am asking is whether we can go back to including the original paragraphs (c) and (d), which I am calling (bb) and (bc), and the new paragraph (c) as well. The Government can have what it wants, but I say that it does not want criminals who were convicted 8 or 9 years ago, or even 3 years ago, of minor offences, on those charities. If we look at the charges mentioned here, they involve terms of imprisonment of 7 years, 10 years, and 15 years as we go through. If in the last 7 years one has been convicted of a 2-year offence, one could still be on a charity even now.

Someone in the Government has not thought this through. There will be the defrauding of charities left, right, and centre because those people will be permitted to be on them. I just cannot understand the Government’s thinking on this issue.

New Zealand First is supporting this bill. There are no deals. It is because I have taken an interest in this matter for 15 years. I have been creating charitable trusts for people for a long time, and I just cannot understand a bill that would allow dishonest criminals to be officers of charities under a bill that is meant to protect people from dishonest officials. It is extraordinary.

I will leave it at that. I cannot keep repeating myself forever. I hope the Government will see the light and support the provisions that it supported originally, and it was right in doing so. I cannot understand who asked the Government to take them out. The Greens do not support this. They have a vested interest in keeping people who have committed crimes with a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years on the committees. They voted for the amendment to this part at the select committee when we voted against it. We voted against the amendment at the select committee.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : Judith Collins has drawn our attention to clause 26, “Grounds for removal from register”. Clause 26(1)(e) states: “any person has engaged in serious wrongdoing in connection with the entity;”. Judith Collins drew our attention to that, then she said that wrongdoing is defined, in clause 4, in this way. It is: “(d) an act, omission, or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement”; or, (c): “an act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes an offence;”.

I would love the Minister to speak on this bill and explain what is an act or omission that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement. I think we need an explanation in this Committee of what that entails, and I will give examples. The Waipareira Trust would just fold, because we know that the chief financial officer has admitted to the Serious Fraud Office that he forged six invoices to rob the trust of $80,000. On that basis he has committed a course of conduct that constitutes an offence, so the whole Waipareira Trust would be deregistered. Is that what the Government wants? I look to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Tizard, to explain that if we have someone like Mike Tolich, who has admitted forging six fake invoices to get $80,000 out of the trust while John Tamihere was the chief executive officer—

Dail Jones: He did that more than 7 years ago, so he is eligible to be on a trust now.

RODNEY HIDE: No, he did not do it 7 years ago. It was in 1989.

Dail Jones: So he can still be on a trust now.

RODNEY HIDE: OK, but that example—

Dail Jones: He can still be on a trust now.

RODNEY HIDE: But what happens to the trust itself—

Dail Jones: It’s irrelevant. This bill allows him to be on the trust.

RODNEY HIDE: —if it happened 5 years ago? I do not know why Mr Jones is voting for the bill, he has so many complaints about it, but there we go. Then I go to this provision that states “oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent”, and I ask about Mr Steven Ching. Is it grossly negligent, for example, that he did not reveal to the Labour Party or to the JP society that he had obstructed justice? Is that an example of gross negligence or gross mismanagement? I do not know. We need to know what it is that gets a charity deregistered. [Interruption] Peter Hodgson is laughing; he must know the answer. He is voting for this. What does it mean to have a person in a charity who is grossly negligent, whose behaviour constitutes gross mismanagement, or who is improperly discriminatory? What does that mean? [] Peter Hodgson says that if I sit down he will take the call. He will get an opportunity when I do sit down. I would love him to take the call because he is a Minister. We have a Minister in the chair who has resolutely refused to speak to this bill, or to explain a thing. So I am pleased that Peter Hodgson has told the Committee that when I sit down he will take the call.

Hon Pete Hodgson: If you sit down, I will take a call.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, I am allowed my 5 minutes; there are no conditions on that. We know that over there on the Labour benches it is rosy on the outside but on the inside it is all miserable, fisticuffs, and the rest of it.

Hon Judith Tizard: You wish!

RODNEY HIDE: Judith Tizard says: “I wish”. I can tell her that I would not want to go 10 rounds with her—no way. I would even agree to this bill if that were the prospect—fisticuffs with Ms Tizard!

But I say to members that I just want an explanation from the Minister in the chair as to what is meant, under clause 4(1), in relation to “serious wrongdoing”, of “(d) an act, omission or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or grossly negligent, or that constitutes gross mismanagement”—because what we have seen in the Labour Party is that almost anything goes. With Steven Ching and John Tamihere the Prime Minister is infinitely forgiving, but when it comes to a charity, the whole charity gets deregistered. I ask Mr Copeland whether that is right.

Gordon Copeland: Not necessarily.

RODNEY HIDE: Oh, not necessarily! Well, why not?

Gordon Copeland: It is not necessarily. It doesn’t necessarily follow.

RODNEY HIDE: What does he mean when he says that it does not necessarily follow, because—

Gordon Copeland: It could be.

RODNEY HIDE: It could be. Well, this is great! We are passing law here tonight—and I wish I could vote against it twice, now—

Gordon Copeland: Read the clause.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, I am reading the clause, and Mr Copeland is saying that it might apply, it might not apply, they might be deregistered, or they might not be deregistered, and the Minister will not stand and take a call to explain what it all means.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I was not going to speak on Part 2, but when Mr Dail Jones repeated comments about clause 15, and asked for some reason why this clause has been amended, I felt constrained to speak, as that is a clause that would have affected me personally.

He is right: I did vote for the Government’s amendments in the select committee, because I think they do absolutely the right thing—and they do what many hundreds of submitters advised the Government to do, as well. The effect of the original clause as drafted, the original clause that Mr Jones and New Zealand First are trying to put back into the bill, would have been to exclude many, many hundreds, if not thousands, of really excellent board members and trustees from taking up positions on the boards of the thousands of community groups around this country. I am more than happy to say that I am one of those people; I have been convicted of offences liable for 2 years’ imprisonment or more—offences connected with the 1981 Springbok tour. I have no shame about them. I do not want to be clean-slated for them. I am proud of those offences because they are part of my political history, and, actually, such a history is an honourable tradition of previous generations in the Labour Party.

Rodney Hide: Crooks and thieves.

SUE BRADFORD: It does not mean one is a crook or thief—to stand up for one’s political principles at times like that. I think it is a really good qualification for being in this Parliament. It is also a really good qualification for being on the board of an organisation that is following certain principles and values, as so many of our church and community sector groups do.

But that is actually a minor matter in terms of why I supported the Government’s amendments to this clause. It is not just about people like me with political convictions. I might just add that I taught governance at the tertiary level for 5 years, before I came to Parliament. I have taught many people about these things, and it is really ironic for me as a teacher of governance that this clause would have said that any group of which I was a board member had to get rid of me unless it got a special exemption. And I still am on some boards.

But beyond that, and much more important, is that a whole lot more people who have been convicted for all sorts of criminal offences, not political ones, would also have been excluded. Many, many of the organisations that do such good work in our community are like the one already mentioned by my colleague Judith Collins, the Problem Gambling Foundation. As well, there are many groups that, for example, work with prisoners, like the Prison Inmates’ Loved Ones Linked as One to Renew Strength, the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society, groups that work in the drug and alcohol addiction areas, and ones that work with all sorts of offenders and ex-offenders. Some of the best people on those boards are people who have been down that road of addiction, have been in prison, or have been a gambler. Those people are very, very valuable members of those boards, and they should not be excluded. That is the main reason why it was very important that the original clause was eliminated from the bill, and was replaced by the one we have in this draft.

As members know, the Green Party does not support the bill overall, but we are really pleased that in a number of areas the Government has seen fit to improve it. We accept the inevitable: this bill will become law. Community sector groups are going to have to work with it, and we want it to be in the best shape it possibly can be. So I certainly hope that no parties in this Committee will support the New Zealand First amendment.

