Charities Amendment Bill

I draw it to the attention of the Committee that all of clauses 1 to 12A will be considered as one debate and voted upon separately.

I want to start my contribution by adding my voice to those across the Chamber to say that I have been just so impressed by how Kiwis have reached out to their fellow man over the course of the last few days. Our emergency services have done an extraordinary job. It has been very distressing, and I want to send particular aroha out to the families and children who will be wondering just what is in store for them. I am just sending my thoughts to everyone who has been impacted by the events of the last couple of days.

This Charities Amendment Bill came from a carve-out from a statutes amendment bill. I want to commend the work of the charitable sector and a couple of groups in particular—Hui E! Community Aotearoa, and Sue Barker from Charities Law—who actually saw within the Statutes Amendment Bill the four clauses that made up Part 3, I believe, that have now been carved out to become the Charities Amendment Bill. The reason that they saw this as being very important is that they wanted an opportunity for the community and voluntary sector to have a chance to submit on what they felt were some of the implications of Part 3 of the Statutes Amendment Bill. It is important to raise this because there were some real concerns raised by some of the submitters who did eventually submit to the Government Administration Committee, ably chaired by my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson—a very good committee—and it was very interesting to be part of that particular process.

Members of the community sector were concerned about a couple of particular issues. I am going to deal with one of them now, and it is about what they saw as a threat to their ability to raise appeals. Their right to appeal was, they thought, under some threat. There is a very valid reason why they felt that this was so; part of that was because over the course of the last few years the charitable sector has felt itself under some pressure—you know, with the requirement to be registered by the Charities Registration Board there are a series of criteria that need to be examined by the Charities Registration Board, and there is also the threat of deregistration if some of those elements are not met.

One of the key issues is about the definition of “charitable purpose” as it sits within the legislation. Supporters of the charitable sector know that there have been promises of reviews of charities legislation by this Government and those reviews have not occurred. One of the significant parts of those reviews would have been the ability to review the definition of charitable purpose within that, because the current definition comes from a very old statute—the Statute of Elizabeth, which is 400 years old—and it is right and proper that in this modern day and age we should start thinking about what a charitable purpose is, and how we should define charities, their purpose, their ability to attract favourable tax status, and the like.

It is overdue that we examine that, but for the purposes of this legislation and for the examination of the clauses that came through the Statutes Amendment Bill, the charities were very concerned about their ability to appeal. This is because there have been cases taken to the court where charities have been deregistered because their definition of “charitable purpose” did not meet what the Charities Registration Board had set out. But they have had to actually go to court to defend their constitutions—the constitution of charities—and in some cases they have actually won those cases.

I want to point to the National Council of Women, which fought in the High Court to ensure that it could retain its charitable status. One of the submitters to the select committee, Sue Barker, was instrumental in supporting the National Council of Women in this particular case. It was not an easy case to defend, and it did come at some cost to the National Council of Women. At the heart of it was the definition of what a charity like the National Council of Women could use as a charitable purpose. I would have thought that gender equity could be considered as a charitable purpose. The Charities Registration Board, of course, did not, and, as a consequence of that—[Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am quite happy to—please take your seat—give the member another call, but the purpose of the Committee stage is to examine the bill and what it does, not what it does not, and it is also to relate to the House sitting in Committee those submissions that were made in the course of it. So if the subject of what she is saying, which does not appear to be part of the bill that is in front of us at the moment, was raised by submitters, then she really needs to reference that and—I do not know whether she is doing this—not just make points that may well be close to her heart, and may involve charities but do not form part of the bill. So if it was the subject of specific submissions that were made before the select committee, the member is free to be able to refer to those as an aside, but they are not substantial parts of the bill, and that is what the Committee stage is about. She may well want to make those points in the third reading, but not during the Committee stage.

