O'Rourke Denis: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill Charities Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill Charities Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 30 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2723. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has no comments on the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill or the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. We accept that some gains in mergers of agencies are appropriate where their functions are not compromised. But New Zealand First does oppose the Charities Amendment Bill (No 2). With this bill we say that the dead hand of Government bureaucracy will fall on the charities sector.  
There is no need to disestablish the Charities Commission. It has been doing a very good job in a very short time. It has been building relationships within the sector and with the public generally. It has the confidence of the charities sector and has earned the confidence of the public. It has built expertise and institutional knowledge which will not be replaceable. It has been providing leadership in the charities sector. It has been standing at arm’s length from the Government and its administration. And it has been positive has had a helpful culture and has exercised some flexibility in the way it went about its work. To put it in a nutshell it has been a very successful commission in the job it is doing. There is simply no reason to disestablish it. What is being achieved by that? I see nothing in anything that I have read in the regulatory impact statement or have heard in listening to Government speakers that would justify it.  
On the other hand the Department of Internal Affairs is a quintessential Government bureaucracy. As such it is naturally not good at consultation or public engagement. It will not be as accessible to the public or as approachable to people. It will not be as transparent in its decision making. It will do the job I am sure competently but it will not provide any encouragement to the development of the charities sector in this country. So again it is very difficult to see why you would replace the commission with that.  
We are told that the Department of Internal Affairs will be more efficient. In fact I think the words used in one of the reports were “robust and resilient”. I do not really know what that means in this context but I suppose it is aimed at saving money. That in itself is not very convincing because I am sure it will grow and the savings will disappear over time. But most particularly I do not think the department will be effective at anything other than reflecting the Government policy of the day—that is what normally happens—whereas if the commission were to remain we could be sure that there would be independence not just as a matter of statement not just as a matter of intention but as a matter of culture. That essentially is the difference between a Government department and a commission of this kind.  
We are told for example in new section 8(4) in clause 45 that we do not have to worry about independence because the words are there in the statute—that the Minister would not have any influence. But what does that really mean? Words in a statute are just that. Again some Ministers may actually abide by that principle but perhaps others would exercise some interference. That is the danger that many people see in the bill.  
When you look at new section 10 in clause 45 you get even less confidence about independence because new section 10 covers the functions of the chief executive. The chief executive cannot be independent of Government policy or the Minister because they are part of a Government department. His or her independence is not covered at all in new section 10. The chief executive will be a very powerful person in practice and in the section itself it refers to the chief executive issuing guidelines. Perhaps that really means instructions. The chief executive will issue model rules so charities will no longer be as free to adopt their own set of rules under this regime. I do not think that is very positive. 
Mike Sabin 
: It’s very positive. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Also the chief executive will provide appropriate information. Somebody opposite just said that that will be positive. Well if you actually asked the charities what they think about that I do not think the response would be very positive at all. The chief executive will also be able—in fact it will be the function of the chief executive—to present the recommendations to the board as to whether a particular charity be registered or not. The chief executive will also be responsible for the department’s monitoring and inquiring into charities. So when I say that this is a very powerful position in practice what it really means is that the Government is going to take very firm control indeed of the charities sector under this legislation.  
The Government will in fact dictate to charities. Whereas charities thrive on diversity—they have passion for their causes and they have a flair in achieving their objectives—those are all the things that a Government department is not good at and will not be able to assist them with. So although some structure was needed what we did not need was a wholesale takeover of the charities sector by the Government through a Government department. The proper balance here was the commission something that stood at arm’s length from the Government—genuinely at arm’s length—able to develop its own practice and culture and yet exercise some control and regulation which was needed over the charities sector. So the balance that we would wish to have is already there and will be removed by this legislation.  
A review of the charities sector was in fact needed following first a review of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. But that does not mean there was any need to even consider the disestablishment of the commission. What is actually needed with the charities sector is a close look at the definition of what a charity is and what it is not. The old four-part definition—of encouraging the purposes of education religion and the relief of poverty and other purposes beneficial to the community—is no longer appropriate for the 21st century. There are so many other good public purposes that fall outside that definition. If the Charities Commission as it now is was empowered with much more forward-looking up-to-date legislation that did address that issue of what is a charity and what is not in the 21st century then we would have something worth considering this evening. But as it is we are looking at a piece of piecemeal legislation that does not attack the major issue and does create a worse situation than we have already. So why would anyone not oppose this bill? It is simply not common sense and it has got no chance of succeeding. It is simply the victim of some halfwitted approach to creating robustness and resilience or efficiency in the Public Service. Like so many of the other Government statements concerning so-called efficiencies in the Public Service this is just a bad fit and is not going to work. It will not even create efficiencies or effectiveness or advance the cause in this case of any charities whatsoever.  
This is not what the sector wants. The sector opposes this legislation and it ought to know. The sector almost universally opposes it and for the very good reasons that I and others have mentioned. So for that reason New Zealand First will certainly be opposing the third part of the Crown entities legislation relating to the charities sector. It is just bad legislation.