Crown Entities Reform Bill

I would like to speak to clause 1 and 2 of the Crown Entities Reform Bill. I think this is probably the appropriate time also to speak to my amendment, which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32, dated yesterday. To make it clear, the effect of the amendment is to delay the commencement of Part 3 by 3 years in order to give the opportunity to the Government to fulfil its commitment to have the review of the Charities Act and, in particular, the Charities Commission before the Charities Commission is disestablished.

I think members on this side of the Chamber are of the view that it is better not to review things after they have been disestablished. It is better to review them to see whether they are working, to see whether they have come up to speed, and to see whether there can be changes made to them in order for them to work properly. And it is better to do that before the disestablishment rather than doing the disestablishment and reviewing something that then does not exist any more. It seems to be relatively pointless to do a review of an already disestablished organisation. Therefore the effect of this amendment is to delay the commencement of Part 3 so it does not come into force until the day 3 years after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent. That is working on the possibility, the likelihood, that this bill gets a third reading, and gets a Royal assent at some stage in June. That amendment runs the Charities Commission through the period of the review, and that then is the point at which you go forward.

There was a debate on our side as to whether in fact we should move an amendment as far as Part 2 of the bill is concerned. I know that there are some strongly held views around the Chamber. I heard the member Kevin Hague speaking eloquently on Part 2 of the bill earlier, and I invite him or any of his colleagues, if they want to amend my amendment, to include a delay for Part 2 as well in order to keep the Mental Health Commission and its work going for a period. It might well be a good idea for them to get an amendment drafted up and copied off, with 10 photocopies put on the Table of the House so members can, in their debate, consider it. Then there would be the ability to consider that question.

I think we have come to the point where there is acceptance in the Committee around Part 1, and therefore it is logical to have it coming into force at the beginning of the financial year. I am one of those people who still sometimes think, for the purposes of legislation, of the old financial year, which used to finish on 31 March back in the old days; 1 April was a new financial year. I know for a number of companies that is the case, but as far as Government departments are concerned and Government budgets are concerned, the financial years are 1 July to 30 June. Therefore it is pretty hard to make a case for a change in the coming into force of the part of the bill that we accept should come into the Act.

I want to go to the explanatory note of my Supplementary Order Paper and the reasoning behind the delay. That is the agreement that was made between the Government and the charitable sector with the formation of the Charities Commission, and the agreement that it would be independent. That was fundamental to the agreement between the Crown and the sector made in 2005. Although I am not going to pretend that it is an agreement with the status of the Treaty of Waitangi, it is something that was a serious agreement with a very large sector, a sector that is very much voluntary, and where a lot of organisations and individuals have been involved. They go, I think, from the people who do the relatively small collections for the RSA with the poppies and other areas for the charitable funds to be raised by the RSA; there are people like the Foundation of the Blind. There are a number of collections. I mean, we do Plunket collections, and there a number of organisations that are either charitable in themselves, or have wings that have charitable status.

They were the ones that were involved in this treaty—this agreement—after a lot of discussion with the Government. I think it is unlikely, given the legislation that is around, that failure to abide by this agreement will result in anything that looks like a Treaty claim, although I think it is fair to say that with the activist Supreme Court that we have got, it is slightly unpredictable. I see the Attorney-General nodding; oh, he is going to sleep. Oh, I see. He should try to stay awake at 9 o’clock at night. But I think a number of us have seen some decisions from the Supreme Court that have been slightly unpredictable, and whether or not the Supreme Court would regard this as a matter for its review and its intervention, given the treaty arrangements that existed in 2005 and that are referred to in the explanatory note of this Supplementary Order Paper, which goes to the commencement date, is a moot question. It is a moot question, and I am not sure which way it would be likely to go.

Without referring back to the bits that have already been passed, there is a requirement to consult with charitable entities. The board that is set up and the chief executive both of the board and the department have to have a consultation with the entities that are within the sector. My question is what consultation has occurred with them to date in advance of the passing of this bill—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: None. They had a month.

Sorry?

💬 Denis O’Rourke: They had a month.

