Charities Bill

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

OK, but that example—

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

But what happens to the trust itself—

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

—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? [Interruption] 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.

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!

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.

Oh, not necessarily! Well, why not?

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

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

💬 Gordon Copeland: It could be.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.