Charities Bill

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.

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.

I am sorry. I did not realise.

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

I withdraw. I am sorry; I did not realise.

💬 Katherine Rich: Caber tossers.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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—[Interruption] 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. [Interruption] The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.