No, no, I know they had—it was actually a little bit of a mess, because of the way, I understand, the legislation was brought in before the election. No one understood the requirement to make submissions before the election, and subsequent to that there was not a calling for submissions again, and there was confusion. But, sorry, to the member, that was not the point that I was making, because that would be outside this particular clause.

The proposed amendment goes to the delay, and the question is whether, if this amendment is passed, the Minister would make a commitment to do that consultation with the sector at that point. You know, that is an opportunity to have the consultation and to do what we expect would be done in order to make this legislation work properly. My view is that there is a real possibility that the Government does not like this particular provision because it would require it to have a period of 3 years, and it is slightly unpredictable what might happen in those 3 years. It might consider it slightly untidy, but I just want to say to the Minister of State Services that every now and again there is tidiness and there are principles. It would be good for the Minister to accept the principle of consultation with this sector before precipitating this sort of change—this very serious change, because this is the abolition of a commission. Albeit I do accept that it is going to be replaced by a board, and there is a certain amount of “What’s in a title?”, but there is certainly an indication of autonomy. There is a different—

I think Supplementary Order Paper 32 is a very disappointing one, really. This is the sort of thing that in the public mind brings Parliament into disrepute. It certainly does nothing to enhance the reputation of the member who has tabled this, because, basically, we have had this debate already on Part 3 of the Crown Entities Reform Bill. It passed, and Labour has lost the debate. Effectively, what Trevor Mallard is trying to do is relitigate this by delaying it for 3 years. It is a complete waste of—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you are aware—and I know that it is a relatively junior Minister in the chair, but he should be aware—that one must not refer to previous debates once that part has been decided. His entire call so far has been an attack on me, related to the previous part, which has already been decided.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member, and I appreciate the point that he has made. As to the second point, there is always a bit of leeway when a Minister has the reply. But I would caution the Minister to keep to the debate.

Well, the point is that this is a wide-ranging debate on the commencement date. The fact is that the Committee has made its will known quite clearly, and I do not think there is any point spending any further time on this. The will of the Committee has been declared pretty firmly.

Well, that was an ignorant call from the Minister of State Services, because if he understood Parliament’s Standing Orders, and if he understood how the Committee stage of a bill actually worked, he would know that it is possible to amend the commencement date only whilst the Committee is debating the title and commencement of the bill. He would also know, if he had been paying attention earlier on in the night, that Denise Roche attempted to debate Supplementary Order Paper 32 during Part 3, and in fact the Chairperson at the time—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: And they took a point of order.

Yes, the National Party took a point of order in order to close down that debate, and the Chairperson at the time supported that point of order, and informed the Committee—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am really reluctant to do this to my colleague, but he is doing what the Minister did. He is now referring to points of order that were ruled on as part of a previous debate. This is actually quite a broad amendment, but what he is saying is not part of it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his help, and I remind the member, of course, that the Chair is the sole judge of relevancy. I have been listening to the member Iain Lees-Galloway, and I would ask him to reflect on what he has said, and to bring it to the debate as it is supposed to be: on these clauses, and on Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 32.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Sorry, I was not asking you to rule on a question of relevancy. I was asking you to rule on a question of whether this was within the scope, rather than relevant. There are numerous rulings from Speakers that indicate that it is not in order to refer to a previous ruling from a Speaker, or in this case—[Interruption] Sorry?

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: In the same debate.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In the same debate. These are different clauses. It was a previous part; it has been ruled on. But whether or not it was a previous part, what the member has been doing—and, I mean, he is one of my colleagues, and no doubt I am going to have to shout him afterwards for making this point. But the point is that he is not allowed to refer to a matter that has been raised—and he is absolutely right: it was raised, and it was ruled on, and ruled on in favour of the National Party. He is not allowed to raise it now.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. He is right, of course, but can I also remind him that points of order are short, terse, and to the point, and not a debate. He certainly should not shout. The member will come to order and debate these clauses in the way in which they should be debated.

Very good. Well, thank you very much, Mr Chairperson, and can I say thank you very much to my honourable colleague Trevor Mallard. It is always helpful to get advice from the more elderly members of the caucus, and I will take that advice—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am not as old as the member you are sitting next to!