I have a couple of other points while I am on my feet. I do not know that I would go as far as some of the comments from Simon Power and Rodney Hide about jackbooted armies of bureaucrats marching into the sector as a result of the Charities Commission being set up, but on looking at this part overall I cannot help but be a little afraid that so much of the focus of this bill is simply on regulation, down to very minute detail. The overarching feel we get from it is that it is about the monitoring and regulation of a sector that thrives on its individuality and its commitment to purpose, to kaupapa, to values. Somehow we have got it wrong in this legislation; it is all about regulation, and not about enabling and empowering the sector to do the good work it can do.

Finally, in terms of clause 26(e), which Ms Collins and Mr Hide have been talking about, again, I agree with them. It is phenomenally incomprehensible that an organisation could or should be punished for the misdoings or outright crimes of one person, as Mr Hide referred to. It is a situation I myself have been through with organisations, in terms of other people. Organisations are inevitably badly damaged by criminals who somehow become part of them and rip them off, and it is a curse of the community sector that it happens to us at times. Of course, it happens in the private sector and the Government sector, as well; all sectors have to deal with it. But this kind of clause simply does not make sense. If a trustee or board member knowingly commits a crime or acts against the law of this country, of course he or she should be held responsible, as should a staff member who does that. But that does not mean the organisation should suffer.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I want to make a brief comment first of all on the amendment from Dail Jones. He asked which submitter to the Social Services Committee had asked for those words to be dropped from the Charities Bill.

I can tell him that one of the submitters was the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society, a charitable trust. It made the very sound point that, in fact, one of the things it does in terms of rehabilitating prisoners is to encourage them to give something back to the community by becoming involved in a charity. I would also point out to Dail Jones that his amendment would exclude not only Sue Bradford but also Nelson Mandela from being an officer of a charity. I for one would be very proud to have him as an officer of a charity with which I was involved.

I would like, though, to speak for a moment about clause 56, a very long new clause that has been inserted into the bill. Rodney Hide spoke a little while ago about charitable trusts as if it was simply the case that all charities are also charitable trusts. But that is not the case. In fact, one of the unique features about this bill and about the charitable sector is that charities come in many different shapes and sizes. Yes, we do have charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act, but we also have incorporated societies under the Incorporated Societies Act. We have companies under the Companies Act, and we have unregistered associations of people—Catholic parishes would be an example of that. We have charities that are set up under their own special Acts of Parliament, such as the Anglican and Catholic bishops’ empowering Acts. We have charities that take the form of partnerships, and we have many thousands of charities that come into existence through the operation of wills. It is the sheer bewildering variety of shapes and sizes of charities that makes it quite difficult to write law that states exactly how they should be registered, exactly how they should be monitored, and exactly how they should submit returns.

The very innovative way of cutting through that great Gordian knot was clause 56, “Commission may grant exemptions”. Tonight I want to really commend the officials who drafted that very extensive clause, because it essentially aims to equip the Charities Commission with a whole tool-box of exemptions that will enable it to fit the way it regulates a charity to the actual legal form and circumstances of that charity. Also, in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 357 there is a small amendment to clause 56, which adds to the list of matters on which the commission can grant exemptions. It adds clause 16 of the bill to the list. If we go to clause 16, we find that it is, in fact, the registration clause. I think that completes, as I said before, some quite elegant legal drafting so that in all those different circumstances the commission will be able to be flexible, with the aim of doing a good job of fostering charities in this country, as it is bound to do, and of ensuring that compliance costs are minimised.

I really commend those provisions to the Committee.

KATHERINE RICH (National) : It was very interesting to hear the previous speaker mention words like the “sheer bewildering variety” of charities. Yes, out of the 37,000 charities in this country, there are a huge number of differing kinds of charities, yet this bill is trying to squash them into regulation and registration, even though they may differ dramatically in terms of their objectives and the work that they do.

I would like to endorse the comments made by Judith Collins, and also by Sue Bradford, on the original clause 15, “Qualifications of officers of charitable entities”. It was very interesting to hear members of the New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society when they came before the Social Services Committee. They basically said that the society would have no office holders if that part of the bill went through as it was. Is it not odd that someone like Sue Bradford can become a member of Parliament under the present law, but that under this bill, as it was, she could not have become the treasurer of her local Plunket?

Office holder after office holder said to us that this law was just nuts. The first thing they wanted to be able to indemnify themselves against was carrying the can if things go wrong and, luckily, that is one of the changes that has been made. Time and time again volunteers said that they were happy to work for their communities as volunteers, but if things go wrong, why should they carry the can? If the local Plunket group finds out that someone has embezzled money, or the local sports club finds out that some office holder committed some wrongdoing that constituted an office holder being penalised, why should the group carry the can for that? So that change made a lot of sense.

The Minister in the chair, Judith Tizard, needs to explain what mischief this legislation is trying to solve. She has not taken one call tonight to explain any part of this bill or to answer any of the questions put to her by any of the speakers.

I would like to turn members’ attention to clause 23, “Charitable entity must display registration number”, which has been struck out. One mischief that this bill was supposed to solve was the opportunity for bogus charity collectors to walk the streets shaking a tin and asking for money. This provision required all charities to display a registration number on every written communication, every piece of fund-raising material, every pamphlet, every badge, and every bit of paper. Charitable group after charitable group came before us and said that it would cost them a huge amount of money to reprint all their materials to put this magic number that they will get from the Charities Commission on to their marketing materials and signs.

One National member of the select committee piped up and said: “Hang on a minute. If people are going to try to rip off New Zealanders and pretend to be a bogus charity, aren’t they just going to make the number up? Won’t they just plonk some number on to the tin or the pamphlet and hold that out as being their official number?”. The officials and the Government members of the select committee said that—duh—that might be the case. It had not occurred to those members that if anybody did want to go and rip off some poor New Zealander, that person would just make up the number. So, thankfully, that bit has been struck out. That will save charities a lot of money and a lot of difficulties. We live in a world where people can forge passports, money, and credit cards—and paintings, in some cases—so it is not difficult to put a number on to a begging tin, pamphlets, or raffle tickets.

Rodney Hide: If Helen Clark was convicted of forgery.

KATHERINE RICH: Well, yes, if that clause had gone through, she would not be able to be the treasurer of her local Plunket, either, I say to Mr Hide.

So at least we see a few changes and struck out provisions here. But I would like the Minister in the chair to expend a few calories and get out of that chair to tell the people of New Zealand what mischief this legislation is aiming to solve, because we have not seen clear evidence of bogus charities seeking money from New Zealanders.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I just want to have another go at looking at the two issues. I would be interested to see what Rodney Hide can find out about the Electoral Act in terms of whether, if someone has been convicted of an offence punishable by more than 12 months, it bars that person from being a member of Parliament. I doubt that very much. I think it may have something to do with being in prison, but that is another matter. But that is not why I am raising this issue; I am raising it because it is quite clear that neither the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) nor the replacement clause 15(2)(c) is perfect. That is the obvious situation. The replacement clause 15(2)(c), which the majority of members of the Social Services Committee put in, will allow a convicted fraudster to be an office holder of a charitable entity. Of course, it does not surprise me in the slightest that the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society would want a fraudster to be involved in a society, because that would seem to aid former prisoners to get back into their wicked ways and help themselves to the charity’s money. If we want to be ironic about it, that is what a prisoners’ aid society may want. It was interesting to listen to Katherine Rich, though. She seemed, from everything that she said, to support this bill, although the National Party opposes it.

