Jones Dail: Charities Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Charities Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12111] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 When I was recently in legal practice I helped to create a number of trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act. As I did so from time to time I asked myself what sort of control exists for those charitable trusts. Who knows anything about them? So I made some inquiries about what type of regulatory measure exists for charitable trusts and I discovered that way back in 1979 there had been a Property Law and Equity Reform Committee report on the Charitable Trusts Act of 1957. I got a copy of that report in the early 1990s. Of course I misplaced it a long time ago but I got the library to get it for me again because I was still concerned about the way in which those trusts had been operating. 
In paragraph 1 the report states: “The committee has been asked to consider the comments made by T A Gresson J.”—Justice T A Gresson—“in the case of Re Goldwater Deceased [1967] NZLR 754. Subsequently it was suggested that the whole of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 called for a general examination. In particular the question was raised of the desirability of establishing more effective means of control of charitable trusts perhaps by means of a charities commission along the lines established in the United Kingdom.” So way back in 1967 concern was being expressed in New Zealand about the way in which those trusts were operating and the lack of control on them. Again in paragraph 13 on page 7 the report states: “The committee was asked to give particular consideration to the questions raised by the Rev. R M O’Grady the associate-general of the National Council of Churches in a newspaper article in which he said: ‘The public has no protection against charities in New Zealand. It would not be difficult for a skilled promotional person to raise $10000 or more for almost any appeal one cares to name. Simply by national advertising and a small mailing to selected persons any charity can get itself established in a few weeks. Raising really big money for a charity requires time and planning. By far the best method is the house-to-house collection.’ ” 
Concern was expressed in this report published in 1979 with quotes from the Rev. O’Grady of the National Council of Churches and Justice Gresson a High Court judge about the way in which charities were operating in New Zealand way back in 1967. All I can say on behalf of New Zealand First is that I am delighted to see the Charities Bill before the House. It is long overdue. There are far far too many rip-offs in our society in so far as charities are concerned. 
I thought I would do a little bit of research. I put “charities” into a search engine on the Web as I am wont to do with various things and I got the UK website. There are 1 million registered charity trustees in the United Kingdom. My friend from the National Party told us vaguely about the situation in Australia. He circumvented any reference to the United Kingdom but I am sure his research department also checked the United Kingdom situation. There are 1 million registered charity trustees in the UK! There do not seem to be any problems in the UK with that. I have never heard any complaints about it. What is suggested in this report is that there should be a charities commission along the lines of that established in the United Kingdom. I cannot see any particular reason why there would be problems in the UK; it all seems to work well. 
Richard Worth 
: The problems are on the Web. Tell us about them. 
DAIL JONES 
: I am surprised that my colleague from the National Party who is interjecting now did not tell us about the situation in the United Kingdom and I suspect the reason was that the process is working very well there and he was unable to come up with any problems associated with it. 
The Green Party issued a press statement that stated: “The definitions of a ‘charity’ are almost unchanged from the 1908 tax law.” In fact the definition of a charity is almost unchanged from that of 1601 in the Statute of Elizabeth. That is the basis of a charity. It is for looking after the poor their education and suchlike. Charities have never been designed for the purposes of political parties. Political parties should not expect to get support as a charity. [ 
Interruption 
] OK the National Party is upset now that it has been exposed but political parties should not expect to get support as a registered charity. That is very very clear. Of course the National Party needs some financial support. [ 
Interruption 
] As my colleague said I doubt it very much. It is well and truly established that looking after the poor the sick the unwell and suchlike is the basis for establishing and supporting a charity and has been from way back in 1601. 
We had a case in the House around 1979-80 relating to CORSO. Remember how CORSO went? It was a classic example of an absolutely wonderful New Zealand icon of a charity that looked after the poor. I remember that when I lived in Grey Lynn and used to walk down the road towards Hobson St CORSO had a wonderful building there where it collected clothes and sent them overseas. But it drifted away from its course—what it was set up for and intended to do—and effectively became a political organisation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: A bunch of radicals. 
DAIL JONES 
: A bunch of radicals absolutely. They were deregistered with regard to charitable purposes and out they went. I suspect perhaps that the Greens are saying they do not support that idea. That is very good. My colleagues from the National Party who are here support the Greens. Well in this bill there is a clause stating that people with convictions punishable by imprisonment for 2 years or more should not work for charities. I think that is very very important. 
Richard Worth 
: That won’t rule out all the Greens. 
DAIL JONES 
: That is a very unkind comment from Mr Worth—very unkind indeed. But he is supporting the Greens. He is working with the Greens and cannot quite make up his mind whether he is for them or against them on this particular provision. As far as the Greens saying that people with those criminal convictions should be allowed to work for charities and suchlike I do not agree with them on that matter. I am consistent in my difficulty in agreeing with the Greens on many issues. Generally speaking however in so far as this provision is concerned I think it is important and long overdue that people whose role is to make money available to charities have the minimal degree of registration that is required by this legislation and that there is some degree of confirmation— 
Richard Worth 
: Minimum of $20000 a year. 
DAIL JONES 
: —$20000 yes absolute nonsense—that charities have some degree of supervisory attention from the Government of the day and that not any Tom Dick or Harry can be involved in charities. They should have a number and suchlike so that when collectors go by at least on the face of it they have a number. We know that the unscrupulous will give themselves a name and number and will still try to collect money illegally and the like. But on the whole I think this legislation is a very good idea. 
So far as the tax side of it is concerned—and I do not think my colleague has been associated much with charities—for every charity I have registered I have tried to have in its rules a provision that has been approved in advance by the Inland Revenue Department using the wording required by that department for the way in which the funds can be utilised in a liquidation and for the way in which the staff of the charity can be paid. Those are the two things the Inland Revenue Department is concerned with. 
To repeat for my friend on the right from the National Party the mischief that could be done was set out by Justice Gresson in 1967. It was set out by the National Council of Churches in the late 1970s. I am sure that anyone associated with charities knows there are unscrupulous people out there who are willing to rip off the New Zealand public. Doing it by way of a charity—or so-called charity—is one of the best ways possible. This was a little hobby horse of mine when I was in practice—to have something done about tidying up the situation. All I can say is that on behalf of New Zealand First I am delighted that this type of legislation which seems to have worked so well in the United Kingdom is being introduced into the House today.