Jones Dail: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19966] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I just want to have another go at looking at the two issues. I would be interested to see what Rodney Hide can find out about the Electoral Act in terms of whether if someone has been convicted of an offence punishable by more than 12 months it bars that person from being a member of Parliament. I doubt that very much. I think it may have something to do with being in prison but that is another matter. But that is not why I am raising this issue; I am raising it because it is quite clear that neither the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) nor the replacement clause 15(2)(c) is perfect. That is the obvious situation. The replacement clause 15(2)(c) which the majority of members of the Social Services Committee put in will allow a convicted fraudster to be an office holder of a charitable entity. Of course it does not surprise me in the slightest that the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society would want a fraudster to be involved in a society because that would seem to aid former prisoners to get back into their wicked ways and help themselves to the charity’s money. If we want to be ironic about it that is what a prisoners’ aid society may want. It was interesting to listen to Katherine Rich though. She seemed from everything that she said to support this bill although the National Party opposes it. 
I turned up to the select committee—I am not a regular member; I was filling in on the day of its deliberation—and I could see that there was something the matter here. The struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) could have been amended to refer to an offence of dishonesty in order to get over the problem that has been raised quite correctly by another member of this Committee. Those clauses were so broadly drawn in the first place that they did catch a wide range of people who might not have been involved in dishonesty offences. The select committee has tried in the replacement clause 15(2)(c) to catch people involved in crimes involving dishonesty but that really links it to the Greens and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act which referred to 7 years. That is the reason why the period is 7 years—it is because of that Act and the view of this Government that it should continue with the clean slate philosophy that if one has committed an offence 7 years ago one should be forgiven. 
That is all right for offences that do not involve a person going to prison but not when it involves offences like for example dishonesty within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act. That includes false accounting. So if one was convicted of false accounting 8 years ago one can be an officer of a charitable entity. If one has counterfeited the charity’s seal in terms of section 261 of the Crimes Act “Counterfeiting public seals” yes one can be an officer of the society. That also applies if one has been involved in other offences involving for example using altered or reproduced documents with the intent to deceive. Now that is what one would do as an officer of a society with all that money. The offences include forgery and using a forged document—that sounds a bit familiar. In terms of those offences if one committed them 8 years ago one could be an officer of a society. 
I just say that neither the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) nor the replacement clause 15(2)(c) are perfect. But I think we would be better off to have the struck out clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) in the bill at the moment in the time that we have for this legislation rather than letting it run with the replacement clause 15(2)(c). The Government has an opportunity to either correct it now while the drafters are still here or leave that clause in and correct it in the fullness of time as soon as possible in the next 2 or 3 months. Otherwise we could be in serious problems. New Zealand First is not doing any deals. We will still support this legislation because the intent is right. But I think that the way the bill is worded means we will not solve the problem of charities having dishonest employees.