What I do want to do, Mr Chair, is actually take us back to—thank you very much for your guidance—one of the submitters, who was Sue Barker. And I reference her because in the official report back a lot of the comments were made about her particular submission, and her view about the ability to appeal is central to the particular argument I want to make. They reference Sue Barker and charities law in particular. Sue Barker had been instrumental in ensuring the National Council of Women, in particular, did actually have a successful appeal.

So my point about that is this: at the heart of my particular discussion in this call is that she felt in her submission—and it was backed up by submissions made by other organisations, including Hui E! Community Aotearoa—that the right to appeal would be under threat if we allowed clause 13, amending section 61 of the Charities Act 2005, particularly, to proceed. That is for anyone who is involved in the charitable sector, and is something that we have ensured we do not lose the ability to do. It is at the heart of all of our law, actually—the ability to appeal—and groups like charitable organisations feel a sense of being under some restraint when it comes to their ability to take cases to the High Court.

I thank you, Mr Chairman, for your guidance. That was the substantial part of the call that I wanted to make. We want to ensure that charities have the appropriate opportunity to appeal any decisions that may affect their ability to operate in the charitable sector. Thank you.

I am really pleased to support the Charities Amendment Bill through the Committee stage. This bill started off as part of a Statutes Amendment Bill, and, as you will know, Mr Chairman, and I am sure other members of the Committee will know, statutes amendment bills have some particular criteria that must be reached before changes can be included within a Statutes Amendment Bill. They are meant to be a small number; you are not meant to do a big raft of changes to any particular Act. They are meant to be technical—so no policy changes. They are meant to be non-controversial. So if you meet those criteria then your proposals as a Minister can go into the Statutes Amendment Bill, and that is how the Charities Amendment Bill started its passage in the House.

When it was received at select committee, as part of the Statutes Amendment Bill, there was suddenly a flurry of activity from people—primarily from Hui E! Community Aotearoa and charitable organisations—who were adamantly opposed to the provisions that were contained within the Statutes Amendment Bill. As soon as our committee was alerted to that fact, by dint of emails and submissions and phone calls and visits—they were pretty upset and concerned—we decided that we would no longer accept these provisions as part of a Statutes Amendment Bill. Clearly, with the controversy, they did not meet the criteria. But, in good faith to the Minister, whom we do not believe was trying to trick anyone but we believe was legitimately trying to progress what she thought were Statutes Amendment Bill provisions, we decided to progress this as a separate bill. The alternative for the committee was just to say “No, strike it out.” We would have done that if we thought it was a problem.

Scott Simpson is getting very energised by this speech.

💬 Scott Simpson: It’s doing it again.

Yes, that is what happens after big quakes: you get a lot of aftershocks. Just carry on. Keep calm. We thought that the Minister had introduced these provisions in good faith, so instead of striking them out we said we would put them in a separate bill, and thus the Charities Amendment Bill has come to the House.

There were four clauses in the bill originally, and the aim of those clauses was to provide that a person could not be an officer of a charity if they had been convicted of tax evasion or a similar offence under the Tax Administration Act. That had been admitted, not clarified previously. Another aim was to provide that an application for registration as an entity could be treated as withdrawn if an applicant did not respond to a request for information or some other requirement from the chief executive, under section 18 of the Act. So if they just do not reply and do not provide the information that is required, then they can have their application treated as withdrawn.

The third provision, which covered two clauses in the original Act, was to correct 2012 drafting errors. It was in the second of those two that the controversy arose in the first place and that caused this bill to be carved out of the Statutes Amendment Bill and then was the subject of nearly all the submissions to the committee. Nearly all of them on this bill were in opposition to the proposed changes in section 61, and, as my colleague Poto Williams explained, the submitters’ view, which was contested by the officials but in the end agreed to by the Labour and Green members of the committee, was that it took away the right to appeal a decision of the chief executive. Their view is that that right has always been there. It may not have been used, but it was there in the law and they did not want it taken away.

