Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I appreciate the call. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the Charities Amendment Bill which was once upon a time part of a Statutes Amendment Bill. After hearing the explanation from the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector it makes perfect sense why it was pulled out of the Statutes Amendment Bill because of course there was some sort of ambiguity concerning a number of people in the public sector who cried a little bit foul. Rightly or wrongly so they have done that and now we are finding ourselves in a position that is looking like it is fully supported across the Chamber. I will join in the chorus of support from New Zealand First to say that we too will support this bill going through the House because of course it is relatively innocuous really. It does two things—well it does three things but the third thing is really not even worth mentioning because it is just a little bit of a grammatical tidy-up. The first thing it does is not permit a person who has had an offence under tax legislation or something similar—tax evasion was the phrase I was thinking of—to be able to have a position within a charitable organisation or a trust. That does make absolute sense. The second part of this bill is about removing charitable status from an entity if it does not provide the right information in the right amount of time. I think if it has been 20 working days which is about a month—which some people may say is a little bit too short but then at the end of the day I think there would be good reason to remove charitable status if of course the entity was not giving that information forward nice and quickly so that it can actually be dealt with. I would just like to talk a little bit about these statutes amendment bills that are supposed to be minor technical and non-controversial. It does bring me to other bills that we have seen brought into a Statutes Amendment Bill that have had all three of those characteristics such as Nuk Korako's bill about lost luggage and of course Matt Doocey's bill about enabling board members to get access to papers online. Those bills have now made it into a Statutes Amendment Bill and that does beg the question—I would say probably some of the most controversial things we have spoken about in the House and that the media have picked up on have been those two bills themselves and it may beg the question as to how they have actually got themselves into that bill. I think it is out of embarrassment by the Government that it actually put them through to obscure—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): So back to the bill.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you—back to the bill but a great way to sort of obfuscate if you like. The elephant in the room however is the charities themselves. I think there have been a lot of people since this bill has been tabled who have discussed it certainly with myself and with members of New Zealand First around the eligibility and genuine nature of what constitutes a charity. I think some of the things that have been raised—it is not part of the bill I know but it is part of what is actually important to people who have raised it in conjunction with the bill—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): But we are discussing this bill. We are discussing this bill so the member should talk about this bill.CLAYTON MITCHELL: But as I have mentioned these were raised as questions about this bill which raises questions about what constitutes a charity. We have a number of charities that have got charitable status that may need to be reviewed and I think that in light of us discussing charities and removing charitable status it is worth bringing into this debate and discussion a potential review overlooking what is considered to be a genuine charity in light of New Zealand's benevolence in putting time and effort and money into these organisations. I think the people of New Zealand have a right to ask that question—and I guess asking the Minister herself: is this something that is likely to come up in the future?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! The whole point and the point that I made earlier on is no you cannot. It does not matter what you are asked about as an MP in relation to that; you talk about this bill. You talk about matters raised in the select committee and no you cannot go and ask the Minister whether she is going to do something about it in the future. I would have thought that would be clear by now. CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you very much for your enlightenment Mr Chair and I do have to say that speaking for 5 minutes to one piece of paper can be a little bit difficult but they are good questions well raised and good points raised—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): You do not have to do 5 minutes. CLAYTON MITCHELL: I have 52 seconds to go; I will see what I can do. The third part—the part that I was not going to mention but since I have been cut short with my speech—is literally to correct a 2012 drafting error by removing the words of the chief executive" from this bill. We will be supporting this bill as it goes through the House. I have just about filled up 5 minutes of the Committee's time—and I think very thoughtfully too. I know there will be some good nodding in agreement from people back home listening to it. I commend this bill moving forward through the House. Thank you."