I could not comment about that, but I will take that advice and I will attempt—I am not as old as that member, either—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! We have had our fun.

I will attempt to bring the debate back to the title and commencement of the Crown Entities Reform Bill and, indeed, the amendment proposed by my colleague Trevor Mallard. As has been said a number of times during the debate, this bill has three parts that are each quite different in terms of their outcome. Superficially they look similar, but the three parts are, in fact, quite different. I think for that reason there is a very good case to be made for having three separate commencement dates for each of the parts.

As has been discussed, Part 1 has received broad support from the Committee, and it does make sense, given that it is a change that is supported and for which the sector and the organisations involved are prepared, for that part to come in, as is stated in the current clause 2 of the bill, on 1 July 2012. That, I think, is something that no member of the House would have any reason to disagree with.

Part 2, of course, if quite different. Part 2 actually brings forward the date for the disestablishment of the Mental Health Commission. The reasons for not wanting to do that have been well canvassed. To support the arguments made against doing that, a sensible and logical move would be for the commencement date for Part 2 to be 31 August 2015, which is the current date for the disestablishment of the Mental Health Commission. Having said that, I agree again with the Hon Trevor Mallard that having dates for the commencement or disestablishment of Crown entities that are not at the beginning of the financial year is a little untidy. So I think most members would probably see—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mine should have actually been 1 July 2015, rather than the 3 years—I apologise to the Committee.

Well, I am sure the Committee would appreciate that apology. I would agree that I think a sensible commencement date for Part 2 would, in fact, be 1 July 2015.

That would give an opportunity for the second blueprint, which is about to be published by the Mental Health Commission, to be given a 3-year period of bedding in. You never know. From the way the blueprint is finally drafted, it may be determined by Parliament that that commencement date of 1 July 2015 would no longer be relevant. We may want to push it out, or we may not want to disestablish the Mental Health Commission, at all. Again, this is a case where we have an important document—a guiding document—for the sector that has not yet been published, yet we are determining the structure for the organisations that are guided by that document. Indeed, the commencement date of the change that is included in this bill has been established before the final version, the public version, of the second blueprint is actually available. So it is somewhat similar to our concerns around Part 3, where, again, the Government has put the cart somewhat before the horse. So a very, very sensible amendment could be to have the commencement of Part 2 on 1 July 2015.

That brings me to the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. It would amend the bill so that Part 3 comes into force on the day 3 years after the date on which this legislation receives the Royal assent. Trevor Mallard is again quite right, in that the logical date for that to achieve the same thing would be 1 July 2015. That would give the Government an opportunity to make good on its promise to the sector—not that this Government is particularly good at keeping its promises—to review the role of the Charities Commission, the Charities Act itself, and the charitable sector as a whole. The Government has said it intends not to carry out that review until 2015, which, again, is somewhat inconsistent. There is a great rush to bring this legislation in and for this legislation to receive the Royal assent, yet the Government sees so little importance in reviewing the sector that that review, it says, will be put off until 2015.

But this amendment in my colleague’s name would offer a period of grace, under which the Government could actually bring that review forward. It could have that review. It could figure out what the right structure is, then, if it still believes that bringing the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs is the right thing to do, it would be able to do that in 2015. That seems, I think, to most sensible people to be the logical approach. I will certainly—and I know members on this side of the House will—be supporting that amendment.

We are also debating the title of this bill. The title is the Crown Entities Reform Bill. That word “reform” often strikes fear into the hearts of those organisations that are going to be—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: A predecessor of the National Party, the Reform Party.

Yes, ha, ha! It is such an innocuous word, but it is so often loaded. The organisations that are affected by this bill—you cannot actually tell what reform means. Will it be a positive? Will it be a negative reform? Really, for this Government, reform is a euphemism for cuts or a euphemism for a transfer of responsibility from the Government on to those organisations—in this case, on to the charitable sector.

But there are some other possible titles for this bill: the “Change for the Sake of Change Bill” would be quite a good title for this bill. As the Minister has said, he anticipates that nothing will change in their day-to-day operations for the organisations affected by this bill, so you have to ask what the point is of enacting this legislation.