I turned up to the select committee—I am not a regular member; I was filling in on the day of its deliberation—and I could see that there was something the matter here. The struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) could have been amended to refer to an offence of dishonesty, in order to get over the problem that has been raised, quite correctly, by another member of this Committee. Those clauses were so broadly drawn in the first place that they did catch a wide range of people who might not have been involved in dishonesty offences. The select committee has tried in the replacement clause 15(2)(c) to catch people involved in crimes involving dishonesty, but that really links it to the Greens and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, which referred to 7 years. That is the reason why the period is 7 years—it is because of that Act and the view of this Government that it should continue with the clean slate philosophy that if one has committed an offence 7 years ago, one should be forgiven.

That is all right for offences that do not involve a person going to prison, but not when it involves offences like, for example, dishonesty within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act. That includes false accounting. So if one was convicted of false accounting 8 years ago, one can be an officer of a charitable entity. If one has counterfeited the charity’s seal in terms of section 261 of the Crimes Act, “Counterfeiting public seals”, yes, one can be an officer of the society. That also applies if one has been involved in other offences involving, for example, using altered or reproduced documents with the intent to deceive. Now, that is what one would do as an officer of a society with all that money. The offences include forgery, and using a forged document—that sounds a bit familiar. In terms of those offences, if one committed them 8 years ago one could be an officer of a society.

I just say that neither the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) nor the replacement clause 15(2)(c) are perfect. But I think we would be better off to have the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) in the bill at the moment, in the time that we have for this legislation, rather than letting it run with the replacement clause 15(2)(c). The Government has an opportunity to either correct it now, while the drafters are still here, or leave that clause in and correct it in the fullness of time, as soon as possible, in the next 2 or 3 months. Otherwise, we could be in serious problems. New Zealand First is not doing any deals. We will still support this legislation, because the intent is right. But I think that the way the bill is worded means we will not solve the problem of charities having dishonest employees.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) : I thank members for their very useful contributions. I think it is a pity that Mr Jones did not have more discussions with the very good New Zealand First members who were present for the submissions on this legislation. If he had, he would have heard about cases where, for example, a person helping to run an athletics club in which a charitable trust is involved may have a driving conviction or some issue of that sort. I think we want charities to be as free as possible to represent the communities for which they are working, and for a range of people to be enabled.

The point was made that many education trusts have been a means by which people have gone on into business and into self-employment in all sorts of ways. People get governance experience through community organisations. Sometimes they are trustees, sometimes they are members of charitable trusts, and sometimes they are not. The Government is satisfied that the provisions around who can and cannot be a trustee are satisfactory without prescribing exactly what people may have been convicted or not convicted of. The point was made that a member of parliament might be affected. I hope that the widest range of people will realise that working for communities is beneficial, gives people a great deal of hope and energy in life, and can often help individuals, families, and communities. The Government is very happy with the new state. I thank New Zealand First for its comments, but I assure Mr Dail Jones that those issues were considered.

On the issue that was raised by, I think, Katherine Rich relating to clause 26, I just point out that the deregistration power is discretionary—it is not obligatory. I would expect the Charities Commission to go through a range of choices and discussions with any charity before that charity is deregistered, but the commission should have the power, if it is clear that fraudulent behaviour is systemic in a charity, to deregister that charity quite quickly.

Of course, all of that comes back to the fact that the establishment of the Charities Commission is a result of working parties, discussion papers, and a great deal of work going back—as Mr Copeland has very helpfully pointed out—to the 1980s. It is a result of the voluntary sector’s desire to have a commission that is separate from the Government. In the first instance it will clearly be funded by the Government, but it will be separate from the Government. That matter was discussed in some detail and at some length in the Social Services Committee. The commission will be independent. It will have the responsibility of educating, enabling, and providing support and information to charities.

I thank members of the Committee for their useful comments. I hope that this new legislation will be what hundreds of organisations have asked for and will be of service to the thousands of charities that serve New Zealand so well.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I should have mentioned that I have put forward another amendment. Clause 15(2)(c) ends with the words: “… and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. I have put forward an amendment to remove those words so that the clause would simply relate to: “(c) an individual who, or a body corporate that, has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) …”.

We are talking about dishonesty. We are not talking about Springbok tour protests. If someone has been involved in a Springbok tour protest, that is fine—that person can be a trustee. A person who has been convicted of driving while disqualified can be an officer of a charitable entity. Any conviction that does not involve dishonesty is fine; it does not debar a person from being an officer of a charitable entity.

If members do not want to vote for my amendment to leave struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and 15(2)(d) in the bill, I have just offered the better alternative of deleting the last few words from new clause 15(2)(c). The Government may care to think about it again. The offences referred to in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act are serious offences. We are not talking about minor crimes of dishonesty. Theft is there, receiving is there—we are talking about 7 year - type offences. I think that the final words in clause 15(2)(c) could be removed, and that members and other people who have admitted their involvement in non-dishonesty situations could still be officers of a charitable entity.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 15 be agreed to:

to insert after subclause (2)(b), the following new paragraphs:

(bb)a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more:

(bc) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence:

• Amendment not agreed to.
• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 15 be agreed to:

to omit from paragraph (c) of clause 15(2) the words “and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years”.

• Amendment not agreed to.
• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to.

KATHERINE RICH (National) : I would like to turn listeners’ attention to clause 82, “Minister’s role”. This is a rather disturbing clause, because it lays out the role of the Minister in relation to this new organisation and, in particular, the Minister’s role in relation to the appointment and removal of members of the commission. What I think we will see once again is the appointment of Labour Party friends to this commission, so that the commission will be a poodle before it even starts.

This part of the bill also sets out what directions the Minister can give to the commission, and the fact that the Minister can review the operations and performance of the commission. This part of the bill should send a shiver down the spine of every single charitable organisation in New Zealand. This is where the cold, clammy hand of the Government starts to interfere with the role of the Charities Commission, which in turn will interfere with the role of charities up and down this country. If this clause were not scary enough, we need to turn to clause 123, “Minister may conduct review”, which states: “(1) The Minister may review the operations and performance of the Commission at any time.” The moment the Minister wants to get in there and interfere, bully a few members, get a few decisions, she or he can review and conduct a performance investigation at any time.

So what we have here is the Minister’s ability to get involved with the commission, to interfere, to make this commission its lapdog for the Government, so that this bill can achieve its ultimate goal, which is to get Government involvement and control over 37,000 charitable groups that currently enjoy autonomy. This bill is designed to make sure that the Government can start to interfere at a level we have not seen. This is the part of the bill that introduces politics to the Charities Commission. This is where we will see people who have perhaps delivered pamphlets for the Labour Party for the last 20 years being appointed to a wee job that they can oversee, as a reward for their service to their political party.

This part of the bill is particularly disturbing. The Minister needs to explain how these appointments are to be made, that they will be independent, that the appointees will not be Labour Party friends, but people who hopefully are community representatives, people who have had some involvement at least with the voluntary sector, and that they are people who will do a good job once this bureaucracy is set up. This part of the bill introduces the costly part of the bureaucracy, because it is all about who goes on the board, what they are to be paid, how they are to be appointed, what the requirements will be, and what the Minister can do to interfere in that particular role.

The Minister must explain to the Committee what she sees as being her role, because at the moment in black and white it looks pretty extreme. Under this legislation she can give directions to the commission. She can decide what she wants the commission members to do at any point in time. If they do not play ball, she has the ability to go in there and review the operations and performance. Anybody who has been involved in an organisation knows that that is often a bullying tactic of Labour Ministers: “If you do not play ball we’re going to go in and audit you and conduct reviews until the cows come home, so that we can get you to do as we say.”

