Mallard Trevor: Crown Entities Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Crown Entities Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2367. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to reinforce the call made by Kevin Hague for Peter Dunne to take a call in this debate. I think the Committee will be interested in his view on this and the apparent inconsistency between the promises that he has made to charities and to the funders of charities and the position that he has set out in a recent email. Earlier I spoke of contortions with regard to religious positions but I think it is fair to say that Peter Dunne is subject to a pretty serious contortionist act in this particular circumstance.  
Mr Chairman through you I would like to ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of State Services about the charitable entities that are dealt with in new section 12 in clause 45 which goes to the establishment of the board and the chief executive. There does not appear to be a definition of “charitable entity”. There is a requirement for the chief executive to have meetings at least once a year with representatives of charitable entities and those people have to be given an opportunity to ask questions around the Act and to make submissions on the operation of this Act to the chief executive. But nowhere in here is any sort of definition of the group that has to be brought together for this annual review or marking process.  
My question to the Minister is whether there is a definition of “charitable entity” within the bill. I think it is fair to say that despite the very good work of the Government Administration Committee the bill is not that well drafted with regard to references. It is a bit of a hodgepodge. It may be that I have missed the definition of “charitable entity” within the bill but I cannot find it.  
I would now like to turn to clause 46 of the bill which is the clause that adds schedule 7 to the Charities Act. Schedule 7 of course as you are aware is set out in the bill and I would like to focus first of all on the validity of members’ acts. No before I do that I really just want to ask the Committee what we think we are doing by spending $2.4 million in change to replace a commission with a board. You know what are we actually doing here? We are going from an independent commission to a semi-independent quasi-independent board subject to the Department of Internal Affairs. We are spending a fortune in doing it and what for? Because what we have got is that instead of all the legislation we had about a commission we now have a whole pile of legislation as part of schedule 7 which relates to provisions relating to the board the chairperson and members.  
I am focusing in particular on the appointments and then on clause 3 of schedule 7 “Validity of members’ acts”. I am going to plead guilty to not focusing carefully on this clause at an earlier stage but seeing that we are at the Committee stage I think it is important that we do so. This is the time to get down to the nitty-gritty and to the detail. Clause 3 is around the validity of members’ acts. It says: “The acts of a person as a member or chairperson of the Board are valid even though—(a) a defect existed in the appointment of the person;”. So you can end up with a person who has been improperly appointed and maybe even a whole board that has been improperly appointed but it does not matter.  
It just seems to me that you have got to ask a question about why we are passing a set of legislation here that sets out requirements as to the appointment of a board which is replacing a commission for no good reason but somehow we are giving carte blanche to the Minister to make a total mess of the appointment process and even if the Minister has made a total mess of the appointment process then it does not matter what the board has done. I just ask why we are putting into the legislation some requirements around an appointment process if we are saying it does not matter because whatever the board does if it is improperly appointed its acts will be valid anyway. Especially if we look at clause 3(b) it just adds to the question.  
It then seems to repeat itself and again it would be good to ask the Minister in the chair to tell us what the difference is between clause 3(a) and (b) of schedule 7 taken together and clause 4(1). Clause 3 says: “The acts of a person as a member or chairperson of the Board are valid even though—(a) a defect existed in the appointment of that person;”. Then clause 4(1) says: “The appointment of a person as a member or chairperson of the Board is not invalid only because a defect existed in the appointment of the person.” Well you know what is the difference? Why have we got both? Is it belt and braces or is it things that are completely different? Is it a matter that the Minister worked through carefully? In fact I do not think he was the Minister in charge of the bill. Maybe the Minister could tell us more about the costs of the three-person board how much is saved and what the cost is as a result of this transfer.  
I would like to ask the Minister whether this is autonomous or semi-autonomous according to the definitions in the State Sector Act and especially with regard to the removal of members where clearly the Minister under clause 6 of schedule 7 has to consult with the person concerned before the member of the board is removed from office and must notify the removal in the  
Gazette 
. It says: “(5) To avoid doubt the Minister may not remove a member unless the Minister has properly considered the matter and complied with the principles of natural justice.” Does that mean that the Minister can remove without cause or does it mean that the Minister has to have cause in order to remove the person? That I think is a pretty important thing.  
We are dealing with a group that is meant to be autonomous and what it gets down to is whether or not the Minister in firing someone who is meant to be independently fulfilling some functions independent from the chief executive and independent from the Minister in the actions of this board has to give a reason. If the reason is just that the Minister does not like the decisions then I have no doubt that the person will have cause against the Minister and there would be some definite changes as a result of that.  
On the term of the appointment of a chairperson there appears to be no ending of the term of a chairperson on death. That is a normal provision as I think the Chairperson of this Committee knows. It is a normal provision within legislation that terms end with death and that has not been taken into account as far as I can see under clause 8 of schedule 7 of the bill. I want to ask the Minister in charge of the bill why not. Why has the provision which is a standard provision that clarifies that a dead person cannot chair a board—[ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chairman.