Another name for it might be the “Public Sector (Mergers and Acquisitions) Bill”, given that it is entirely focused on merging different Government organisations, regardless of whether the outcome of that merger is sensible, whether it is good for the sector, and in the case of the Mental Health Commission whether it is good for the organisations working in the mental health field or, indeed, for the consumers of mental health services. It is just an example of this Government’s fixation on the merger of different Government organisations. We saw Steven Joyce in the Chamber for a little while earlier on. I wondered whether maybe he had come down to take control of this bill and these organisations, as well.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Why didn’t he do the Budget?

Well, that is right. I am sure Steven Joyce will be all over tomorrow’s Budget. Steven Joyce is perhaps not so involved with these mergers and acquisitions, although he does seems to be the maestro behind most of the other mergers and acquisitions of the Government sector.

The “Consultant Pay Enhancement Bill” might be another name for this piece of legislation. We will be seeing the need for the Government to contract more consultants to assist it with this merger process, and that, of course, will result in more costs. So there are plenty of possible different titles for this bill.

Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Chris Hipkins.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: So does his mother.

Yes, that is right. I am happy to take a brief call on the title and commencement clauses of the Crown Entities Reform Bill. I will begin with the title, because that is what generally comes first. Actually, I think the name of the bill, the Crown Entities Reform Bill, is misleading, because it suggests a wider reform agenda for Crown entities in total. Actually, a more accurate title would be the “Crown Entities (Selected Entities) Reform Bill”, because it does not actually reform that many Crown entities, and it is not actually that wide-ranging as a reform agenda.

There are a huge number of Crown entities—district health boards, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—and if the Government had some kind of coherent plan for what it wanted to do with the Crown entities, then this would be an adequate name for the bill, but it does not have an adequate plan. Just to give an example, this bill moves the Charities Commission into a Government department, into the Department of Internal Affairs, which is something that we have debated about quite a lot this evening. If that is going to be the Government’s overall agenda for Crown entities, will we see the New Zealand Qualifications Authority merged into the Ministry of Education? Will we see—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Good idea.

Trevor Mallard, a former Minister of Education, thinks that it is a good idea. Will we see the Tertiary Education Commission—I think that would be a Crown entity—merged into the Ministry of Education? Will we see the district health boards merged into the Ministry of Health? These are questions—

💬 Hon Annette King: That’s not a good idea.

That is not a good idea. If this bill genuinely was a Crown Entities Reform Bill, it would actually have a coherent—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s sort of a “Crown Entities Minor Tinkering Bill”.

That is right: “Crown Entities Minor Tinkering Bill”, I think, would be a more accurate description for this piece of legislation, because it does not actually present a coherent plan for what the Government is trying to do in State sector reform in so far as it relates to Crown entities.

To move on to the commencement of this particular piece of legislation, it comes into force at the moment—all of this, from what I understand—on 1 July 2012. Can I congratulate the Government on at least being clear about the date of the commencement for this piece of legislation. Quite often there is uncertainty around when a bill comes into force, because it says it comes into force on the day after which it receives the Royal assent. There can be any number of variables that can impact on that, so quite often in legislation that we debate in the House there is no certainty around that, because, in fact, there are factors that can prevent a bill receiving the Royal assent. For example, there is technically a reserve power for the Governor-General to refuse to sign a piece of legislation, and so, therefore, when a commencement clause says that it is the day after which it receives the Royal assent, that technically could be quite some time.

In New Zealand we are relatively fortunate. The Governor-General will typically sign all legislation without too many issues. But take, for example, the Belgian Parliament, where the King refused to sign a piece of legislation because the King disagreed with it. This was one of those bills that would come into force the day after which it received the Royal assent, but the King refused to sign it. So the Government in Belgium effectively removed the King from office for a day, in order to enact the legislation—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What was the legislation about?

—and then restored him. It was a moral issue; it might have been legalisation of prostitution or something like that. It was something that was a conscience issue, and so the Parliament in Belgium basically said: “Well, if the King won’t sign it, we’ll remove the King for a period of time in order to give the Prime Minister the power to enact the legislation.” That is what happens in Belgium, and that is what it did. The bill then received the assent—what would have been the Royal assent, but the King had refused to sign it—and therefore it became law. But because—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But you know what we do in New Zealand in those cases?

