McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT for the second reading of this bill. ACT supported this bill to the Social Services and Community Committee because changes in this area of law are quite infrequent and the sector has been hoping for change as promised six years ago. The select committee did indeed provide that opportunity for many charities and organisations and stakeholders to make submissions and to get in touch with MPs throughout the process and afterwards and I thank those that spoke to me during and following that process; it was extremely helpful.Given changes in the sector don't come by often many expressed a sense of excitement following Labour's 2017 policy and its manifesto to undertake a first-principles post-implementation review which would ultimately lead to changes to the Charities Act which could in theory be welcomed in the charities sector and that those charities would be heard from throughout the process. As we've heard tonight that review has not happened.As this is seldomly looked at by Parliament it is understandable that people will be worried that unresolved issues in this bill could be enduring and damaging to their sector. So unfortunately while changes do need to take place this bill is not it and ACT will be opposing it from here on.So submissions to the select committee did not give me a great deal of confidence in either the process of the drafting of the bill or the depth of consultation nor the consideration of potential unintended consequences. Many submitters who got in touch with me spoke of their frustrations. As has been mentioned by other members the regulatory impact statement noted inadequate consultation and evidence which is surprising given how long these changes or the background of these changes have been in the works.The role of Charities Services was also a topic of discussion. Many expressed a concern that there's a bit too much advocacy and campaigning perhaps even political to an extent rather than just supporting charities with a light touch.Another concern is that the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) might have been a bit heavy-handed that they might have strong-armed the process whether that's in their advice to the Government their advice to the select committee or being an overall imposition on charities conducting their activities lawfully. Moreover some stakeholders felt that DIA officials put walls up until decisions had already been made time and time again making it a difficult process.The bigger picture is that the regulatory environment is becoming more complex and more controlling making the jobs of those in charities more and more difficult. In order to thrive and be productive charities ultimately need less bureaucracy. They need to be able to get on with what they do best: providing essential services to the communities that depend on them—often to provide systems significantly better than the Government I might add. What they don't need is Government interfering too much and this bill is a case of that with agencies making decisions with little accountability to the charitable sector.Certain concerns have not been addressed notably the supposed benefits of the bill in the explanatory notes—for example reducing financial reporting—and I just don't buy it. This idea of reducing red tape—it just doesn't make sense. It appears that it is distracting from the true intentions behind the scenes. New regulations don't actually make life easier for charities and these definition issues are still outstanding. Charities won't thrive with the heavy-handed unelected officials calling the shots and looking at them with suspicion from the outset. Further I feel that the three-year review process is arguably just going to pay lip service to the DIA and not be particularly effective.What the sector needs is a move towards more independence including in its oversight. If reform isn't forthcoming then the Government should focus on the law that's already there: that everyone in a charity has a requirement to act in good faith and for the benefit of their communities. In the absence of well-consulted and well-crafted law changes the Government should just step back stop trying to micromanage charities and let them get on with doing what they do best within existing regulations. So we're opposing this bill. Thank you.