Roche Denise: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill Charities Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill Charities Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 30 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2730. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Speaker. Tena koe. I am going to restrict my comments to the Charities Amendment Bill (No 2). My colleague Kevin Hague has already spoken very eloquently on the other parts of the legislation and he has the expertise in that area. There is a little saying that goes: “No good deed goes unpunished”. This is clearly the case with the Charities Commission because it is being punished. In the debates in all the speeches and in all the readings of this legislation not one single person has said that the Charities Commission is failing. Not one person has said that it needs reform in order for it to do its job properly because it does do its job properly. It is as trim as it can be and it is still effective.  
This is from the Charities Commission’s statement of intent: “The Commission is very mindful that we will be operating in an environment of limited resources and have been told not to expect additional funding for the next three to five years.” It goes on to say that it will meet the outcomes that it is expected to meet. These outcomes include that the public is better informed about registered charities that charities are better informed about effective governance and management practices and that the Government is better informed about charities.  
Without this law change this is what the Charities Commission already does. It promotes public trust and confidence in the charitable sector it provides education and helps with registration it registers charitable entities and maintains a register it monitors charitable activities and entities it investigates any wrongdoing and breaches of the Act and it monitors and promotes compliance with the Act including taking prosecutions. All in all it is about creating—and it has done this—and maintaining transparency in the community and voluntary sector. Incorporating the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs will change how effectively this independent organisation operates.  
Yesterday I cornered the Hon John Banks to ask for his support to stop this bill and he declined. But I thought it was worthwhile to ask him because his predecessor in the House the Hon Rodney Hide complimented the Charities Commission recently in an article in the  
National Business Review 
. He was particularly complimentary about the Charities Commission database which he said is the best Government database on the internet. He goes on to say: “There’s every charity with all their relevant information and critically the database is easily searchable by the likes of you and me.” He points out that there is a lot of money washing around in the sector citing a total of $350 million a year in rebates from donations and an estimated $1.5 billion in tax breaks for charitable businesses. So there is really a need for very good scrutiny. He notes that the Charities Commission has a good reputation and already does the joined-up thinking that this Government wants to achieve by putting it into the Department of Internal Affairs. I never thought I would ever agree with Mr Hide but there you go.  
Last week I also door-stopped the Hon Peter Dunne when I caught up with him in the lift and later when I followed him down Lambton Quay. He said that the community and voluntary sector was overreacting—that is right. He dismissed the concerns of the entire sector by saying that he maintained the Charities Commission would keep its independence because it is just like the Gambling Commission. But it is not just like the Gambling Commission. The Gambling Commission sits outside the Department of Internal Affairs. It acts as an appeal for decisions that are made inside the Department of Internal Affairs by the department’s investigators. The Gambling Commission moreover does not assist the industry with education as part of its raison d’être.  
I would urge members to vote against the Charities Amendment Bill (No 2). It is not needed and it is unlikely to ensure transparency. In the big things it does not save a lot. It is premature as Louisa Wall has already outlined. The Charities Commission is already effective and independent and honestly it is a huge leap backwards. Thank you.