What is that?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: We send the Gov offshore and get the Chief Justice to sign it.

That is right. In New Zealand, as Trevor Mallard has just pointed out, if that situation were to occur and the Governor-General was uncomfortable or refused to sign something, the Governor-General could be sent out of the country and then the Chief Justice could sign the law. So that would be the New Zealand equivalent of the bill receiving the Royal assent to what I was just talking about with regard to what happened in Belgium. But in this bill—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Did you know that I’ve been in the Executive Council in the past?

Well, that is a very concerning thought. That is a very concerning thought. But in this bill there is no ambiguity at the moment as to the date on which this bill will come into force, based on the current wording of it—it is 1 July 2012. However, the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by my colleague Trevor Mallard would change that. It would say that instead of the bill coming into effect in its totality on 1 July 2012, Part 3 would come “into force on the day 3 years after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.”

Actually, I think Trevor Mallard made a mistake. I actually think he should have been specific in the date that he wanted it to come into force, rather than this whole concept of 3 years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, because, as I just outlined, that can be very uncertain. There can be confusion and there can be complications, whereas if a specific date is specified, there is a lot more certainty. So I actually think Trevor Mallard probably should have said “1 July 2015”. That would have avoided any ambiguity.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Why didn’t you say so at caucus?

That is right. I am normally hanging off every word that Trevor Mallard says at caucus, but in this particular instance I have to confess that it slipped past my usually very accurate radar.

Trevor Mallard has suggested that Part 3 should come into force 3 years after the rest of the Act—with all of the things that I have just said about how it might not be exactly 3 years, but more or less 3 years after the rest of the bill comes into force. That is because we in the Labour Party believe that the Charities Commission, which is a relatively new entity, has not been in existence for particularly long, and should not be disestablished until a proper process has been gone through with the charitable sector, which has bought in to having the Charities Commission through a pretty collaborative and consultative process. This Government is simply doing away with it because National knows best—or National thinks it knows best.

Actually, in the charitable sector, I think it is important that the sector is involved, that it gets a chance to have its say, and that it gets a chance to feel some ownership of whatever decision is taking place or is finally made. I think that delaying this Part 3 of the bill by 3 years in order to allow the charitable sector to get involved in that, to have a proper review, to allow the Charities Commission to actually prove what it is capable of doing, and to preserve that independence of the Charities Commission in the meantime, is really quite important. That is why a delay of 3 years seems eminently sensible. It would allow a proper review process to take place. It would allow the Government to finally work out what its agenda for Crown entities is, to come up with a slightly more coherent plan for State sector reform around what it is trying to do with Crown entities, and to resolve the issues of whether all of the Crown entities now are going to be put up for review and treated in the same way as the Charities Commission—merged into Government departments, where Ministers can fiddle around and play with them.

We know that some of the Ministers fiddle around and play with things even more. Can we imagine, for example, if Murray McCully was made the Minister of Internal Affairs? Murray McCully would be in there, boots and all, telling the Charities Commission part of the Department of Internal Affairs exactly what it should be doing. The independence would be totally compromised, and therefore the buy-in and the support from the sector and from the public would be quite badly compromised. I think that preserving the independence of the Charities Commission is quite an important thing. It is something we in the Labour Party are strongly in favour of. I doubt that the Department of Internal Affairs will be able to manage this as well as the Charities Commission can manage it at the moment.

It is time to take a breath. It is time to actually go back and have a proper review, rather than just the approach of “National knows best. We’re going to do whatever we like.” It is time to review it properly and have a collaborative process with the sector, where the sector will get to have its say. Then, once that is done, I imagine we will be getting up towards the 3-year time frame that Mr Mallard has specified in his Supplementary Order Paper, and that would be a good time for Parliament to revisit the issue. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 32. I am very keen to see this Supplementary Order Paper go through and to see this amendment take place to the Crown Entities Reform Bill. I am not going to get into any discussion about what the name of the bill should be, because I have not really given it much consideration. My mind has really been focused on the Charities Commission and how the Supplementary Order Paper would assist the community and voluntary sector to come to terms with what the Government’s desire is—to see it shift into the Department of Internal Affairs.