What we have seen in this part is very, very concerning. This part of the bill is designed to add additional bureaucracy.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : What we see in this part is the direct control of the Charities Commission coming under ministerial persuasion. Ms Rich is quite right. This is what should upset the charitable organisations, because we ask ourselves: what sort of direction will be provided? Here we come to the window that we have recently had on this Labour Government, the make-up of this Government, and the sorts of people who will be given this direction and making these appointments. We have learnt that they are dominated by unionists, so it is a very, very narrow sector of New Zealand that will be directing the Charities Commission.

We know that the most powerful group within the Labour Party, and hence the Labour Government, is what Mr Tamihere calls the “Wimmins Division”. I look across the Chamber and I can see all the members here tonight. We know that the people who are dominating the Labour Government do not have families, according to Mr Tamihere, and he should know. He says that they just sit around “parlez vous”, drinking their lattes, and plotting and planning. Those are the sorts of people who will be making these appointments and giving directions to the Charities Commission. We know from Mr Tamihere that the people who will be giving the directions are smarmy and have no substance. One can listen to them for 2 hours, take lots of notes, and learn nothing. We have certainly seen that in this Chamber tonight.

We have learnt from Mr Tamihere that the people who will be setting up and running this commission are duplicitous, and that they cheat the likes of the United Future party by changing words. These, again, are the people whom the commission will be stuck with—people who are duplicitous. We hear from Mr Tamihere that the people who will be setting up this commission are tossers. That is what he said.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I say to Mr Hide that that word has been ruled out as unparliamentary.

RODNEY HIDE: I am sorry. I did not realise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member withdraw it, please.

RODNEY HIDE: I withdraw. I am sorry; I did not realise.

Katherine Rich: Caber tossers.

RODNEY HIDE: A cabal of something, and we heard this from—

Hon Pete Hodgson: No Celtic history in that guy.

Jill Pettis: He would have ended up in the haggis.

RODNEY HIDE: Mr Tamihere did not make the half of it, did he. What a mean, miserable, little party it is, represented by Jill Pettis. It is no wonder poor John Tamihere rushed off to Ian Wishart, to bare his soul. What would it be like to be locked up in a room with the craven women on that side of the Chamber, and have to put up with their cheap jibes? I am not surprised that the poor fellow is under stress.

Jill Pettis: How many times have you won your electorate?

RODNEY HIDE: That, again, is the sort of fisticuffs, the intimidation, the claws that poor old John Tamihere is suffering under. Then they say that he is a red-blooded heterosexual male, and that he is stressed and in need of psychiatric help. How could he not be if he is sitting with Jill Pettis, Judith Tizard, Helen Clark, Heather Simpson, and Marian Hobbs? That would drive anyone to a psychiatric institution. I am amazed that John Tamihere lasted as long as he did. There are no other members in that party who have any red blood going through their veins.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will come back to the bill, please.

RODNEY HIDE: I am talking about the bill. I do not know why you think I am not, because I am saying that if we look at clause 82—

Hon Pete Hodgson: Don’t challenge the Chairperson.

RODNEY HIDE: There is Pete Hodgson saying not to challenge the Chairperson. He is sitting in his seat, not taking a point of order. He is useless, as usual. He said that if I sat down he would take a call. I sat down. Did anyone see him take a call? No. He does not even know what we are debating, he is so useless.

Lianne Dalziel: Talk to the bill.

RODNEY HIDE: Now we are hearing from Lianne Dalziel. The poor girl. She is stressed. She got sacked. What did she do? Actually, not much. She has not been forgiven, but John Tamihere is back in the fold. [Interruption] Now she is calling out for me to talk to the bill. If she would shut up, I would. It is no wonder that John Tamihere is in a psychiatric institution, with that sort of carry-on. I am talking about clause 82 and the sorts of people that the likes of Lianne Dalziel would be appointing to run the commission and get their sticky little fingers on 30,000—[] John Tamihere will be.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 be agreed to. [Interruption] The member will be quiet. [] The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. How come Lianne Dalziel can sit there and call out, and the chair does nothing, but if I respond the chair jumps on me and asks me to withdraw and apologise?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): What I heard, and I certainly did not even hear another one—I could not hear it above the decibels emitting from the member—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Why do you not ask Lianne Dalziel whether she called out when you started to put the question?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the matter.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. With the greatest of respect, I was responding to what Lianne Dalziel called out when you were taking the vote. You think it is OK to punish me—I notice that the Speaker asks a member whether he or she was calling out.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 3 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before I put the questions on the schedules, I note that the Minister has an amendment to omit schedules 1 to 3. I will not put the question on that amendment as it is in direct negation of a question. It signals the Government’s intention to vote against those schedules being agreed to.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I just want clarification. You said that the Minister wants to withdraw schedules 1 to 3. Is that right?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): My advice is that they still have to be voted down. I now put the question, That schedules 1, 2, and 3 be agreed to.

• Schedules 1, 2, and 3 not agreed to.
• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to schedule 4 be agreed to.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) : I move, That the Charities Bill be now read a third time. The passing of the Charities Bill into law will allow the new Charities Commission to be established. That is a first for this country, and will further demonstrate that this Government has an ongoing commitment to strengthen its relationship with the charitable sector.

Many people in the charitable sector will remember the idea of a charities commission being floated as far back as 1989, with the release of the Spencer Russell report. It recommended that a commission for charities be established to register, advise, and supervise charities. While the timing was not right then for such a commission to be established, the sector has continued to ask Governments to provide greater support.

One of the Government’s primary forms of assistance to the sector is the provision of certain income tax benefits for charities, and for people who make donations. Over recent years the charitable sector has asked the Government to increase the level of support provided to it through the taxation system, by lifting the maximum rebate level for people who donate to qualifying donee organisations, and by making charitable organisations’ imputation credits refundable. It has traditionally been difficult for any Government to assess how much that an increase in those forms of assistance would cost. That is because robust information about the size and scope of the charitable sector in New Zealand has traditionally been difficult to collect or access. In addition to there being little information collected, there is no specific law, standard procedure, or Government department concerned with ensuring the accountability of organisations that receive donations in cash or in kind.

The reporting requirements currently imposed on charitable organisations are minimal. While some income-generating charities might need to file a tax return, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s role is to ensure that income not entitled to an exemption is taxed. The role is not about ensuring that the charitable sector is generally accountable to the public. Holding the officers of a charitable organisation to account for an organisation’s administration expenses, for example, is well beyond the ambit of the commissioner’s current responsibilities. It is also not the role of the Registrar of Incorporated Societies.

The establishment of the Charities Commission will significantly improve the current framework under which charities operate. It will provide the Government, the sector, and the public with more comprehensive information about the charitable sector. From the Government’s perspective, that information will be utilised to assess whether its support for the charitable sector is as well targeted as it can be or whether changes should be made

For the sector, the information on the register is likely to prove to be useful in a number of ways—for example, as a means of tracking funding trends within the sector, which may help organisations to develop more effective fund-raising campaigns, or for determining what service providers are established in a particular locality. The creation of the commission will also allow the public to undertake closer scrutiny of all organisations, purposes, and activities, and the way in which those are delivered to the public. It should help to increase public trust and confidence in the charitable sector.

The establishment of the commission is not just about increasing the sector’s accountability to the public; it is also part of the Government’s wider strategy to strengthen its relationship with the community and voluntary sectors. While the commission will have a registration and monitoring role, it will also have a range of other functions that will allow it to be active in helping to build an effective and efficient charitable sector. That includes the ability to educate and assist organisations about management and governance issues, and the ability to make policy recommendations to the Government on its own motion.

One key area of concern to the sector, as evidenced by the submissions made to the Social Services Committee, is the current definition of “charitable purpose” used across the New Zealand statute book. Once established, the commission will be able to provide policy advice to the Government about the continued workability of the definition, and whether it needs to be updated or left as it is.