The other changes were not contentious and we believed that they met the requirements of a Statutes Amendment Bill. The Minister might want to comment on this, but we were advised during the process of this that even though we had carved this bill out of a Statutes Amendment Bill and named it against its own primary Act, if changes were to be proposed to the bill that we are now debating—so if in the Committee of the whole House a Supplementary Order Paper was put forward—then it would have to get the agreement of every single member of Parliament because it is still under a Statutes Amendment Bill, even though it has been carved out. I think that is really interesting. I have got no idea whether that is agreed or understood to be the case by everyone, but that was certainly the advice that we have given. So we have taken one of the four clauses out. I hope the Minister understands that we did it, thinking we were doing the right thing, and that we have progressed the rest of the bill to her satisfaction.

I am pleased to rise to take a call for the Green Party in the Committee stage of the Charities Amendment Bill. We are supporting this bill through the Committee of the whole House. As this is my first chance to speak after the quakes, I would just like to add my voice to others in this Chamber offering my aroha to the people of Kaikōura and Marlborough, and also those affected in Wellington. I know that people in Canterbury are familiar with these shaky times, but it is a new thing for many other people and we do not underestimate what a toll it takes. For people who have lost family members and indeed their houses and their dreams, our thoughts are with you.

So back to this bill, which, as has already been stated, started off as an amendment to four provisions by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. We understand that the Minister put them in and presented them as minor technical and non-controversial changes, which is appropriate for statutes amendment bills. Through that process the community sector noticed one of the amendments in there that caused significant alarm for them, and as a result there were 33 written submissions and seven oral submissions, which is a very unusual thing, in my experience, for a Statutes Amendment Bill.

There was pretty much general support for three provisions, which are what we now see in this bill, because, as a select committee, there was a choice—and it only takes one member in the House to say “This causes concern.” and it cannot go ahead. So the Government Administration Committee very constructively said: “Well, there’s concern from the community affected by this bill—by one provision—so let’s move that aside and not deal with that, and let’s create a separate bill and provide an opportunity for people to have specific feedback and further the things that did not cause concern.”, which is what this piece of legislation is—those three provisions.

I am very pleased that we did that, and I think the Government in supporting that in the House and going through these stages is also taking a step to—at least on the surface level—restore relationships with the sector that have been damaged over the last, I would say, 8 years and also by this being brought through in a Statutes Amendment Bill process. We know that there were different views on that point, but for us the relationship and the concerns of the sector were primary, so we were pleased to have had that taken out.

What does remain in this bill, which will pass through the House, hopefully, without contention, is an amendment that means that a person cannot be an officer of a charitable entity if they have been convicted of a tax evasion or similar offence under the Tax Administration Act. That is just and right, and no one disagreed with that at all. It also clarifies that if a group applies to register as a charity but does not respond to a request for follow-up information or any other notice by the chief executive under section 18 within 20 working days, then the Department of Internal Affairs gets to say, basically, that it is no longer an active application, and takes it off its books. That may not sound like a very long time for some people, if you think about charitable organisations. A month is often a cycle for organisations where they may only have one meeting in that time, but we need to remember that this is for an application to register. It does not mean you have to be able to provide all of the information—just be able to respond. That did get the support from the community sector.

We noticed that the Department of Internal Affairs informed us that there were 180 applications in the 2015-16 year where it did not get that information, or anybody replying at all, within that time frame, so it is a significant issue for the department. We do not want our systems tied up responding when people are not responding. Thank you.

I rise to take a brief call and to express some sentiments to the Committee, the first of those being that, as other members of the Committee have done so tonight, we have a Charities Amendment Bill before us and we have many charities springing into action in North Canterbury in the South Island, and also here in Wellington to assist people who have found themselves in dire straits and even just needing support during this time after a significant earthquake. So I do want to send my best wishes out to them and thank them for the work that they are currently doing and the considerable work that is probably ahead of them as they support other New Zealanders.

