Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I stand to speak to the Charities Amendment Bill today on behalf of the National Party. I'd like to begin by acknowledging and valuing the work that our charities and volunteers do. It's definitely a cornerstone of the National Party to support communities and especially to value the work that's undertaken across New Zealand. They deserve to work under legislation that is open and transparent and clear but also workable.Now we have heard from the Minister the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan the value of our volunteer and charity sector to this country and it is substantial. In 2019-20 collectively in their reports we heard: $19.6 billion in combined income $18 billion spent in this country and over $65 billion worth of accumulated assets—so not an insignificant sector at all. But we also want our volunteers to be working in an environment that is supported and that enables them to revitalise energise and support their communities by being innovative and nimble. Of the 114000 non-profit organisations in New Zealand 28000 are registered under the Charities Act and they take several forms. There are legal structures that they choose: incorporated societies incorporated trusts unincorporated societies unincorporated trusts and limited liability companies as well. Between them they employ 160000 full- or part-time employees—so fantastic employers—but of course they also manage hundreds of thousands of volunteers.The charitable purpose is a major part of the omission in this bill. I'd just like to clarify that it is in fact a very very complex legal concept and it has evolved over 400 years of case law. The statute of charitable users came into force in England in 1601; so it has quite a lot of established case law. And the definition of charitable purpose" is "the relief of poverty the advancement of education or religion or any other matter beneficial to the community"—so quite broad. The legal definition of a charitable purpose may differ from what is commonly understood by the public. It is in fact not just about being worthy or good. So the charitable purpose is quite significant in this ongoing debate. Back in 2017 the Labour Party manifesto said that they would conduct a proper first-principles review—and independent review at that—of this Charities Act but this bill does not deliver on that manifesto promise. But then delivery is not a strong point of this Government. It does tweak a few items and some aspects are going to make compliance simpler but they don't address the key items of concern that have been articulated by the charitable sector. They have been waiting on the post-implementation review for over 17 years now.The Labour Party policy in 2017 was also to consider the 2012 transfer of functions of the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and whether that transfer implemented by National has actually resulted in effectiveness and improved services and openness in information sharing by the sector. But there are limited checks and balances on Charities Services now within DIA because it's now a business unit of Government. Now that Government department can be subjective in determining the nature and scope of the charitable purpose but we also know that they can by virtue of the fact that they can approve or decline a charitable status make subjective decisions on a charity's stated charitable purpose. So none of the proposed amendments in this bill actually do address that.One other thing that has been noted by some stakeholders is how Charities Services tends to focus more on the activities of the charity and how they deliver on their charitable purpose rather than on their purpose. So this means that there is almost an expectation that charities will have similar deliverables and that's simply not the case in reality because every charity is different and every community is different but their common goals or their outcomes may actually be very similar. So for example a charity that provides social support through a local non-governmental organisation where its purpose is to improve the lives of its community will have many and varied activities that it undertakes in order to deliver on that purpose—anything from holding community picnics through to delivering counselling services. I'd like to go back to the beginning of the Charities Act here in New Zealand which was in 2005 as mentioned by the Minister by the then Labour Government. It was introduced in 2004 with stakeholder involvement but when it got to select committee it was virtually rewritten and when it was rewritten it was without any further consultation with the sector with the public. And then it was rushed through in 2004 implemented in 2005 under urgency in one day. So in terms of an open and transparent process we have been left devoid of the involvement of the charities sector in the original bill. So when the Labour Party's manifesto in 2017 said a first-principles review I think the sector was very encouraged by that because they thought that they were going to get back to where this bill began in 2004-05. But sadly that has not happened.The Minister has already stated in some of her media that she intends to have a fuller review after this bill has been implemented but I would argue: if the Minister already acknowledges that a fuller review is required why are we wasting Parliament's time with this piece of legislation? Because it could end up being completely irrelevant after another review. Are we not better to invest Parliament's time the work of a select committee in getting the bill right the first time?The Minister has mentioned appeals processes and I'd just like to touch on that. It does extend the time for appeals and it is going to go to the Taxation and Charities Review Authority but that is coming at a cost. It's going to cost the Ministry of Justice $439000 according to the regulatory impact statement (RIS) for them to deliver that service. It's going to cost upwards of over $200000 to appoint two new board members and provide the secretarial support according to the RIS. So there is no free lunch here; obviously there are going to be costs. But also even though the appeal can go to the taxation and charities review it can then end up with the same decision being made which means that it ends up in the High Court anyway. They have 20 days to deliver their second appeal but at the moment on current stats appeals to the High Court are taking at least 12 months. So this could in fact end up being worse.I'd like to end my contribution by quoting Dame Cindy Kiro Governor-General of New Zealand who in her speech at the Queen's memorial on Monday said "In her 70 years of service in her role as Sovereign the Queen supported over 600 charities whose work provided comfort to the lonely the sick and the marginalised and helped to protect our environment." The late Queen would expect us as legislators to be supporting charities. This bill will not achieve that goal. National will not be supporting it."