Jones Dail: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19952] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to follow the comments made by Rodney Hide and Judith Collins during the course of this debate. It is very appropriate to ask why we need some legislation. Rodney Hide said during the course of his contribution that we should look at the Charitable Trusts Act because the answer is there. Unfortunately for Mr Hide that is not the case in practice. 
As I said in the first reading the call for the regulation of charities has been a longstanding one in New Zealand. In fact it goes back even as far as 1967 with a call made by Justice Gresson in the case of  
Re Goldwater (deceased) 
 [1967] NZLR 754. There was a call for a review of charities and that Act. 
When I was in practice in the late 1980s and the early 1990s I set up charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act. I asked having looked through the Act what controls there were on all those charitable trusts. Really there were no controls on any of them although it would be fair to say that Mr Hide was correct to say the Attorney-General could look at them. But by the time a complaint is laid with the Attorney-General on anything all the evidence has gone all the money has gone and it is far far too late. 
The Charitable Trusts Act has not proved to be very good in practice in so far as control of charitable trusts is concerned. I wrote to the Minister of Justice about that matter and I received a copy of the Property Law and Equity Reform Committee report on the Charitable Trusts Act issued in 1979. The report referred in paragraph (1) to the request to consider the comments made by Justice Gresham in  
Re Goldwater (deceased) 
. The report went on to state: “Subsequently it was suggested that the whole of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 called for a general examination. In particular the question was raised of the desirability of establishing more effective means of control of charitable trusts perhaps by means of a charities commission along the lines established in the United Kingdom.” 
The report in paragraph 13 of page 7 stated: “The committee was asked to give particular consideration to the questions raised by the Rev. R M O’Grady the associate-general of the National Council of Churches in a newspaper article in which he said: ‘The public has no protection against charities in New Zealand. It would not be difficult for a skilled promotional person to raise $10000 or more for almost any appeal one cares to name. Simply by national advertising and a small mailing to selected persons any charity can get itself established in a few weeks. Raising really big money for a charity requires time and planning. By far the best method is the house-to-house collection.’ ” That quotation is taken from a report written in 1979. We were talking about $10000 then. Taking inflation into account we would be talking about a bigger figure that could be raised by a skilled promotional person who could end up fleecing all the people who thought they were giving the money to charities. So I was very pleased when this bill came before the House. 
The need for this legislation has clearly been established a long long time ago. As Rodney Hide has said the legal basis for a charity goes back to 1601 and of course that Act just confirmed what had been happening prior to that. The Statute of Elizabeth 1601 confirmed the basis on which one could establish a charitable trust. So the whole concept has been going for a while. But in England—since before 1979 obviously—there has been a charities commission and in New Zealand since before 1979 we have had complaints about the way in which charities have been run. So that is the reason if we need a reason in answer to Rodney Hide’s question as to why we need a charities commission or some control on charities and this bill is the best bet that I have seen so far. 
I note what Mr Copeland said. Rather than looking to the past he is looking ahead to what might happen in the future. If much more money could go to charities that would be well and good. 
New Zealand First did not make a minority report on this bill but we were concerned—I was present at the select committee on the day we did the deliberation—that the Government was watering down the provision for the disqualification of officers as the commentary states on page 10. Clause 15(2) identifies which persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities. The original clause 15(2)(c) and (d) stated: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more: (d) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence:”. Paragraphs (c) and (d) were taken out by the select committee which put in instead: “(c) an individual who or a body corporate that has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. 
So the committee was trying to bring into the provision that “Nandor Tanczos Clean Slate Bill” type of thing—that nice warm green fuzzy idea. The committee has changed the provision into a nebulous type of thing which means that anyone who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more can be a trustee and a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and who has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence can be a trustee. New Zealand First cannot support that. How can anyone who supports law and order or who wants to make sure that the trustees of a trust function properly and are not criminals possibly support that amendment? That is why I have lodged an amendment on the Table reinstating the original clauses 15(2)(c) and (d). 
After all the criticism of trusts and charities is that they are being fleeced by fly-by-nighters criminals or people who may get on the board and do away with the money—and this bill is promoting that. It is promoting criminals being on the board. It is nonsense to strike out those two paragraphs and to put in a nebulous provision about whether those people were sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years. The whole thing is a nonsense. I think that we need to be tougher on law and order. We need to make sure that charities have a stronger ability to refuse to accept people who have criminal convictions of 2 years’ imprisonment or more or who have been sentenced to imprisonment for less than 2 years for an offence. 
I cannot understand how United Future or Labour would have agreed to those provisions concerning persons being convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more being struck out. The mind boggles. Of course the Greens in a strange sort of way opposed this legislation. But when I said that New Zealand First wanted this provision to be reinstated they then changed their mind and now they support this part. 
Sue Bradford 
: We certainly don’t support what you are putting up now. 
DAIL JONES 
: What I am putting up is what was in the original bill. The Greens do not support what was in the original bill because there might be a member in this House who falls within the definition of the original clause 15(2)(c) and who would not be eligible to be a trustee on a charity. 
Judith Collins 
: He’s on stress leave isn’t he? 
DAIL JONES 
: No I say to the member that such a member is sitting in the House at the current time. There is a female member of this House who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment of a term of 2 years or more who might be affected by this legislation. 
I just raise the point that if a person has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more—that means just a conviction without the person going to jail—he or she can still be a trustee on a charity and be involved in working for a charity. If the person has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence he or she can still be a member of that charity and be working for it. I think that is nonsense. 
As I said the commentary states under the heading “Disqualification of officers” on page 10: “The New Zealand First Party supports the intent of the original bill.” As we support that intent we want to see that intent retained in the way that the Government originally wanted it—and I believe the Government was absolutely right on that occasion. So I have put forward an amendment to reinstate the original provision into the bill. We want honest people working for charities and the new clause 15(2)(c) is totally contrary to what was intended in the formation of the Charities Bill and the Charities Commission.