Leaving that review for the commission to undertake will allow the review to be better informed than might otherwise be the case. The charitable sector is diverse, and because of that it has been difficult to gather information from and consult with all interested groups. Having a single register of charitable organisations operated by one agency will make it much easier for the charitable sector to become informed about, respond to, and comment on, issues specifically affecting it.

In concluding, I thank the members of the Social Services Committee, the officials from both the Ministry of Economic Development and the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector, and the large number of organisations and individuals who made submissions on this bill. Charities make an important contribution to the social well-being of many New Zealanders, by providing valuable services that help to strengthen and support local communities. The Government recognises and values that work.

The Charities Bill is a significant step forward for the New Zealand charitable sector. As a means to increase the sector’s public accountability and transparency it represents a positive move toward helping to develop a culture of philanthropy and giving in this country. The establishment of the commission is one of a number of projects that the Government is advancing to strengthen its relationship with the community and voluntary sector. The passing of this bill will help to ensure New Zealand’s charitable sector is able to operate effectively and efficiently to deliver necessary and important services for the betterment and benefit of our communities. I commend this bill to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : That would have to be the most boring speech of the night from the most boring member. It is no wonder that David Benson-Pope cannot keep awake. We can imagine how boring it must be in their caucus—except when Mr Tamihere turns up, upon which they all roll over and say: “Tickle our tummy, Johnny boy.”, and they go for it every single time. The great thing about John Tamihere is that he actually did, in an act of charity, give the Prime Minister the opportunity to show just how in touch with her feminine side she really is.

I have looked at the bill and I have listened to some of the speeches tonight, and we have had some really good speeches from this side of the House. I think of Simon Power’s comments on what happens when commissions are set up. He talked about what had happened to the Tertiary Education Commission under Steve Maharey, the man whom Mr Tamihere, very uncharitably and not in accordance with this bill, called “smarmy”. I have gone a bit further—I have looked at Part 3, which contains a few of the core things this bill can do. I refer to clause 70, “Core things Commission can do”, which states—guess what—“anything”! The clause states: “The Commission may do anything authorised by this Act or another Act.”

The bill goes further. I shall read clause 71, “Other things Commission can do”, because it is so exciting, so narrow and so focused. It states: “(1) The Commission may do anything that a natural person of full age and capacity may do.” That, actually, is the power of general competence. The Government, New Zealand First, United Future, and Jim Anderton’s party—whatever its name is—are giving to the Charities Commission the same power that they gave to local authorities, and that resulted in people’s rates being put up, including those of the elderly who cannot afford to pay their rates. That was all from the power of general competence.

The commissioners, who will be appointed by the Labour Government, will be able to do anything they want to do—and guess who pays for it? Well, the Minister stood up in the House and told us a really funny joke. She said that the Government will pay. The Government does not pay; the taxpayer pays. Every single cent that is signed off by any Minister in this House is paid for by the poor old taxpayer, every single time. The Minister said that the Government will pay. Well, it will not. Mr Copeland, very kindly, and trusting in the Hon Michael Cullen, said: “We know it’s going to be OK, because we will get a bigger deduction for charitable donations.

I ask Mr Copeland whether that is right. Is it something like that?

Gordon Copeland: Yes, that’s right.

JUDITH COLLINS: Well, that is his hope. Even Mr Copeland has to say that that is the hope. Did Mr Copeland check the wording? Did he check every single little word? We know just how clever the Hon Michael Cullen is. We know it because Mr Tamihere said so, and we know it because Mr Copeland has just confessed to us that that is what he is hoping. The good thing is that Mr Copeland may actually get what he wants now, because Dr Cullen will be so keen to show that he is not as clever as that, at all.

We have heard some very interesting things. What we have heard from the Minister in this third reading debate is that the charitable sector asked for this bill. Well, I do not know—I mean, the Minister does not pay a lot of attention at select committees. The Minister does not pay a lot of attention anywhere. We could see by her lack of passion and drive—and everything else that she put into this bill—that she does not really know anything about it. What she actually said was that the charitable sector asked for it. Well, not one of the submitters actually asked for it. Not one of the submitters we heard from asked for it, at all. What they said was that they are frightened they will get loved to death by this commission. They are frightened that they will be stood over by people who do not care about the voluntary sector; people who are busy sitting in cafes, “parlez vous”—that was the term, was it not, I ask Mr Hide—and drinking their lattes; people who do not care about the ordinary New Zealand mum and dad who have to try to find the money for the sports fees and sports equipment. A lot of these fees are now paid for by the charitable institutions that this Government wants to love to death—in other words, clasp them to the Minister’s bosom, and then suffocate them by regulating them out of existence.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

JUDITH COLLINS: It is true. We could laugh about that, but it is utterly true. That is what happens. We know that there are lots of volunteers who are scared of this bill. They are scared that they will get into trouble because of something someone else does. They are petrified. They came to us and said that they are not going to volunteer anymore. They do not want to, because they are scared. The Green member, Sue Bradford, said that she has heard exactly the same thing.

I have spoken tonight about what would have happened to the Problem Gambling Foundation if this bill had been in effect at the time they lost a huge amount of money to a thief. It would have been in danger of being closed down. The Minister stands up here in the House and says: “Oh well, it’s all discretionary”. I ask the Minister what it is discretionary upon. Is it discretionary upon whether one is mates with the Minister? Is it discretionary upon whether one is mates with someone in the Labour Party? We know that that is what the discretion is, because the commissioners will all be party appointees, and not one of the Labour members will actually say: “We wouldn’t do that.” When we look at the bill, we see regulation for regulation’s sake. The Minister said that we have to stop anyone using charities to rip off people. Well, we already have a law. It is in the Crimes Act. It already is an offence to rip off people, using charities. We do not need to have another law. We do not need to have a law for anything that moves.

I have taken on board some of the points that Mr Jones has made about people who have been dishonest within the last 7 years and whether they should be trustees. Well, I guess I am a bit kinder than Mr Jones. I accept that I may be an old softie on these matters, but I do actually believe that some people have the ability to be rehabilitated.

Katherine Rich: So does the Prime Minister.

JUDITH COLLINS: And so does the Prime Minister. She believes it as well, Mrs Rich says. In fact, I understand that one can be rehabilitated—

Katherine Rich: In 2 days.

JUDITH COLLINS: In 2 days. That is all it takes, as well as a bit of stress leave. In fact, one is rehabilitated even before one takes the stress leave.

I believe that people can be rehabilitated, and I do not like to think that just because someone has a criminal conviction, he or she will forever be stopped from contributing in a positive way to society. So, on that basis, I did not support Mr Jones’ amendment. We should not be convicting people before they have actually committed a crime and that, unfortunately, is what we do when we say that nobody who has committed a particular crime will be able to be in a position of responsibility in relation to a charity. It would be far more sensible to be able to say that we cannot trust that Government in spending taxpayers’ money. Fortunately, I think the people are about to say that.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last speaker, in her opening remarks, slurred the New Zealand First Party, which did not vote for the Local Government Act 2002 and therefore was not responsible for the charges that she said resulted from that Act.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : I am happy to withdraw and apologise for that in relation to New Zealand First.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : It is not often that I have the opportunity in Parliament to support legislation that, when I was in legal practice, I wanted to see introduced, as I have with the Charities Bill. As I said earlier, when I was in legal practice and forming charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act for various people, I became concerned that the Act had no real means of dealing with people who robbed money from charitable trusts or who just did not operate them satisfactorily. Members will recall that in the early 1980s, when National was in Government and I was in Parliament—and in the later 1980s as well—there were all sorts of groups setting up charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act, especially Māori groups for employment schemes. When I set up a few of those, I was concerned that people were getting money from the Government and there did not seem to be any control on those charitable trusts as to what would happen.

