Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. It's great that the committee is supporting this bill but I think it's actually the Let's Re-elect Dr David Clark to Full Cabinet Bill". Because how many bills has he put forward? This bill has been sitting around for years and I reckon since he's taken over this portfolio he's said to his officials "Find me any bill that I can get back into the House so that I can be standing up there seen to be driving through this legislation." And Holy Toledo wasn't it National that actually brought about this change back in 2015 under the auspices of the Hon Paul Goldsmith? And finally the latest Minister's bringing this bill forward. So look Prime Minister if you are listening the Hon Dr David Clark is working hard for you bringing together these very important bills. So I suppose there's a couple of questions about this bill. First of all why has it taken so long to get to this stage? It was 2015 and we're now in 2022. Why have you—and I'm talking to the Minister here—why has the Government been so tardy to bring this to the House? Because I think that there is a lot that should have been done over the last four years and hasn't been progressed. Now you may be tail-end Charlie Minister in terms of bringing it to the House but it is something that should have come to the House earlier.The second thing is: one of the key bits is that the 1908 Act is silent on a number of important issues namely about the role of the directors and the people running charities the officials the governance structures of those charities. And what I'd like to ask is: to what extent does this bill work within the confines of the Companies Act in terms of prudential controls and director controls? Are there any additional obligations or do we merely turn to the Companies Act to see what are the full prudential requirements and obligations of director of charities?The other aspect I want to draw the committee's attention to is: why do we have to have a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which on the first page and the second page is just full of a whole lot of changes? And I've got to say we've just not long debated another bill where the Minister put up a whole lot of amendments. It's like it's just a lack of—Hon Member: Organisation.ANDREW BAYLY: —care and organisation someone I heard over there say. So it just seems strange that we've got these changes. The Minister has talked glowingly of these three changes and of course we understand there's the first one around the financial audit requirements so if you don't have records over two years then there should be some rules around that. But for instance "How an infringement notice may be served". Wow this is just unbelievable stuff. I've never seen it before I don't think! It's like an infringement notice may be served by delivering it to the officer or employee of the society at the society's head office. Wow that's unbelievably cutting edge sending it to the society by prepaid post! Oh another cutting edge change: sending it to the electronic address of the society! All these things about how to serve notice. Why in the dickens wasn't that in the original bill? Why are you introducing this as a SOP?So I've just got some questions here. We'll obviously talk more about the three changes that you've made and the reasons why. I'd like to know why you've made those changes. They seem good on the face of it but why at such a late stage? Why weren't they introduced when it was going through the select committee before it came back into the House? I'm looking forward to the Minister's responses.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I just remind the member and encourage him not to bring the Speaker into the debate."