Hide Rodney: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19946] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. It surprises me that New Zealand First is supporting it. 
Peter Brown 
: Show a bit of charity. Where’s your charity? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Peter Brown calls out that I should show some charity. In fact to New Zealand First I do because do I think that party is a charitable case. Mr Peter Brown in particular I think is a charitable case so I will not be too hard on him. I will just point out that I think he is mistaken. In fact I can understand New Zealand First being mistaken. What I cannot understand is the United Future party being so mistaken particularly Mr Copeland who has some experience of the charitable sector. I am astonished that he with his experience would come along to this great House—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Copeland calls out that he has had quite a bit of experience. He cannot have learnt much. I am astonished that he comes to this great House and proceeds to socialise charities in New Zealand. 
The whole point of the charitable sector is that it is private. The whole point of the charitable sector is that it gets on and does the business. The whole point of the charitable sector is that it does not have to worry about busybody politicians coming along and making charities pay registration fees. That is the success of the charitable sector. Anyone who believes in charity in New Zealand has to vote against this bill. Anyone who believes in the charitable sector and the importance of a civil society has to vote against this bill. Why? Well what I ask Mr Copeland is the purpose of this bill? It sets up a new Crown entity. How I ask Mr Copeland will a new Crown entity help a charity? It is the charities that pick up the flotsam and jetsam that falls out of the welfare State that Mr Copeland supports. Now he is turning round and wants to hobble the charitable sector with a Crown entity that the charities themselves will have to pay for. I ask Mr Copeland: what is this Crown entity going to do? It is going to sit there and this Charities Commission will be responsible for running a registration reporting and monitoring system for charities. 
I ask Mr Copeland: how many charities are there? There are 37000 charities. So Mr Copeland and New Zealand First are voting for a quango to look after 37000 charities—to monitor them to register them and to keep an eye on them. There will be an army of bureaucrats doing that. [ 
Interruption 
] Sue Bradford laughs. How many people does she think it will take to register monitor and run 37000 charities? [ 
Interruption 
] Is the member going to vote against it? 
Sue Bradford 
: Absolutely! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh thank God! I love the Greens! Sanity from the Greens. Why cannot New Zealand First see it now? ACT and the Greens are agreeing. The great National Party will be voting against the bill. And here we have that basket case New Zealand First voting for it. God only knows why Mr Copeland is voting for it. 
Peter Brown 
: God does know. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: God does know I know. God only knows why New Zealand First would vote for this. I ask Mr Copeland: what is the mischief that we are trying to fix? 
Gordon Copeland 
: If ACT and the Greens are against it we must be right. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I have to say that that is the definition of the logic from the United Future party. Mr Copeland just called out that we are going to set upon the charities of New Zealand a charitable commission set up by the Labour Party with seven Government appointees running it all on the public tit paid for by the taxpayers that will require charities to register. Mr Copeland was asked: “Why are you voting for it?”. His answer was: “Because the Greens and ACT are voting against it.” That is the logic of the United Future party. 
Peter Brown 
: That’s a pretty good reason. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I have to say that they are no longer poodle power because they do not even have a poodle brain. The logic of it is that there are some charities that run off the rails. Charities have been around for 400 years and they are forever running off the rails. What is the mechanism that we have to pursue them? Section 58 of the charities Act. I ask Mr Copeland: who is in charge of that? The Attorney-General of New Zealand is in charge. 
Dail Jones 
: The charities Act? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No section 58. Under that section we can pursue a charity for fraud. 
Dail Jones 
: Of what? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Section 58 of the Charitable Trusts Act. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What about Fiji? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Robson the deputy leader of the Progressive Party leading the left-wing faction of the Progressive Party calls out: “What about Fiji?”. If they want to talk about charitable trusts they have an expert sitting on their side of the House in the name of Mr John Tamihere. We know that Prime Minister Helen Clark has forgiven him. All is forgiven. She will know all about the charitable trusts that Mr Tamihere has set up where the money has come from and where it has gone to. Do not worry we will be revealing that for the delight of— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: What about the pyramid selling schemes? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Swain is calling out about the pyramid selling schemes. Let us get back to the point. Why do we have 37000 charities having to be registered and monitored by a quango? 
Darren Hughes 
: Stop ripping them off. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Now we have whatever that guy’s name is Darren Hughes calling out saying that the Attorney-General has not been doing her job. I agree with him. If the Attorney-General did her job and pursued those people who ripped off the charities and used them for personal gain we would not be debating this Charities Bill tonight—because the Attorney-General would be doing her job. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Now it’s a “he”. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well when she was the Attorney-General. Now it is a “he”. What is he doing about the charitable sector? Is he pursuing them? [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Copeland now agrees with me. God knows what he is thinking. I say to Mr Worth—he will understand this—that if the Attorney-General was doing his job we would not need this bill. Is that correct? 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Quite right. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He agrees with me. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I don’t disagree. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Copeland now does not disagree. So now he is saying that if the Attorney-General was doing his job we would not need this bill. I look forward to United Future’s contribution to this debate. 
Peter Brown 
: Well sit down and get it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I will. We will get it after this and I want to hear some logic about why they are voting for this bill. I ask Mr Copeland to tell us in his contribution to this House how many civil servants it will take to monitor register and promote the research in the charitable sector. He does not know. He is voting for the bill and he does not know. I ask Mr Copeland: how much will it cost? [ 
Interruption 
] I have no idea but I am not voting for it. 
Darren Hughes 
: It will be a lot less after ACT has gone. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It will be a lot less when ACT is in power; that is true. 
Darren Hughes 
: When ACT has gone. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: How much will it cost? The member is going to vote for it. 
Gordon Copeland 
: No you are right. I have no idea. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The member has no idea. Mr Copeland has no idea what it will cost. He has no idea how many people it will take yet he is going to vote for the bill. Who is going to miss out? It will be the poor and the downtrodden—the people whom these very charities have been set up going back hundreds of years to serve. They are the people who will miss out. Why would we load charities with extra cost? Why would we load charities with extra bureaucratic hassle when we could simply demand that the Attorney-General do his job and pursue the ratbags who are ripping off their own charities—pursue them to the nth degree? If we did that and indeed lowered tax we would have more charity not less. This bill is about having less charity in New Zealand and for that reason the ACT party is voting against it.