Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): That speech actually had a lot in common with the Prime Minister's state of the nation speech. Here was the big opportunity for the Prime Minister brand new in his job to make his mark to identify the issues that face New Zealand and to say what he is going to do about it. But instead of that the Prime Minister totally ignored the housing crisis—it just did not rate a mention—did not mention the huge financial stress that is on the education sector and now is being passed on to parents and did not acknowledge the underfunding in the health system. In the same way Alfred Ngaro the brand new Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector in his chance to make his mark in this portfolio hardly mentioned the bill. It did not get a mention until 4 minutes into a 5½-minute speech in a 10-minute call. I would really encourage the new Minister—and I want to congratulate him—to get a bit more on top of his portfolio and put some passion and energy into it so it makes it look like he wants the job. That did not really look like he wants the job at all. I want to also acknowledge the former Minister for this sector who has shepherded this bill through the House since it was split off from the Statutes Amendment Bill: the Hon Jo Goodhew who did a lot of good work in this space. I just want to acknowledge that as well. This bill started off as part of a statutes amendment bill and it had one controversial piece. It was Part 3 I think of the Statutes Amendment Bill. It had one controversial issue in it so in the view of the Government Administration Committee it did not meet the criteria for a statutes amendment bill. So we did the right thing and took it out. We did another right thing at the Government Administration Committee which was to say that it was not our intention by taking that part out of the Statutes Amendment Bill to delay its progress. We did not have any difficulty with the policy that was included in that part; it was just that because it was policy and because it was controversial it did not meet the criteria for a statutes amendment bill so we took it out. It has become the Charities Amendment Bill which we are now seeing through its third reading. I want to acknowledge those in the community and voluntary sector and particularly commend them for the way that they tried to explain to the officials—and certainly strongly presented to the select committee—their concerns about the one controversial part. This is a sector that is clearly under pressure. These people did not come along to the select committee to moan about it but it was obvious from the information that we gathered as part of our deliberation that this sector has actually been ignored by the Government and I think treated in a really poor way. The new Minister quite correctly acknowledged the contribution that volunteers make in our community. New Zealand would not be the country it is—and we are all really proud of it—if it were not for volunteers. They should be not just acknowledged but properly recognised for the contribution they make. Many of the volunteers work in the community and voluntary sector obviously but a large number of those organisations also have contracts with Government departments and they are no longer treated as partners in the delivery of service. They are treated as somebody at the other end of a contract and I do not think that is the New Zealand way. I do not think that is the way that we should work with organisations in our community. On a competitive tendering short-term contract you have just a signature at the bottom of the page sort of relationship and that is what the National Government has done. We also learnt of a state of the sector survey that had been done by ComVoices last year. It said in the survey—it told us—that 65 percent of organisations in the community and voluntary sector have more work now than they did 2 years ago but only 34 percent of them—so quite a big difference—have more staff. So you have the same number of people doing a huge amount more than they did just a couple of years ago. That is not good if you are talking about a respectful relationship—if you are talking about working in partnership. Sixty-eight percent of the organisations in the sector are required to do more work than is actually outlined in their contracts. The job would not be done unless they did more but it is not in their contracts and therefore they do not attract any funding to support that work. And of course one of the first acts of the incoming National Government in 2008 was to scrap the 100 percent funding of our social service sector. That was in the 2008 Budget. It had 4 years of money rolled out. Paula Bennett as the incoming Minister scratched that fund and so the social service agencies no longer are on a path to 100 percent funding and have not been for nearly 9 years. Why did the National Government do that? Because it wanted to give tax cuts to the highest-income earners in New Zealand. That was the choice—to fully fund in their contracts social service agencies or to give tax cuts to the highest-income earners—and John Key and Bill English chose tax cuts for the highest-income earners. Our social service agencies and our community and voluntary sector agencies are still struggling as a result of that. The financial pressures were also outlined in the survey that I just mentioned. Forty-two percent of organisations in the community and voluntary sector were unable to offer any staff increases in the last 2 years because of the pressure on funding that I just mentioned so 42 percent gave nobody any increase in their wages. That does not seem to be fair. Are they not working hard enough? Do they not deserve it? Well the answer to that is of course they are working hard and yes they do deserve it but the organisations just do not have the money to put in. Two percent of those organisations are facing imminent closure and over 40 percent are worried about their future financial viability. So Minister Alfred Ngaro can talk all he likes about working in partnership and being respectful and thinking highly of volunteers but the money has to go where the mouth is Mr Ngaro. You have to put your funding and resources behind your contracts behind the work that you are requiring organisations to deliver if you expect them to continue to do it. Just back to my final points on the bill. The bill I think gives better protection so that people who have been convicted of tax evasion or a similar offence under the Tax Administration Act cannot be officers of a charitable entity. That has been a gap in the legislation and one that Labour totally supports filling. If an applicant does not respond to a request for information or some sort of notice from the chief executive when they have applied for registration as a charity—so they do not front up with the information that is requested—that application lapses. The contentious part which I will just mention is whether the chief executive or the board make decisions that can then be appealed by the charitable entity. That proposed change to section 61 in clause 13 was the one that was struck out. All the other changes that are in this bill—possibly they would have met the criteria for a statutes amendment bill but I actually think we have had a very worthwhile debate by separating that part out and having it run as an individual bill. We called for submissions. We did not receive a large number. They were all entirely focused on the controversial issue and they all adamantly opposed it. I regret that despite the best urgings of the select committee we were not able to get the officials and the representatives of the sector to talk together for long enough to get agreement. Perhaps it is just not possible because there is quite a fundamental disagreement about the interpretation of the law and how it was originally drafted and about whether the intent was represented in that original drafting or whether in fact it was an error. Regardless we have worked our way through. I think we showed respect to the sector as it made its submissions and I think we have returned this bill in a much better state than it was at the beginning. So I am pleased that we did that work. I am pleased to be able to support the bill. I commend its progress through to its final stage. Thank you.