I want to respond to the members tonight who have raised the issue of the reason why we are here with a separate bill rather than the amendments coming under the Statutes Amendment Bill. The power, as the Hon Ruth Dyson has mentioned already, of any one select committee member or one member of this House to disagree with one point or a part in the Statutes Amendment Bill is very powerful indeed, and it is a very strong check and balance. It is, therefore—and I thank the member for her generosity towards me—not going to surprise you that I was under every impression that, in fact, what I proposed for amendment was completely non-controversial.

When it became of concern to some members of the charitable sector—and I do take issue with the previous speaker Jan Logie’s comment about the last 8 years; I have been the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector now for 5 of them, and I have seen a distinct change in terms of confidence and, also, the working relationship between the Government and this sector. I have to say that they know my number and I know theirs, and we have a full and frank exchange of ideas and views. They did tell me they were worried about this, and it did not matter how often I said to them: “I still believe, and have legal advice, that it is not a matter for you to be concerned about.”

We are here and we are, now, in the best place we can be. This has been resolved to the satisfaction of the members of the Government Administration Committee and, I hope, the members of this House. We are moving forward, we are making good changes that have been fully canvassed in the former debates here tonight and also in the second reading, and I thank the members of the committee for finding a way forward. I very much appreciate that, because I do believe the changes that will come about as a result of this bill will make for a better Charities Act. With that, I thank the members again, and, in my view, this is a good path to move forward on.

I appreciate the call. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the Charities Amendment Bill, which was, once upon a time, part of a Statutes Amendment Bill. After hearing the explanation from the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, it makes perfect sense why it was pulled out of the Statutes Amendment Bill, because, of course, there was some sort of ambiguity concerning a number of people in the public sector who cried a little bit foul. Rightly or wrongly so, they have done that, and now we are finding ourselves in a position that is looking like it is fully supported across the Chamber.

I will join in the chorus of support from New Zealand First to say that we too will support this bill going through the House, because, of course, it is relatively innocuous, really. It does two things—well, it does three things, but the third thing is really not even worth mentioning because it is just a little bit of a grammatical tidy-up. The first thing it does is not permit a person who has had an offence under tax legislation or something similar—tax evasion was the phrase I was thinking of—to be able to have a position within a charitable organisation or a trust. That does make absolute sense. The second part of this bill is about removing charitable status from an entity if it does not provide the right information in the right amount of time. I think if it has been 20 working days, which is about a month—which some people may say is a little bit too short, but then, at the end of the day, I think there would be good reason to remove charitable status if, of course, the entity was not giving that information forward nice and quickly so that it can actually be dealt with.

I would just like to talk a little bit about these statutes amendment bills that are supposed to be minor, technical, and non-controversial. It does bring me to other bills that we have seen brought into a Statutes Amendment Bill that have had all three of those characteristics, such as Nuk Korako’s bill about lost luggage and, of course, Matt Doocey’s bill about enabling board members to get access to papers online. Those bills have now made it into a Statutes Amendment Bill, and that does beg the question—I would say, probably some of the most controversial things we have spoken about in the House and that the media have picked up on have been those two bills themselves, and it may beg the question as to how they have actually got themselves into that bill. I think it is out of embarrassment by the Government that it actually put them through to obscure—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So, back to the bill.

Thank you—back to the bill, but a great way to sort of obfuscate, if you like.

The elephant in the room, however, is the charities themselves. I think there have been a lot of people, since this bill has been tabled, who have discussed it, certainly with myself and with members of New Zealand First, around the eligibility and genuine nature of what constitutes a charity. I think some of the things that have been raised—it is not part of the bill, I know, but it is part of what is actually important to people who have raised it in conjunction with the bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): But we are discussing this bill. We are discussing this bill, so the member should talk about this bill.

