Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to start my address today by acknowledging the 28000 charities across New Zealand who make New Zealand work by supporting individuals supporting families supporting communities and providing social cohesion in so many many different ways. What the charities sector deserve when they provide over $4 billion worth of value to New Zealand is to have legislation that is workable. They deserve to have legislation that makes it easier for them to provide the service to New Zealanders that they provide each and every day. They deserve to have a Labour Government who delivers on the promises it makes and a 2017 election promise—Anna Lorck: That's right—they do. They deserve a Labour Government—they do. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Just quieten down over there. You might want to listen to what you actually promised in 2017 because you promised the charities sector a comprehensive first-principles review. That is why the charities sector—the dozens and dozens and dozens of organisations that took the time to sit before us and submit on this legislation—are frustrated. They feel let down they feel ripped off and they didn't get what Labour promised in 2017. I want to bring the words of some of the submitters to this House. So rather than using my words I want to bring some of their words because these are organisations like Age Concern who said Age Concern New Zealand would like to see a first principles review of the Act carried out by an independent body such as the Law Commission." What charities want to see with that first-principles review is a revisiting of the definitions of charity and charitable purpose. That's at the heart of what they are wanting to see in terms of this change. The Breast Cancer Foundation New Zealand—which is particularly important this week as I think of a dear friend of mine and a family member—also want a first-principles review. They're concerned about the impact on charities in New Zealand of these changes. Community Housing Aotearoa: "We continue to emphasize the need for an independent review of the Charities Act. Many of the concerns our members have with regards to how the definition of charity is being interpreted has not being addressed through this amendment bill." Charitable organisations are incredibly frustrated. On the one hand they have the Government which is speaking to them through the Ministry of Social Development and through the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment of a relationship model to commissioning and yet on the other hand Charities Services is now being seen instead as a registrar and as a regulator. So what is it Labour? Do we trust them or do we not? Do we want to understand and enable them or do we not? Do we want to put more regulations in the way that prevent them from doing their work or do we want to support their work and support them to do more of it? This one from Community Networks Aotearoa represents many peak organisations such as Presbyterian Support New Zealand the D.V. Bryant Trust my own Taupo Council of Social Services Neighbourhood Support and the list goes on: "We wish to emphasise that there needs to be a first principles review of the Act. This is best done by an independent body to ensure comprehensiveness and integrity of the process and to ensure there are no conflicts of interest. We have been promised this for some years and we believe that the majority of the Charitable Sector wish for this review." What's more disturbing though is a paragraph a little bit further on: "We would really appreciate a more positive view of the amazing community and voluntary sector. Where the first point of view is that all this extra regulation is not needed. But that this Sector is recognised and supported into a trusting and participatory environment with the Government." So I'm not quite sure why members opposite were laughing at that because I do take the concerns that these people raise very seriously. They are the ones—they are the volunteers they are the organisations—that work tirelessly up and down this country. I would challenge any member opposite to say that they don't value their work and to actually listen to the voice of the charitable organisations who are frustrated—frustrated—by the Government not delivering what they promised in 2017. Actually what they then say is that the tinkering isn't worth it and the frustration at not having the first-principles review frustrates a sector who already operate on the smell of an oily rag. So I don't think it was too much for them to get what they were promised delivered. Here's another one from Philanthropy New Zealand—again a peak body organisation involved in significant organisations with over 200 members who give donations and bequests to these many organisations. They "support and advocate for the need for a first principles review of the Charities Act … as per the commitment made by the Government in its election manifesto. This would offer the chance to consider the value and purpose of the charitable sector the value charities add to people's lives the environment and the economy and how the government can best support the sector in its work." So it is frustrating and I accept that the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee has talked about some of the tweaks that have been made as a result of the select committee process but the fundamental issue is that this is not a first-principles review. Tinkering at the edges doesn't provide the transformational change that Labour promised them. It's one example of many unfortunately where what they thought they were getting is very different from reality and many of them have actually said "Look just take it back. Take it back start again. We're patient. We want it to work. We don't want piecemeal change because for our organisation those levels of changes potentially take us backwards. There's a huge amount of work and energy and cost in implementing changes. Can we just do it properly and can we just do it right?" which is what Labour promised and hasn't delivered. That is why people are so so frustrated in the communities sector and my colleague Maureen Pugh has been working with the community and voluntary sector for many many years and has been hearing their frustration at the Government because actually they didn't think that they were asking for much. They didn't think they were asking for much. So the National Party clearly are not supporting this bill. We think it's fundamentally flawed because that is what the charitable sector have said for themselves. We've listened we've reflected and I'm very deliberately bringing their voices to this Parliament tonight because they don't feel as if they've been heard and I think it's important that they are. The National Party support the call of the majority of the submitters in the charitable sector who have asked for the bill to be withdrawn for the comprehensive review to be undertaken and then for legislation to come before the Parliament once those issues have been surfaced by an independent review. That's another point that I do think is important: they do want it to be independent. So at the moment the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is responsible for Charities Services. An independent review means that the work done on policy shouldn't be done by DIA; it should be done by someone independent. The Law Commission is one that's been suggested and that's what the charitable sector would be expecting. We do actually see that piecemeal change like this produces more harm than good. For a sector where many of them—whether it's organisations like SuperGrans who I've met with tonight or whether it is organisations working with victims of family violence—are working with vulnerable New Zealanders we owe it to them to make it as easy as possible for them to do their work and to have a Government that delivers what they promise. So we will be opposing this legislation. We're opposing it on behalf of the charities sector and we bring their voice to this Parliament tonight."