Charities Amendment Bill

It gives me pleasure to take a short call on the second reading of the Charities Amendment Bill, a bill that is equally as short as the contribution that I am going to make. I do remember 2005 when the Charities Bill was first brought to Parliament. I remember, I guess, a disquiet that occurred in our communities around what might or might not happen to our thousands of charities that operate in all sorts of sectors in our communities. I remember at the time the Department of Internal Affairs, I guess it would have been, put a lot of people out into the communities giving advice to those charities, charitable organisations, and the people concerned with them on how they might or might not comply with the legislation and what that legislation might mean for them. I think you would have to say that there has been very little negative impact from that legislation, so this amendment bill has been brought to Parliament to make some very simple changes, but quite important ones.

In an odd way, one of the clauses in this bill stops someone convicted of tax evasion, or someone who is, perhaps, not suitable to be operating a charity from being an officer in those charitable organisations—and that is, obviously, clearly very sensible. It also provides that an application for registration as a charitable entity can be treated as withdrawn if the applicant does not to respond to questions. That was an issue that certainly caused some challenges in the early days of the re-registration of thousands of charities throughout New Zealand, because many of the officers of those organisations struggled, frankly, with having to comply with stuff they had never had to comply with before. You can see why that has been brought to bear in this. Finally, it corrects a 2012 drafting error, something that does not happen very often in this House. So with that short contribution, I will sit down.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. I want to talk about four things. I want to talk about the community and voluntary sector charitable organisations. I want to talk about a couple of the submissions that were made to the Government Administration Committee. I was not on that select committee for this bill, but I have read through those submissions. I want to reference one of those submissions to another bill before this House, and I want to talk about clause 13, which has been struck out, altering section 61 of the principal Act.

Across our country, charitable organisations play a very important role in society. The community and voluntary sector is one that the Government should be supporting. We have noted and noticed from feedback from the community, from the voluntary sector, and from charitable organisations that they are feeling quite unsupported, really. I think, through this bill, there is a potential for them to feel even more unsupported, and I will get to that later.

I want to talk about submissions, and one in particular that has been made by Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust. This trust is a post-settlement governance entity for the settlement of the Ngāruahine iwi. Their bill is before the House right now, awaiting its third reading. I want to talk about this not only because it is in my electorate but also because I think the House needs to be reminded that participation by iwi post-settlement governance entities is a really important part of our democratic system. These are the organisations that have been mandated by their iwi to represent their people’s interests in Aotearoa. So they have a mandate, and I took particular note of their submission on this bill.

I want to talk further about their settlement, though, because within every single settlement—and I want to remind the House of this—the Crown acknowledges breaches of the Treaty, and then it goes on to apologise for those breaches. My point, related to this bill, is that when the Crown reaches an agreement with settlement groups—with iwi—it is really important that we do not go and pass legislation that impacts on them. What is the point of making an acknowledgment—what is the point of making an apology and then putting up some legislation that potentially hurts them? So that is why I am talking about this particular group and its ability now to engage at this level, even though its settlement has not yet gone through. I want to acknowledge all of the submitters, including this one.

I come to clause 13, which has been amended and, basically, taken out. It was to amend section 61 of the principal Act with a very small alteration, but the select committee, as I understand it, heard new information about the impact of making that change, so it was removed. Remembering that this bill originated from the Statutes Amendment Bill that is before Parliament, and that if only one member objects to any part of that Statutes Amendment Bill, then that cannot pass, so this part of that bill was separated out into its own bill. I want to make the point, in reference back to what I have already said, that it would not be appropriate, now that this change has been made by the select committee, for clause 13 to actually come back through a Supplementary Order Paper. That is my main point around all of this—I want to say to the House that that would be inappropriate, in my opinion.

This is a very short piece of legislation. There is not a lot in it, so those four points that I wanted to make—I wanted to acknowledge the charitable organisations and the work that they do in Aotearoa; I want to acknowledge those submissions, in particular the one from Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust; I want to reference it back to their legislation, to the acknowledgments of the breaches of the Treaty to them, and to the apology that they will receive through that legislation; and I object to any future inclusion of clause 13 of this bill. Nō reira, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā tātou.

I rise to take just a very short call on the Charities Amendment Bill in the second reading, and I acknowledge, as I do so, the ongoing leadership of Minister Goodhew in this particular field. As we have heard during the course of this debate, these are non-controversial amendments that will lead to greater transparency and confidence in respect of charity matters and management of the same.

In particular, I was pleased to see that clause 11 got the support that one would hope it would get through the submission process and the select committee deliberations, making it clear that if someone has been disqualified under section 143B of the Tax Administration Act, they cannot be an officer of a registered charity. I think everyone in this House and the wider public would see that as sensible.

Equally, clause 12, introducing the 20-working-days time frame for an entity to respond to notices to provide more information, seems very sound. I noted, in reflecting on select committee deliberations, that there was some concern around that being too tight, but I think the opportunity for a request for extension of time is a sensible way around that. So, as other speakers have said, this is a short bill. It is sensible, it is sound, it has been thoroughly tested, and I add my voice to those of the House in supporting it to the next stage.

Bill read a second time.