But, as I have mentioned, these were raised as questions about this bill, which raises questions about what constitutes a charity. We have a number of charities that have got charitable status that may need to be reviewed, and I think that in light of us discussing charities and removing charitable status it is worth bringing into this debate and discussion a potential review overlooking what is considered to be a genuine charity, in light of New Zealand’s benevolence in putting time and effort and money into these organisations. I think the people of New Zealand have a right to ask that question—and, I guess, asking the Minister herself: is this something that is likely to come up in the future?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! The whole point, and the point that I made earlier on, is no, you cannot. It does not matter what you are asked about as an MP in relation to that; you talk about this bill. You talk about matters raised in the select committee, and no, you cannot go and ask the Minister whether she is going to do something about it in the future. I would have thought that would be clear by now.

Thank you very much for your enlightenment, Mr Chair, and I do have to say that speaking for 5 minutes to one piece of paper can be a little bit difficult, but they are good questions, well raised, and good points raised—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): You do not have to do 5 minutes.

I have 52 seconds to go; I will see what I can do. The third part—the part that I was not going to mention but since I have been cut short with my speech—is literally to correct a 2012 drafting error by removing the words “of the chief executive” from this bill.

We will be supporting this bill as it goes through the House. I have just about filled up 5 minutes of the Committee’s time—and, I think, very thoughtfully, too. I know there will be some good nodding in agreement from people back home listening to it. I commend this bill moving forward through the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te Whare nei, oti noa, e tika ana kia huri atu aku whakaaro ki a rātou e noho pōuri ana i tēnei wā i Kaikōura i ngā āhuatanga o te rūwhenua; oti noa ki a rātou katoa e noho āwangawanga ana puta noa ngā moutere nei, e rū ana i tēnei wā. Nō reira, kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa e whakarongo mai nā ki tēnei kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Chairman, and so it is fitting that I turn my thoughts to those who remain distressed at this moment in Kaikōura, due to the circumstances of the earthquake; and to all of those throughout these islands in a state of unease as tremors continue right now. So I acknowledge you all listening in to this contribution.]

I want to start off by just acknowledging, and also by joining my words with those who have already acknowledged, the people of Kaikōura, but also the people around the country who are feeling a little bit anxious right now.

It is fitting that we are talking about the Charities Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge all of those who made a submission on this bill—first of all: the process that was used to get those extra submissions. I want to thank the Government Administration Committee for its work and its thoughtfulness on how to make sure that people had the additional opportunity to make a submission.

In particular, I want to acknowledge Te Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust. I want to acknowledge the submission that it made in actually supporting this bill—first of all, its words around making certain that a person cannot be an officer of a charitable entity if they have been convicted of tax evasion; they particularly pointed that out. The trust also supported the amendment to section 60, “High Court may make interim order pending determination of appeal”, in clause 12A. Those are the things that are in—and I might point out that that submission was made from within my electorate. I wanted to point that one out, particularly because Ngāruahine is moving into—not quite the post-settlement phase of its development, but very close. I think it is very important that these words that are representative of the entire country come to this House. So I want to acknowledge this one, mainly because not all of our charitable organisations have made submissions on bills, and I just want to acknowledge it.

I also want to acknowledge what the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector has stated about this bill being divided from the Statutes Amendment Bill, because I am reflecting on the statement that I made in my second reading speech, and that clarifies that for me, so I just want to acknowledge that as well.

I also want to talk further about section 60, in clause 12A, and what that really means. I have not spoken to a lot of charitable organisations on this, but the ones that I have have said that they did have some concerns about what might happen in the event that this interim order pending might not happen. I know you have given guidance on what might not happen, but, nevertheless, that is what the people are saying; that is what the submitters have said.

In a wider context, I just want to speak very briefly on clause 1, the title—being an amendment to the Charities Act—and comment on the purpose of the principal Act. Throughout this country, right now, as other members have stated, we have a number of charitable organisations that are stepping up and doing what we need, so that that can give comfort not only to New Zealanders but to the many thousands of tourists who are currently suffering from what has happened in Kaikōura. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 12A agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.