Upston Louise; Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. So I think instead I'll just make a speech because that might be more useful if the Minister is not going to answer the questions. I do think because of the timing—and I don't know if it was by accident or deliberate that the committee of the whole House stage is being debated in National Volunteer Week. I went and met with a number of volunteer organisations yesterday and let me see if I can name them. Project Tongariro Greening Taupō Red Cross St John's the Tokoroa Fire Brigade trustees from a couple of my local schools Breast Cancer Awareness Bellyful Plunket assistance dogs hearing disability dogs—who also represent the only dogs assisting in emergency management scenarios—these are organisations that are wide and varied in the service they provide to our community. There are also the hospice and Care NZ which is predominantly a cat rescue. Those two alone the hospice and Care in Taupō have 370 volunteers—370 volunteers—whose time and energy that I would like to see the Government support. I don't want the hospice shop in Taupō to be worried about raising another $20000 to pay an accountant to ensure that their governance—let me get the words—Tama Potaka: Sausage sizzles for accountants. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely! That's a great expression—sausage sizzles for accountants"—because what is pretty clear from the submitters which is why I have consistently gone back to put the voice of the submitters in this committee of the whole House stage is that they're quite bewildered in terms of whether or not the Government values their work in terms of defining the problem. Originally the problem was that the charities bill wasn't fit for purpose and that's why there was a first-principles review that the Labour Party had promised in their election in 2017. So then the submitters are somewhat puzzled by what the problem is now because if the bill is fit for purpose why would you then just lay on more red tape for charities and treat them all as one size and type knowing that some are incredibly complex and others are not? Others have governing legislation—like as I mentioned before the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust—and others don't. Waikato-Tainui is a very wideranging charitable organisation who do phenomenal work in the community and it might actually be that they've got accountants that can support their work but I'd be very surprised if some of the smaller charities do. So the Government wants those organisations to raise money through sausage sizzles to pay for that and that's why I'm going to ask another question. Is that the intention that funding that has been raised for charitable purposes will now be spent on accountants and lawyers to ensure that the governance review that is required on a three-yearly basis—and I'd like to know if there's been an estimate of what that will cost the charitable organisations. Yes I accept that in the select committee it was changed to push it to three years but what is the estimated cost Minister of the duty to review governance procedures every three years for every charitable entity? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I find it incredibly interesting that that member waxes lyrical about the cost that is imposed on charities when it was that member's party in Government that brought in a change in 2015 that meant that very small charities had to hire accountants because they then suddenly needed to report against the External Reporting Board standard. That is one of the changes that we are proposing through this bill because so many small charities were unable to afford that cost. So it's a little bit rich coming from that member. So what are the changes the member asks—are we just increasing red tape through this bill? No. So small charities will have their reporting requirements reduced if they fit into specific criteria—which is very small charities—such that they just provide a narrative report and don't have to report against an onerous standard. That is one of the changes that will be made which has gone down very well might I add with small charities. That's one. Secondly the rules document in new section 42G inserted by clause 20—again I've already addressed this issue. It's not a compliance burden. Charitable organisations already have a rules document. This is a point I'll make because this is an issue that's been brought up again and again and I suspect there's a lack of clarity around the fact that the current Act already requires charities to have a rules document. The only change here is the fact that many have rules documents that are out of date because there hasn't been a requirement to keep them updated. This goes towards driving better governance. All this bill does is to ensure that there is a requirement that regularly charities will continue to comply with what they're meant to be doing and it gives them an opportunity to be able to do so. Initially we thought that perhaps annually would be a good fit along with reporting requirements but given the submissions to the select committee we decided that perhaps we'll change that to a three-yearly requirement so there's a threeyear window for charities to be able to do that within. It's already there so there shouldn't be an additional cost at all or an increase in compliance burden there. In terms of advocacy the point that was raised about charitable organisations being able to be involved in advocacy—now that is out of scope of the bill. But what I will say is that there have been rulings through the Supreme Court on that. Family First comes to mind in terms of the ruling around advocacy and I'll leave that there. I will also address for the final time the issue around first principles because that has come up time and again by members from the Opposition. That is out of scope for this bill. We are here to discuss the clauses that are in this legislation and not re-litigate a review that took place in 2019 where the consensus then was that the foundations of the legislation were sound and what we would do was to make tangible changes that would actually benefit the charitable sector while also striking a balance to ensure that the public have trust and confidence in the sector."