When the Charities Commission was first introduced under the Charities Act, I think about 5 or 6 years ago, there was quite a bit of resistance, I have to say, in the community and voluntary sector, and a bit of distrust as well. It took the sector some time to understand the merit and the worth of the commission that was set up. The role of the commission was very widely debated, and it took some time for community and voluntary organisations to get themselves into a position where they registered with the commission. But over time the reputation of the commission has really settled in and it has proven its worth to the sector. What has happened is that more and more charities and community organisations have registered—I think currently 28,000 have done so—and that has meant that a monitoring and compliance regime has been set up. It took time, it took quite a bit of time, for the sector to bed in these changes. This Supplementary Order Paper is asking for time for this sector to come to terms with the changes that the Government wants to push through.

I also support this Supplementary Order Paper, this amendment, because it is an elegant solution to those feelings that are felt very deeply in the community and voluntary sector—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Thank you.

You are welcome, Trevor.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Sorry.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): What you must do is you must use the member’s full name or his title.

Sorry. Mr Trevor Mallard, the Hon Trevor Mallard. I have lost my train of thought; sorry about that.

The reason why it is quite a big issue and an important issue to defer these changes for 3 years is not only about allowing time for transition but also allowing time for reviews. It does not strike me as terribly cost-effective—or even sane, quite frankly—to hold a review of the Charities Act after you have changed it, after you have changed what happened and what was intended through the Charities Act when it was first set up and when the Charities Commission was set up. So it does not strike me as a very good idea to have reviews after you have changed what is supposed to be reviewed.

There are two reviews that are supposed to happen. One is of the Incorporated Societies Act, which is currently up for review, and the other is of the Charities Act, which is the legislation that set up the Charities Commission in the first place and set up the roles of the Charities Commission. They need to be reviewed as well in 2015. But because of the review of the Incorporated Societies Act, there is already a bit of discussion about what the terms of reference will be.

The community and voluntary sector is hoping those terms of reference and that review will also incorporate future needs, what the sector will require in the future. So if we stop now and say, right, we are going to change everything and put it into the Department of Internal Affairs, what that does is it says that we are not going to look at the future at this time. It is a clear signal to the charities sector, to the community and voluntary sector, that there is a lack of caring about their future needs for building the capacity of their sector.

In these times of austerity, as well—and we have got the zero Budget coming up tomorrow—we are also looking, and a responsible Government will be looking, at making savings. We know that there are no cost savings associated with transferring the Charities Commission to live within, with a different board arrangement, the Department of Internal Affairs, and that has been fairly well canvassed and it is fairly widely known. There are, however, costs associated with that. If we are looking at responsible Government, if we are looking at good financial governance, then we should be looking at making changes that actually have an impact, that do make savings, that are more effective, and that do make the community and voluntary sector act more effectively, as well.

There is also concern about the independence of the Charities Commission once it is submerged into the Department of Internal Affairs. Whether or not that happens—and from where I sit, that is certainly one of the concerns that is being voiced and it is also one of the fears that I have—we are, however, hearing from members on the Government side that they believe that it will not happen, and we are hearing that they think there are measures in place to prevent it. But perception is everything, and once you start to interfere with the independence of an organisation like this you do start to make it less effective.

So leaving aside these changes for 3 years means there are ways that we can test whether that would actually happen. There is time to test different models for the Charities Commission to see whether they would in fact work and whether they would meet the needs of the charities and the community and voluntary sector.

I guess I will finish up by just saying that the Greens will be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper because we think that this is what is in the best interests of the community and voluntary sector. We think this will deliver better and more transparent compliance and monitoring within the charities and the community and voluntary sector. We would really ask for the support of the members over there for this Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I am not going to accept that.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. Ten minutes? Wow, we will see. This is my first clause by clause kōrero and contribution. I have spoken on every part of the Crown Entities Reform Bill tonight, but I do want to focus on the title.

