Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. So to the Charities Amendment Bill and members on this side of the House—and I emphasise this side of the House deliberately—have expressed some real misgivings about the process that's been undertaken and certainly the result that we've ended up with. I say this side of the House" deliberately because actually it's not just the National Party; it is also other parties who are not Government parties fully and proper. When National ACT and the Green Party are all united in backing the sector against the clear wishes of the single party governing majority then alarm bells should be ringing not only in the Beehive but also throughout the sector as indeed they already are along the lines that this result is certainly not that which was intended or indeed advertised by the Labour Government in putting forward the bill and certainly going back to the Labour Party policy of 2017. I understand that its manifesto policy had been to carry out a first-principles review of the Charities Act and while this would hardly be the first example of Labour Party manifesto policy in 2017 not being reflected by reality in the subsequent six years it is nevertheless an important one and an important one for the sector.Hon Scott Simpson: I can't think of a single one that they did implement.CHRIS PENK: My colleague and friend Mr Simpson says that he can't name any that have been implemented. He wouldn't be far wrong but I'm not going to use the rest of my three minutes trying to think of any. I don't see any reason why this should be a question time.Hon Dr Deborah Russell: You can sit down now if you like. CHRIS PENK: It's like a reverse question time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Or you could just come back to this particular bill. Thank you.CHRIS PENK: OK good guidance. Thank you Madam Speaker. If you think about the first-principles review that should have taken place and should have resulted in much more certainty and clarity for the sector and if I were to approach this from the angle of being the shadow Attorney-General and being interested in the relationship between the courts and Parliament and civil society I would note the lack of clarity that exists around charitable purpose the concept of public benefit and who gets to decide that and the exemption regarding political purpose whereby environmental aims as determined by some and not others get to be applied. And it seems that we have a deeply anomalous uncertain and unreasonable outcome to this notion that we would need to know how we can support those who support other New Zealanders and actually others around the world as well. When we think about the idea of public benefit there should be some mechanism for determining that other than in a very vague sense without clear criteria a Government agency and certainly the courts should not be stepping into the shoes of legislators or civil society to determine what according to a majority of the bench in any given case decides is or isn't within the public benefit. That way lies a form of tyranny and I know that's a slightly ugly word to use. But taking the definition of those decision makers who are unable to be accountable or held accountable for their actions or those to be reviewable in any meaningful way that is the result of what we have seen in the last few years in high-profile cases across more than one entity—which we don't need to re-litigate in this House and I don't intend to do so—and it would indicate that the considerable uncertainty is doing a disservice to various charitable or not technically charitable entities in the country and those whom they would serve. So if we think about why it's important that the sector is listened to and supported again unusually I will acknowledge and agree with the comment made by a Green Party parliamentary colleague which is that taking at face value the idea that compliance costs of a financial and time nature would be reduced is something we could have and should have all supported except that the reality has been somewhat different. The reason it's important to try and reduce such costs and to enable greater help is of course—and in all of our electorates we would understand the work that was done in a cyclone recovery context as a topical example. We certainly acknowledge all those who have worked so hard on a volunteer and charitable basis for that. In the justice system we've got JPs community law centres judicial JPs community magistrates and so on. They deserve support. This bill does not provide it to them. We oppose this bill."