We have heard recently about ACT’s concern about the lack of control over Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. I would have thought that ACT would support this legislation in order to make sure that there are real controls over how money goes to the various trust groups, and I am disappointed that ACT is not following up some of its allegations by supporting the legislation.

I have had concerns about this issue. I wrote to the Minister of Justice in the early 1990s about it. I got a report that went back to 1979, which set out a court case from 1967 in which Justice Gresson expressed his concern about charitable trusts. In that report there was a concern from the National Council of Churches as to the way in which charitable trusts and charities were being operated.

I have had a long-felt regard and concern about the way in which charities have been operating improperly and without any adequate supervision. So I was delighted when this bill was introduced to the House, and I am even more delighted by the changes that were made in the Social Services Committee as a result of the committee giving good consideration to the bill. I mention to the Minister that New Zealand First had a subcommittee on the bill that consisted of myself and Mr Gudgeon. I spoke on the first reading and, because of my interest, he and I communicated regularly on the bill and I kept a close watch on it. So when I had the opportunity to be present for the final deliberation of the bill, I took it with both hands.

I believe that in Opposition, one does not oppose just for the sake of it. If one sees something that is good coming forward, one should support it. As Martyn Finlay would say, it is not just a question of opposing, it is also a question of proposing. In this legislation, something that I have had a great concern about for some time is being remedied. There has been a mischief—a Judge of the High Court and the National Council of Churches have said that there was a mischief—and I am sure that the Government would not have introduced this legislation if there had not been some form of mischief, because otherwise it would have been a complete waste of everybody’s time, and most Governments do not tend to waste taxpayers’ money as freely as that. So I am delighted by the bill coming into the House.

I have just one criticism of the bill that I think is important, but I was not about to spit the dummy out and throw my teddy bear out of the pram just because I did not get my way on that issue. But I think the Government will have to do something about it fairly soon. The Government had originally intended clause 15(2) to state: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more: (d) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence: …”. The Government and the select committee decided to take that provision out, because groups like the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said that plenty of people had been convicted of disorderly offences—perhaps while opposing the Springbok tour or for driving while disqualified—that are not dishonesty offences, and that that provision covered them.

Then the Government came up with this alteration. In place of that provision, it would put in clause 15(2)(c), which states: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) an individual who, or a body corporate that, has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. That means that anyone who has been convicted of that crime 7½ years ago can be an officer of a society. That includes people who have been convicted of receiving, blackmail, theft or stealing, theft of animals, and theft by spouse. I am referring to the sections in Part 10 of the Crimes Act regarding the conversion of vehicles, breach of trust, the punishment of theft, the power of search, etc.

When appointing someone to a trust, one wants someone who has not committed a breach of trust. But this Government will allow people who have been convicted of the offence of breach of trust 7½ years ago to be officers of a charitable entity. That just does not seem to me to be right.

Hon Mark Burton: There has to be the possibility of rehabilitation.

DAIL JONES: Yes, there has to be the possibility of rehabilitation. But, as Judith Collins said when she was being critical of a trust that may get into difficulty and she was considering what could be done, a trust is likely to get into difficulty because some fraudster, forger, or thief is a member of it and has fallen back into his or her old ways again. That is the case.

We are not talking about people who have committed minor offences. We are talking about people who have committed serious offences, and this Government is saying that those people can be officers of a trust. We in New Zealand First take a tougher line in some areas. As has been asked in this Chamber, if people steal from a trust, where is the indemnity for the other members of the trust? It all goes.

One of the concerns has been the question of indemnity. Who will indemnify the other people in a trust if that money goes down the tube? I have raised the issue. I have received no support from the Government. The Minister—as she is entitled to do—offered no support. I suggested that the words “and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years” be removed, so that clause 15(2)(c) would relate to anyone who has been convicted of an offence under section 2(1) of the Crimes Act. I did not receive support. I suggested that the original clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) should go back in, because that was the Government’s original intention. That is what the Government wanted in the first place.

So I have given the Government all the options. For the purpose of the third reading, I just record that that was what happened at the Committee stage—which is one of the reasons for a third reading debate; it used to be the case, and I am sure it still is. If something goes wrong, I will say: “I told you so.”, especially if a substantial trust has to be wound up as a result of a former criminal defrauding it.

The Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said to us that we should be lenient, and we should make sure that prisoners who had been found guilty of forgery and suchlike had the chance to redeem themselves. But there is too much hard-earned money involved. People have knocked on doors to collect that money. They work extremely hard. There are people at the other end of the chain who deserve that money, and I do not believe that there should be any risk of it being lost. After all, the Government has put a time limit in the provision of 7 years. It considers that people should not be on a trust if they have been sentenced for a crime within the last 7 years. I am merely saying that they should not be on a trust, at all.

I disagree entirely with Judith Collins. She can be soft on this if she likes, but New Zealand First takes a hard line on law and order issues. We are concerned that people with records will be on a trust. At the moment there is a land transport bill, is there not, that relates to people who have committed offences. The Government is saying that those people should never be able to have a land transport licence and that they should have no right of appeal. That is how tough the Government can be. Why is the Government not being equally as tough on forgers, receivers, and other people who have committed dishonesty offences, particularly in respect of charities for which people go to a lot of trouble to raise money? Not only could a trust lose money but it could lose everything else, as well.

I just raise that issue. As I said, New Zealand First will not die in the ditch on it. We believe in the essential principle of the bill. We wish all charities well. We ask them to be extremely careful about whom they employ—although, once again, the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act will make it difficult for them to ensure that the people whom they employ have not previously been convicted of a dishonesty offence. There are a couple of barriers for all employers, but as far as a charity is concerned, there is an even bigger one.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : I commend Dail Jones for his speech. We sometimes see piffle on the front page of our newspapers and in the lead stories on the 6 o’clock news that means absolutely nothing and has nothing to do with improving people’s quality of life, yet the cooperative approach that has been taken for most of this evening by all members of Parliament in trying to pass legislation that will be of benefit to the people of New Zealand will not get mentioned even on page 19. I just say to Mr Jones that I enjoyed listening to his speech.

The tone will drop now, because I will refer to those comments made by Judith Collins. I say from the outset that National members, and Judith Collins in particular, would not recognise people from the charitable or voluntary sector even if they ran over them. Judith Collins in her Jaguar—well, I do not care what she drives; I will just say that she would not recognise them if she ran over them. She is the very same member who has made comments that sole parents sit around watching videos and TV all day and smoking dope. That is an indication of how much she knows about people who are perhaps at the lower end of the economic scale, and she has no idea about people who are trying to improve the lot of others in a very humble but very effective way.

I also remind the skeleton crew on the other side of the House tonight that Nick Smith, when he was in that ill-fated National Government, threatened the voluntary sector with the removal of its funding if it spoke out about, and against, the National Government of that time. He threatened the sector with the loss of funding. A lot of those people—and a lot of people whom we on this side of the House know well—were genuinely frightened about that. That was the kind of intimidation that was brought to bear during the last National Government.

Even before then, Mr Muldoon withdrew the charitable status of CORSO because it spoke out about the evils of apartheid. Some people will not remember those kinds of things. Some people will not even remember the huge amount of international activity that took place to rid South Africa of apartheid. The mean Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time, Mr Muldoon, reacted by crawling to Margaret Thatcher, and treated CORSO cruelly. That is something many people in New Zealand will always remember. Of course, some johnny-come-latelies will have absolutely no recollection of that history, at all.

This bill is a good bill, because, firstly, it is an initiative that will acknowledge the vital contribution that the charitable sector makes to the New Zealand economy and to the well-being of New Zealand and New Zealanders. This Government, in support of this Charities Commission, has committed $9.8 million of funding to help the commission in its initial stages.