It seems appropriate that this bill is called the Crown Entities Reform Bill 2011 but when I look at the definition of “reform”, it is quite interesting. I like looking at dictionaries, actually. “Reform” means make changes in order to improve something. The synonyms are amend, mend, improve, reclaim. It is about reformation, amendment, and improvement. I think all of us tonight have been interested, particularly in relation to Part 3, in the evidence for the reform that we are seeing in this bill. We would say that what dictates using that word “reform” is having the actual evidence for, in this instance, merging the Charities Commission with the Department of Internal Affairs. What we do not see in this bill is any evidence or rationale for why we should do that.

From our perspective, we think the first-principles review that is currently scheduled in the Charities Act would have provided that evidence, and it would have also enabled input from the sector—that is, the community and voluntary sector, the not-for-profit sector, and the charity sector—which incorporates 93,000 entities. We have over 25,000 registered charities in New Zealand. So, in fact, what this title says is actually quite contradictory because the reform that we will see, particularly in Part 3, has no evidence for it and has had no input from the charity sector. It is actually incumbent on us as the Opposition to make sure that the voices of the community and voluntary sector who have come to us, who came to the select committee, are heard. Of the 43 submissions we received, 20 were specifically about Part 3, and 19 of those submissions were opposed.

I can now possibly go on to the commencement. We would, obviously, advocate support for my colleague Trevor Mallard’s bill, which wants to let due process—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: SOP.

—his Supplementary Order Paper, his amendment—take its course. We want to see the Charities Act go through the review that is scheduled, that is part of the Act that was created, after 10 years of engagement with the sector. It just seems so ridiculous that this Government does not think that that process and that history, particularly—[Interruption] What are you saying “Come on.” for, Sam?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

These are our community organisations that are spread right around the country that provide services and support, and are working at the coalface with the communities, families, and children whom we all serve. I am in an electorate where I have numerous community and voluntary sector organisations that are trying to meet the needs of our community. So, you know, we take seriously the fact that our community and voluntary sector has actively engaged in lobbying me, lobbying Denise, lobbying Denis, and lobbying many of us who care about the community and voluntary sector to be their voices and to speak for them in this House, because they are being ignored. The Government side of the House does not care about the community and the stakeholders specifically in relation to the merger of the Charities Commission with the Department of Internal Affairs. All we are saying is “Why do you not let due process happen? Let the first-principles review happen. Take the sector with you. Don’t leave it behind.” You know, I find it incredible that the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector has not advocated for the people she is there to serve. So it is incumbent on me as Labour’s spokesperson on the community and voluntary sector, on Denise as her—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I did not pull the member up the first time, but you have actually used—

—on Denise Roche, who is the Green Party spokesperson on the community and voluntary sector, and on Denis O’Rourke, who is the New Zealand First spokesperson on internal affairs. We have attempted—

I call the honourable member Kanwaljit Bakshi. Sat sri akaal.

Sat sri akaal. I move that the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. As many as are that of that opinion will please say Aye—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That motion has to be put without any preface. That member prefaced it with something before he put it. Therefore it is invalid.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Actually, it is my fault, but the member is absolutely right. The member can only say: “I move that the question be now put.” He cannot respond to the greeting I gave him. I made the mistake, but I cannot accept the motion, and therefore I have to go to the other side of the Chamber.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I replied to your greeting. I did not do anything else. If you had not asked for a greeting I would not have done it.

I understand that, and I accept responsibility—my mistake. However, having said that, I have to decline the motion, and I seek a call.

I am very happy to take another call on the title and commencement of the Crown Entities Reform Bill. I have to say, I am somewhat surprised to be taking another call, but I am very happy to help the Committee out at this particular time. I did not get the opportunity to complete all of what I was intending to say earlier on, which will come to me in a minute. I tell you what, I will talk a little bit more about commencement. This was something that I began to talk on. I just sort of glossed over the issue of the Royal assent earlier on and of what the Royal assent might actually mean.

I am referring particularly to my colleague Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 32 to amend clause 2, “Commencement”. In the first part he talks about “Part 3 comes into force on the day 3 years after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.” There are many, many things that can complicate when that might actually be. As I have described before, in New Zealand’s constitution there is no absolute requirement for the Governor-General to sign a piece of legislation that this Parliament has passed. It is convention that the Governor-General will sign legislation on the recommendation of—Trevor Mallard will help me here—normally the Prime Minister, who would be the chair of the Executive Council.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no.

