Charities Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to the Charities Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1.

Point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

We start with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 30, “Amendments to Charities Act 2005”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I’m pleased to take a call to kick off the committee stage of the Charities Amendment Bill. My first set of questions really is about the intention behind this legislation, and it is, of course, amending the Charities Act 2005, and I do understand that the charities sector was very excited about the Labour Party’s 2017 election promise to do a first-principles review of the charities legislation. So my question really relates, then, to why it is that the definitions of “charity” and “charitable purpose” were excluded from the scope of work, given it was an undertaking and a significant piece of work that was committed to.

I wonder if I might even attempt to answer my own questions, which is probably a bit unorthodox, but let’s give it a go. Whether or not it was really just the fact that, because insufficient progress had been made about Labour Party election promises not being delivered, all of a sudden the scope was shrunk. The scope was shrunk, and now we have to have a piece of legislation that, I think, pleases no one, with the exception perhaps of the Minister. I would like the Minister in the chair to answer the question why the definition of charitable or charitable purpose was excluded.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I didn’t have the benefit of hearing any of the select committee submissions on this bill, but I do have a broad understanding of a number of charitable entities that I’ve been involved with in the course of my working life, my parliamentary life, and personal life. I’m very conscious that this Charities Amendment Bill actually has an impact on a very large number of people who, by and large, are by definition doing good things, good work, making a positive contribution to the wellbeing and lifestyles and communities within which they work and operate. So I’m interested to know particularly around some of the changes that have been made, relating to the definition of “officer” or an “officer of a charitable entity”. This is in clause 4(1).

Now, there’s quite an extensive re-wording from the 2005 Act, which would give quite a broad definition as to an “officer”. So I’m interested to know from the Minister in the chair about the reasons and the rationale for the scope of the definition of “officer” being expanded and advanced in the way it has been, because it captures a very wide range of people. At one point, it says it “includes any class or classes of persons declared by regulations to be Officers for the purposes of this Act:”, and I’m really just quite keen to understand what the purpose and reason and rationale for that broad extension is, please.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for his question. It is a good one. The “officer” definition should really only capture people who exert influence over the strategic decision making or financial decision making of a charity. This includes people who have delegated powers to make those significant financial or strategic decisions. The purpose of the changes to this bill are really to ensure that we can support charities. As the member Scott Simpson mentioned at the start of his contribution, charities do some really good work. And the point of the changes in this bill is to enable them to be able to do so but also to balance that with the fact that the public need to have trust and confidence in the sector as a whole. The changes that are proposed here to the definition of “officer” clarify and include those who have significant influence over the charity and, therefore, should be held accountable in that space.

To the point raised by Louise Upston in her contribution, while I would love to debate the principles of a first review into charitable purpose, that’s not actually within the scope of the bill. So, if the member would like to point to which clause in the bill captures that, I’d be quite happy to debate it.

Debate interrupted.