One very important aspect that has not been mentioned very much tonight is that the charitable sector has approached the Government a number of times over recent years about income tax benefits for charities and for people who make donations, and quite rightly so. The Government will be in a position to assist, because it will now be able to assess how much an increase in the form of taxable assistance would cost and how much it would assist those various organisations. It is critically important to have robust information about the size and scope of the charitable sector in New Zealand, and it has traditionally been quite difficult to collect or assess that information.

This is a good bill because it will protect the integrity and reputation of the charitable sector. I just want to pay my respects and express appreciation to the hundreds of thousands of people who go out and do voluntary work every day, in a humble but hugely important way.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I would like to take a short call in the final stage of this debate, firstly to acknowledge everybody in the House, everybody on the Social Services Committee, and the officials who were involved in putting the Charities Bill together. Although I feel really sad about the opportunity we have missed with this bill, I feel at the same time—as we saw on the select committee and as we can see in the debate tonight—that MPs from both sides of the House have engaged with the debate and recognised the significance both of the bill and of the community sector it deals with. That is a good thing.

But I think it is a real pity that the Government, in the end, did not have the courage to accept that the fundamentals of the bill were flawed from the start and, in particular, that its very beginnings and very flawed consultation processes meant that it was not going to build at any point the kind of trust needed between the Government and the sector to make something like this really work well.

We had submissions, hundreds of them, from all parts of the sector—from what I would call the very conservative end of church groups, mission groups, priests and nuns, right through to groups at the other end of the scale, the sort of groups that I might have come from. We also had groups like the Tindall Foundation, which is probably respected by every party in this House as a very significant philanthropic body in this country. Tindall Foundation representatives came to us and said that the best thing we could do with this bill was to chuck it out and start again, and to learn from the experiences of places like the UK and not be so silly as to go ahead with a bill that, to make work, we would have to amend and amend in almost every clause. In fact, that is what has happened, so we have this piece of miscegenation, and that is a real pity.

Even after the select committee had made its rather fumbling amendments the Government restarted a small consultation process, which succeeded only in annoying a whole lot of groups around the country a whole lot more, because only a few groups were involved and brought to the table. Groups in the north of the country retained a heap of concerns, as did others in the South Island.

There were concerns such as why the meaning of “charitable purpose” had not been dealt with and brought up to date, and ongoing concerns about the threat to the independence of the sector, particularly in relation to advocacy. There were concerns about the functions of the commission and, in particular, that its potentially good role in playing a developmental role with the sector would be subsumed into its regulatory and policing role. There were issues relating to the payment of trustees—for example, in respect of bogus charities such as some primary health organisations, where trustees can receive very substantial payments but the organisations are still seen as not-for-profit. Those kinds of issues that are very real in the sector are just not dealt with by this bill.

There are ongoing concerns about the lack of detail and the information provided during the consultation processes, and I know there has always been an anxiety about what will happen once this bill is passed, in terms of its regulation-making powers and what kind of consultation will actually happen at that point. That is really getting down to the nitty-gritty.

Just recently, too, there have been changes announced by the Government about proposed alterations to the Financial Reporting Act. Financial disclosure under the Charities Bill will be determined by the Financial Reporting Act’s requirements, which are still subject to work by the Ministry of Social Development. What is all that going to mean? We do not know. None of the community sector organisations in the country know. We do not really know what we are passing tonight or what the implications are, and will be, for the financial reporting requirements of all those groups in the future.

Just this week we had an announcement by Cabinet on Monday—which stunned many parts of the community sector—of its sudden withdrawal of support for a body whose establishment the sector had spent 5 years working through with the Government. The new national entity had been backed by the Government, but in one day that support was withdrawn. I do not know how some of the groups that might have supported this bill may be feeling tonight about the relationship between the Government and the sector. It has certainly not been a fantastic trust-building process.

There has not been, at any point, comprehensive analysis of the genuine need for or real cost of the proposed legislation, nor has the Government really ever had a clear understanding of what the bill seeks to achieve, and how. What we have ended up with tonight is a far cry from what could have been a really empowering and enabling piece of legislation, supported by all the different groups and by MPs across the House. I believe it is most unfortunate that the Government still appears not quite to understand what an excellent opportunity it has missed.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : The message from this Government to the charitable sector is a simple one: “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. Here is a Government rushing through legislation under urgency that Sue Bradford, who is an expert in this area, says she does not understand and the charitable sector does not want. But what does this Government care?

We heard the Minister responsible, Judith Tizard, give a speech—actually saying “speech” is dignifying it. She stood up in this House, and gave the worst speech I have heard her give. She just mumbled into the Prime Minister’s handbag. I do not know what was going on—whether it was that she was so embarrassed by this bill. Then we heard Jill Pettis, whom John Tamihere has nicknamed “Paint Stripper” because of her voice—

Hon Member: What!

RODNEY HIDE: I know she knows. I have news for the Labour Government! John Tamihere is talking to the media again. It is going to be great. He is actually giving “on the record” interviews again about his colleagues and repeating everything, so there will be some fun in the weeks ahead. But we heard from Jill Pettis—

Jill Pettis: I think you are obsessed with me. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

RODNEY HIDE: I am not sure I can go on. Could I take a minute to recover?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, you can. I have not taken it off your time.

RODNEY HIDE: That is a shocking, shocking thing to say. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take deep offence at the comment that Jill Pettis made. I consider it to be an insult and offensive, and I ask that you ask her to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Sorry, Mr Hide. At what point did she make that comment?

RODNEY HIDE: The thought that I could be obsessed by her.

Opposition Members: Obsessed with her.

RODNEY HIDE: Oh, the thought that I could be obsessed with her! That is deeply insulting and offensive, and I take offence.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): You have taken offence?

RODNEY HIDE: Yes. I have a reputation to protect.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member has been offended by what Jill Pettis said. I ask her to withdraw.

Jill Pettis: All right, I apologise.

RODNEY HIDE: God knows, there are girls in Parnell who could be listening!

What we have heard from this Government tonight absolutely backs up what John Tamihere has been telling us and telling the nation. Mr Gordon Copeland got up and said that he does not like this legislation but will vote for it because he hopes that if he does vote for it, Dr Cullen will lift the tax-free threshold for charitable donations. That is what I understand Mr Copeland to be saying—that he would vote and hope.

Then we heard from the Minister in charge of the bill, Judith Tizard. She got up, mumbled away into the Prime Minister’s handbag, and said that the reason for this bill is so that the Government can collect information about the charitable sector. That is very interesting. What is the Government going to do with this information? [Interruption] She went on to explain, I say to Mr Copeland, that it is to figure out how much it would cost if it lifted the threshold for tax-free donations. She is nodding her head—that is exactly what she was saying. Gordon Copeland is voting for this legislation in the hope that the Government will gather up information, figure out what lifting the tax-free threshold will cost, and Michael Cullen will then reward the charitable sector with some extra tax perks. That is the basis for Gordon Copeland’s vote. It is a case of vote and hope—let us collect the data and hope. I think Mr Copeland has been duped. [] He says there is nothing wrong with being duped. Well, he may think that, but I think there is a problem with being duped.

Hon Rick Barker: That member would know about duping people.

RODNEY HIDE: Is that not great! Here is the Labour Party talking about my duping people. This is coming from a party that has Steven Ching at No. 42 on its list. Talk about being duped!

Hon Judith Tizard: Where was Donna Awatere Huata on your list?

RODNEY HIDE: She is gone—that is where Donna Awatere Huata is on our list. After the Labour Government gave her $2 million, we got rid of her. Where is Steven Ching? He is coming in, and he is a man who lies to people—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

RODNEY HIDE: —and obstructs justice.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

RODNEY HIDE: What is that, Mr Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Was the member referring to a member in the House?

RODNEY HIDE: No—Mr Ching. He lies.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): All right, but can I, in that case, explain—

RODNEY HIDE: He is a total liar and a total crook.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask Mr Hide to make some reference to the bill.