No?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The Governor-General chairs it.

Oh, the Governor-General chairs the Executive Council.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But a Minister—any Minister; normally the Prime Minister or sometimes the Attorney-General—signs off the recommendation.

That is right. But the convention is that the Governor-General takes his or her advice from the Prime Minister, and if the Prime Minister was not there then it could be any Minister, could it not? Any member of the Executive Council—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Any Minister can act for any other Minister.

And any Minister can act for any other Minister.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I made the recommendation on the prostitution legislation.

Well, there is an interesting piece of history. Trevor Mallard made the recommendation to the Governor-General to sign the prostitution law reform piece of legislation. Basically, the Governor-General receives the recommendation, and the convention within our constitutional arrangements is that once Parliament, through the Ministers, has recommended that a piece of legislation be signed, the Governor-General will sign it, but he or she does not have to do that. The Governor-General has a reserve power to refuse to sign legislation that has been passed by the democratically elected Parliament.

That could be seen as a strength or a weakness in our constitutional arrangements. Some constitutionalists would argue that because we have a unicameral Parliament and we do not have an Upper House, we have a very simple legislative process, but actually having some check within our constitutional arrangements—i.e., the Governor-General having the power to refuse to sign legislation—is a useful thing. On the other hand, people could argue that the Governor-General has no mandate whatsoever. The Governor-General is not elected. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen, the head of State, normally on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. People could argue that the Governor-General does not have a mandate to be determining which legislation should or should not be signed and come into law, and that that, in fact, is the prerogative of the elected Parliament.

But our constitutional arrangements as they stand at the moment do give the Governor-General, the unelected effective de facto head of State—or the person acting on behalf of the head of State, who is also unelected—the prerogative to not sign laws. Therefore, the issue around the date on which a bill may receive the Royal assent can be a little ambiguous. If the Governor-General in New Zealand, for example, were to refuse to sign legislation, the Government could simply wait until the Governor-General is out of the country and could then go to the Chief Justice, who, if I am correct, is the Administrator of the Government in the absence of the Governor-General. The Government could get the Chief Justice to sign the legislation, and that would therefore trigger the legislation and bring the legislation into force.

So I think it would actually be cleaner for the legislation, and for Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper, if, in fact, Part 3 were to come into force on a specified date. I think 1 July 2015 might, in fact, be a more appropriate date than 3 days after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent, which at this point we do not know when that is going to be. If the debate on the Committee stage, for example, continues beyond more than another 7 or 8 minutes, the Committee stage will not be finished tonight. The House will then have to go back into Committee on a future date to reconsider this bill, and therefore, again, we are not entirely sure when the Government may finally move this up the priority list in order for it to be passed.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In the previous vote I was not clear about what the result was. Could you please say it again? I thought I had heard you say a different figure from what I added up.

The vote just taken was 61 to 58—

💬 Denise Roche: The one before that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The one before that was 64 to 55.

💬 Denise Roche: I don’t think that’s right.

If I may clarify for the member, the Māori Party is voting with the Government on procedural motions, which the motion to put the vote was, therefore they voted in favour of it, but opposed the part. That may clarify why it was different.

Thank you for the explanation.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to.

I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill, the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill, and the Charities Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order 30.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Chairman—

Is it a point of order?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no, this is a debatable motion.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): A debatable point, OK.

I am surprised that there might be any doubt about whether this should be debated. I will say to start with that I just want to accuse the Government of having a very short time span for what it wants to call legislation. I think it is not more than about 3 minutes ago that we had a vote where National members voted to call the Act the Crown Entities Reform Act 2011—I think that would have been changed to 2012—but now we discover they have changed their minds. They have changed their minds. They do not want to call it the Crown Entities Reform Act any more; they want to call it the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Act 2012, they want to call it the Mental Health Commission Amendment Act 2102, and they want to call it the—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Crown Entities Reform Bill, no progress on the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill, and no progress on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.