Bradford Sue: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Bradford Sue: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19963] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I was not going to speak on Part 2 but when Mr Dail Jones repeated comments about clause 15 and asked for some reason why this clause has been amended I felt constrained to speak as that is a clause that would have affected me personally. 
He is right: I did vote for the Government’s amendments in the select committee because I think they do absolutely the right thing—and they do what many hundreds of submitters advised the Government to do as well. The effect of the original clause as drafted the original clause that Mr Jones and New Zealand First are trying to put back into the bill would have been to exclude many many hundreds if not thousands of really excellent board members and trustees from taking up positions on the boards of the thousands of community groups around this country. I am more than happy to say that I am one of those people; I have been convicted of offences liable for 2 years’ imprisonment or more—offences connected with the 1981 Springbok tour. I have no shame about them. I do not want to be clean-slated for them. I am proud of those offences because they are part of my political history and actually such a history is an honourable tradition of previous generations in the Labour Party. 
Rodney Hide 
: Crooks and thieves. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: It does not mean one is a crook or thief—to stand up for one’s political principles at times like that. I think it is a really good qualification for being in this Parliament. It is also a really good qualification for being on the board of an organisation that is following certain principles and values as so many of our church and community sector groups do. 
But that is actually a minor matter in terms of why I supported the Government’s amendments to this clause. It is not just about people like me with political convictions. I might just add that I taught governance at the tertiary level for 5 years before I came to Parliament. I have taught many people about these things and it is really ironic for me as a teacher of governance that this clause would have said that any group of which I was a board member had to get rid of me unless it got a special exemption. And I still am on some boards. 
But beyond that and much more important is that a whole lot more people who have been convicted for all sorts of criminal offences not political ones would also have been excluded. Many many of the organisations that do such good work in our community are like the one already mentioned by my colleague Judith Collins the Problem Gambling Foundation. As well there are many groups that for example work with prisoners like the Prison Inmates’ Loved Ones Linked as One to Renew Strength the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society groups that work in the drug and alcohol addiction areas and ones that work with all sorts of offenders and ex-offenders. Some of the best people on those boards are people who have been down that road of addiction have been in prison or have been a gambler. Those people are very very valuable members of those boards and they should not be excluded. That is the main reason why it was very important that the original clause was eliminated from the bill and was replaced by the one we have in this draft. 
As members know the Green Party does not support the bill overall but we are really pleased that in a number of areas the Government has seen fit to improve it. We accept the inevitable: this bill will become law. Community sector groups are going to have to work with it and we want it to be in the best shape it possibly can be. So I certainly hope that no parties in this Committee will support the New Zealand First amendment. 
I have a couple of other points while I am on my feet. I do not know that I would go as far as some of the comments from Simon Power and Rodney Hide about jackbooted armies of bureaucrats marching into the sector as a result of the Charities Commission being set up but on looking at this part overall I cannot help but be a little afraid that so much of the focus of this bill is simply on regulation down to very minute detail. The overarching feel we get from it is that it is about the monitoring and regulation of a sector that thrives on its individuality and its commitment to purpose to kaupapa to values. Somehow we have got it wrong in this legislation; it is all about regulation and not about enabling and empowering the sector to do the good work it can do. 
Finally in terms of clause 26(e) which Ms Collins and Mr Hide have been talking about again I agree with them. It is phenomenally incomprehensible that an organisation could or should be punished for the misdoings or outright crimes of one person as Mr Hide referred to. It is a situation I myself have been through with organisations in terms of other people. Organisations are inevitably badly damaged by criminals who somehow become part of them and rip them off and it is a curse of the community sector that it happens to us at times. Of course it happens in the private sector and the Government sector as well; all sectors have to deal with it. But this kind of clause simply does not make sense. If a trustee or board member knowingly commits a crime or acts against the law of this country of course he or she should be held responsible as should a staff member who does that. But that does not mean the organisation should suffer.