RODNEY HIDE: Yes—we are talking about being duped.

Hon Paul Swain: Let’s talk about Fiji.

RODNEY HIDE: Do we not just love Mr Swain! He wants to talk about Fiji. Labour’s line is this: “Let’s talk about Fiji, but when it comes to John Tamihere, we want to put a line under it and move on!”. Mr Steve Maharey says that he did not get an apology or a retraction. John Tamihere called Steve Maharey “smarmy”, and he hates that. He considers John Tamihere to be a liar, and now he says he just wants to put a line under it and move on. That is what Mr Maharey, No. 3 on the list, says.

I can understand the concern that those in the charitable sector have. They are saying that if someone comes into one of their organisations and he is a crook, that person can actually get the whole charity deregistered. I want to explain to the Labour Party how easy it is to get members who are crooks coming into a charitable organisations. The Labour Party should know, should it not? Labour has Steven Ching at No. 42, and I can tell the Labour Party members that they will learn a lot more this Sunday about their No. 42, Mr Steven Ching, the man who was selling seats to sit beside Helen Clark for thousands of dollars.

Judith Collins: They want their money back!

RODNEY HIDE: Yes. Then there was the matter of obstructing justice. Did the Labour Party know about that? Did Labour members know about the fact that John Tamihere had pleaded guilty in the High Court to two counts of forgery and two counts of uttering?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): We are debating the Charities Bill.

RODNEY HIDE: Yes, and what we are talking about—and it is right on; this is a third reading speech—is wrongful behaviour. I am just saying how easy it is for a charity to get someone on board who is less than savoury. I ask members to look at the Labour Party. It has got itself stuck with John Tamihere, and it has got itself stuck with Mr Steven Ching, who is No. 42 on its list. If that is what can happen in the Labour Party, we can imagine what can happen to, for example, the New Zealand Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society. It could happen there, and that society could end up being deregistered. I think Mr Maharey knew all along what Mr Tamihere was like. He nods his head. He knows exactly what Mr Tamihere is like.

We have a bill here that affects the charitable sector—37,000 charities. It is true that about 500 of them were set up by Mr Tamihere. But 37,000 charities are going to come under this regime with seven appointments from the Labour Party to set up the commission, and a team of bureaucrats to run around and monitor, inspect, and collate information. Those members talk about putting $9.8 million into it. That will actually be a drop in the bucket compared with what it will eventually cost.

Let us think of any one of those charities and what it could do with $9.8 million! Let us think about the good works that could be done with $9.8 million! It will, though, all go just on bureaucracy. That $9.8 million will be spent on making more work for the charitable sector. That is what will happen.

Hon Steve Maharey: What?

RODNEY HIDE: Steve Maharey yells out “What?”. I know that Mr Steve Maharey can talk for 2 hours and if one takes a page of notes, all it is is clichés and hackneyed policy words, but there is no substance. We know that because his former Associate Minister John Tamihere told us. He summed up Mr Maharey rather well—I thought it was perfect. He said he was smarmy. Do members notice how smarmy his interjections are? [Interruption] Oh, he wants to be slimy rather than smarmy. Maybe he is slimy and not smarmy. I do not really know, but I know that what Mr Tamihere had to say was not very nice—and it was the truth. I say to Government members that they should listen to John Tamihere a bit more. They should not just go around liking him because he gives 150 percent. They should not just go around saying: “When he’s good he’s really good, but he has the odd stumble.” They should listen to what Mr Tamihere is saying. He is telling Labour members that they are out of touch.

Jill Pettis: Oh, he’s scoring another 2 percent.

RODNEY HIDE: That is “Paint Stripper”—Jill Pettis from Whanganui. That is what Mr Tamihere has gone around the gallery and said tonight.

Hon Mark Burton: Oh, that’s original.

RODNEY HIDE: Mark Burton confirms that he has heard it before.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

RODNEY HIDE: It has been going around for years, according to Mr Mark Burton. Labour members should listen to what Mr Tamihere is saying.

They should think about the charitable sector, which is there to look after families, which this Government knows nothing about. They should listen to families and to hard-working New Zealanders. My goodness! As my colleague Sue Bradford said, Labour should just listen to the charitable sector. But, oh no, Labour members are sitting around supping their lattes, talking parlez-vous, and not listening—just plotting.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I am pleased that the Charities Bill will receive its third reading this evening and become the law of the land. Let me say just for the record that the Social Services Committee, which I was on—it sounds like it was a different one from the one Sue Bradford or Judith Collins was on—actually heard 743 submissions from organisations that collectively would have represented thousands of New Zealand charities, and virtually all of those submissions said that they felt the time had arrived for the establishment of a charities commission. So the concept of a charities commission has the overwhelming support of the charitable sector.

I thought that in this third reading debate it would be worth just pausing for a moment to think about the wonderful benefit that not only our nation but the world derives from charities, and I want to refer to the tsunami in east Asia, which has occurred since the first reading of this bill. It is almost inconceivable to think of how the world would have responded to that disaster without the assistance of charities. We think immediately of organisations such as the New Zealand Red Cross Society, Unicef, World Vision, Christian World Service, Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand, and The Evangelical Alliance Relief Fund, or “Tear Fund”, for short.

Here were charities that within hours of that disaster were responding not only by asking Kiwis to help—and Kiwis are very, very generous—but also by getting people on the ground to deliver goods and services, medical care, comfort, and so on to the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives will never be the same again after that enormous event.

Kiwis are generous people. There would be many people who, in response to that tragic disaster, would have given over and beyond their regular giving to charities, yet under the present law they get a measly tax rebate on doing so of just $630 per annum, and that needs to change. Governments should encourage greater giving through higher rebate levels. We need to remember that for each extra 33c given up by the Government, the charity receives an extra $1. If, for example, the Government gives up $20 million, it will be because Kiwis have given of their own free will an extra $60 million to charities.

The fact is that such giving is an efficient and effective investment in the social development of those countries that are its recipients. If given to developing countries it has the potential to transform the lives of others, particularly in those countries that are desperately poor. I have only to mention, for example, the Fred Hollows Foundation, or mercy ships, and immediately images come to mind of the medical miracles that result for people who were blind, or near blind, who can see again, and the deformed and crippled children, often outcast by society, whose lives are transformed with life-changing and lifelong positive consequences.

Again I ask the Government to take note. It now has the Charities Commission; it is up to it now to improve the tax rebates and concessions that it gives to encourage Kiwis in their natural propensity towards generosity.

Charities are also looking for the refundability of imputation credits. On introduction, the original purpose of imputation credits was that the final tax paid would be equal to the marginal tax rate of the recipient shareholder. Well, the marginal tax rate of those charities that have shares in New Zealand companies is zero. So why do they pay 33c in the dollar as a final and non-recoverable tax because they cannot claim back their imputation credits? It is wrong and it is blatantly unfair, especially when non-resident companies—that is, commercial organisations, not charities—can now get an imputation tax refund.

Additionally, so long as charities can receive interest income without tax deduction—and there is no suggestion that that would change in any way, as is right and proper—they should also, of course, not be paying imputation tax on company dividends at 33c in the dollar, because that fundamentally distorts investment patterns by charities, so that decisions become tax-driven rather than market-driven, something that directly contradicts not only common sense but the policy advice given to the Government by Treasury. Charities will also want to see that fixed in this year’s Budget.

In conclusion, the passage of this bill is a landmark in the evolution of the New Zealand charitable sector. It is a sector that has served this country well, since the foundation of our nation. My hope is that it will continue to flourish in the years ahead, that there will be an increasing appreciation by New Zealanders of the valuable work that it does, and that the Government will do its bit to encourage that to happen.