Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I've just got to admit up front in the second reading of this bill that it was new to me to come to this. I got quite a lot of feedback from the public and the sector on my speech. They said that they enjoyed that except for the fact that we said we were supporting the bill. They gave me quite a long list of reading to do to get me up to speed on the detail of this bill and I want to thank them for that. It's great when Parliament works in that way. So I have now done my homework and I've got quite a few questions for the Minister that I hope will help me understand and put their minds at ease as well—or not.I'll pick up from the issues that have been raised by members of the National Party about the role of the officer and the changes in this legislation. I'd love to hear the Minister explain or talk to the concern that this extension of the role of officer potentially bringing in staff members—because it covers those with significant influence over substantial decisions which could well be a CEO who has a role in the organisation—then would cut across traditional governance management splits and established rules and settled practice within organisations that may have been working really hard to try and get those differing roles kind of embedded in their organisation.I understand that the Department of Internal Affairs argued that actually this is just about increasing accountability. But the view that was coming through to me was But actually for staff members—of that CEO as an example—their accountability is to the trust who is their employer." Community Networks Aotearoa asked me to ask: what are the implications in terms of an employment decision or a decision made by a charities trust on an employee? How will that interact with employment law?There was also the changes in terms of the role of the officer and the roles and duties of those who govern organisations in the area. It was pointed out I think by Sue Barker—and I understand that some people had a concern in a sense that she was campaigning against this bill. I do want to raise the point that this woman is the director of Charity Law Association of Australia and New Zealand a member of the core reference group of the review of the Charities Act co-author of the text The Law and Practice of Charities in New Zealand and was awarded the New Zealand Law Foundation International Research Fellowship on what a world-leading framework for charities law would look like. So she's not some marginal person. You might even suggest that she's the person with the deepest understanding in our country of charities law that we may want to really listen to in this area.She raised the point that the language in relation to the role of the officer in new section 36A—clause 17—uses the language where their role is to assist in "deliver[ing] its charitable purpose". This is in new section 42G—clause 20—"achieve its charitable purpose". Whereas for other legislation around that—say the Trusts Act—a huge amount of work was put into the consideration of the language relating to the role of officers in those pieces of legislation. What they came up with was that it be "furthering" the charitable purpose—not "delivering"; not "achieving"—because actually there is a difference between those things. By introducing new language through these amendments we're actually creating confusion between those pieces of legislation.Why are we not just articulating the responsibilities and the roles and duties that exist in those other pieces of legislation? That's the concern. Why are we not just doing that? I'd really love to hear some answers around this."