Collins Judith: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19974] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 That would have to be the most boring speech of the night from the most boring member. It is no wonder that David Benson-Pope cannot keep awake. We can imagine how boring it must be in their caucus—except when Mr Tamihere turns up upon which they all roll over and say: “Tickle our tummy Johnny boy.” and they go for it every single time. The great thing about John Tamihere is that he actually did in an act of charity give the Prime Minister the opportunity to show just how in touch with her feminine side she really is. 
I have looked at the bill and I have listened to some of the speeches tonight and we have had some really good speeches from this side of the House. I think of Simon Power’s comments on what happens when commissions are set up. He talked about what had happened to the Tertiary Education Commission under Steve Maharey the man whom Mr Tamihere very uncharitably and not in accordance with this bill called “smarmy”. I have gone a bit further—I have looked at Part 3 which contains a few of the core things this bill can do. I refer to clause 70 “Core things Commission can do” which states—guess what—“anything”! The clause states: “The Commission may do anything authorised by this Act or another Act.” 
The bill goes further. I shall read clause 71 “Other things Commission can do” because it is so exciting so narrow and so focused. It states: “(1) The Commission may do anything that a natural person of full age and capacity may do.” That actually is the power of general competence. The Government New Zealand First United Future and Jim Anderton’s party—whatever its name is—are giving to the Charities Commission the same power that they gave to local authorities and that resulted in people’s rates being put up including those of the elderly who cannot afford to pay their rates. That was all from the power of general competence. 
The commissioners who will be appointed by the Labour Government will be able to do anything they want to do—and guess who pays for it? Well the Minister stood up in the House and told us a really funny joke. She said that the Government will pay. The Government does not pay; the taxpayer pays. Every single cent that is signed off by any Minister in this House is paid for by the poor old taxpayer every single time. The Minister said that the Government will pay. Well it will not. Mr Copeland very kindly and trusting in the Hon Michael Cullen said: “We know it’s going to be OK because we will get a bigger deduction for charitable donations. 
I ask Mr Copeland whether that is right. Is it something like that? 
Gordon Copeland 
: Yes that’s right. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well that is his hope. Even Mr Copeland has to say that that is the hope. Did Mr Copeland check the wording? Did he check every single little word? We know just how clever the Hon Michael Cullen is. We know it because Mr Tamihere said so and we know it because Mr Copeland has just confessed to us that that is what he is hoping. The good thing is that Mr Copeland may actually get what he wants now because Dr Cullen will be so keen to show that he is not as clever as that at all. 
We have heard some very interesting things. What we have heard from the Minister in this third reading debate is that the charitable sector asked for this bill. Well I do not know—I mean the Minister does not pay a lot of attention at select committees. The Minister does not pay a lot of attention anywhere. We could see by her lack of passion and drive—and everything else that she put into this bill—that she does not really know anything about it. What she actually said was that the charitable sector asked for it. Well not one of the submitters actually asked for it. Not one of the submitters we heard from asked for it at all. What they said was that they are frightened they will get loved to death by this commission. They are frightened that they will be stood over by people who do not care about the voluntary sector; people who are busy sitting in cafes “parlez vous”—that was the term was it not I ask Mr Hide—and drinking their lattes; people who do not care about the ordinary New Zealand mum and dad who have to try to find the money for the sports fees and sports equipment. A lot of these fees are now paid for by the charitable institutions that this Government wants to love to death—in other words clasp them to the Minister’s bosom and then suffocate them by regulating them out of existence. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is true. We could laugh about that but it is utterly true. That is what happens. We know that there are lots of volunteers who are scared of this bill. They are scared that they will get into trouble because of something someone else does. They are petrified. They came to us and said that they are not going to volunteer anymore. They do not want to because they are scared. The Green member Sue Bradford said that she has heard exactly the same thing. 
I have spoken tonight about what would have happened to the Problem Gambling Foundation if this bill had been in effect at the time they lost a huge amount of money to a thief. It would have been in danger of being closed down. The Minister stands up here in the House and says: “Oh well it’s all discretionary”. I ask the Minister what it is discretionary upon. Is it discretionary upon whether one is mates with the Minister? Is it discretionary upon whether one is mates with someone in the Labour Party? We know that that is what the discretion is because the commissioners will all be party appointees and not one of the Labour members will actually say: “We wouldn’t do that.” When we look at the bill we see regulation for regulation’s sake. The Minister said that we have to stop anyone using charities to rip off people. Well we already have a law. It is in the Crimes Act. It already is an offence to rip off people using charities. We do not need to have another law. We do not need to have a law for anything that moves. 
I have taken on board some of the points that Mr Jones has made about people who have been dishonest within the last 7 years and whether they should be trustees. Well I guess I am a bit kinder than Mr Jones. I accept that I may be an old softie on these matters but I do actually believe that some people have the ability to be rehabilitated. 
Katherine Rich 
: So does the Prime Minister. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: And so does the Prime Minister. She believes it as well Mrs Rich says. In fact I understand that one can be rehabilitated— 
Katherine Rich 
: In 2 days. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: In 2 days. That is all it takes as well as a bit of stress leave. In fact one is rehabilitated even before one takes the stress leave. 
I believe that people can be rehabilitated and I do not like to think that just because someone has a criminal conviction he or she will forever be stopped from contributing in a positive way to society. So on that basis I did not support Mr Jones’ amendment. We should not be convicting people before they have actually committed a crime and that unfortunately is what we do when we say that nobody who has committed a particular crime will be able to be in a position of responsibility in relation to a charity. It would be far more sensible to be able to say that we cannot trust that Government in spending taxpayers’ money. Fortunately I think the people are about to say that.