Menéndez March Ricardo; Potaka Tama; Upston Louise; Radhakrishnan PriyancaRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and I'm going to acknowledge my colleague Jan Logie has been the one doing the brunt of the work on this bill; I'm going to do my best to channel her in my contribution and questions. So just touching on new section 42G inserted by clause 20 regarding the Duty to review governance procedures" and following the Minister's comments we're interested in getting a clearer understanding on how does the Minister expect that the charities will be able to demonstrate these reviews have been met when it comes to governance. And then also getting a better understanding of what does the Minister expect to happen if these duties are not fulfilled and are breached. Those two things I guess are things that have been fed to me in terms of concerns that exist and are priorities. So if there's any comments from the Minister around this that would be helpful thank you. TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): One of the more exciting dynamics of my last three months here in Parliament is listening to all the impressive expectations in legislation—new legislation around Treaty compliance and Māori compliance. And what I thought to ask the Minister was what specific assessment has the Government done to quantify the extra costs and/or voluntary hours for the many Māori organisations who are going to have to comply for this new regime?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair and I would like to continue along that vein because we all know in this House the benefits that voluntary organisations provide to our communities. So my question is following up on my colleague Tama Potaka and my earlier question: what is the anticipated cost to each charity of these changes? And if the cost per charity hasn't been worked out or is not provided today what is the cost for the duty to review the governance procedures? And again bringing the words of the submitters—so when the Minister quite disparagingly commented about the Opposition's contributions I would just remind the Minister that I am reading from submitters' concerns and it is the submitters who were concerned about the lack of the first-principles review. This one though—coming back to what the costs are because there is a real interest in what those costs are—from Community Housing Aotearoa is very similar to the earlier one which in terms of the review of procedures says: "Rather than regulate" wouldn't it be more beneficial to have "an educational approach" or a best-practices approach? Because as this organisation identifies "It is already very challenging and timeconsuming to meet the present and ongoing requirements of many legislative reforms. Legislating to enforce this review is excessive." So those are the words of Community Housing Aotearoa; they are not my words. I am speaking them on their behalf because it is really important that submitters know that their submissions are taken seriously and although they may not have been in the select committee process the committee of the whole House is another opportunity. So I am asking the Minister for the costs because obviously a cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken otherwise this wouldn't have got through the gate to have even been put before the House. So what are the costs anticipated on average for a charity? And if that answer isn't forthcoming then at least what is the estimated cost to review the governance procedures? And is there a post-implementation review of these costs to identify whether or not they line up with what was anticipated in the original cost-benefit analysis? And if those costs are seen to be excessive then with any contract the Government has with a charitable organisation will they cover those costs? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I will say firstly that I do take submitters' views into consideration and seriously. I will also say that there are over 100000 charities in New Zealand and 28000 registered charities as well. To the question around cost as a result of clause 20 that inserts new section 42G I have already addressed this today in the House. I will say again for the member's benefit that there is no anticipated additional cost as a result of this because the rules document already exists and charitable organisations already have to meet annually and this is not expected to be onerous. To the point that was made or the question that was raised earlier in terms of the penalty if organisations don't comply I would expect the charities services would work from an educational point of view with charities who require that and that is something they already do."