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:19960] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is an appropriate time for me to make my point in regard to clause 15 and the amendment I propose. The two provisions I wish to reinstate in the bill are clause 15(2)(c) and (d). They can be reinstated along with the new clause 15(2)(c) which states that the following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: “an individual who or a body corporate that has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. So if someone was sentenced in 1997 which is 8 years ago this provision does not apply. So despite anything that someone did in 1997 or before—any type of dishonesty—that person is still entitled to be a trustee. In 7 years’ time the person who has just been mentioned by Judith Collins will be entitled to be a trustee again. That is what this legislation permits. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well I’m pleased I’m not voting for it. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is quite extraordinary and that is why I am proposing my amendment. My amendment which was originally in the Government’s bill states that a person cannot be involved if that person has been “convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more” or if one is a person “who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence”. 
That is relatively minor if we look at section 2(1) of the Crimes Act of 1961 and make our way inevitably through that. What we are concerned about in this particular part is people who may have been charged with offences from more than 7 years ago involving dishonesty; taking obtaining or copying trade secrets; or aggravated burglary. Those people could be trustees if they committed the offence and were sentenced more than 7 years ago. But for some reason if they did it in the last 7 years they cannot be. 
What is the magic about 7 years? I am not suggesting that we should provide for such a big offence in the last 7 years; I am just saying it should be something involving a sentence of 2 years or more imprisonment which is what the Government originally wanted. It is in addition to what the Government wants in regard to 7 years. It seems to me to be such a simple measure. The Government wants to do something to protect charities from people ripping them off but it is quite happy to have people on charities who may have been the great train robber 8 years ago. Such people could be entitled to be an officer of a charitable entity. Any criminal who was sentenced 8 years ago on dishonesty matters can be an officer of a charitable entity. It is quite extraordinary. I just cannot believe that that is what clause 15(2)(c) put in by the majority does. 
All I am asking is whether we can go back to including the original paragraphs (c) and (d) which I am calling (bb) and (bc) and the new paragraph (c) as well. The Government can have what it wants but I say that it does not want criminals who were convicted 8 or 9 years ago or even 3 years ago of minor offences on those charities. If we look at the charges mentioned here they involve terms of imprisonment of 7 years 10 years and 15 years as we go through. If in the last 7 years one has been convicted of a 2-year offence one could still be on a charity even now. 
Someone in the Government has not thought this through. There will be the defrauding of charities left right and centre because those people will be permitted to be on them. I just cannot understand the Government’s thinking on this issue. 
New Zealand First is supporting this bill. There are no deals. It is because I have taken an interest in this matter for 15 years. I have been creating charitable trusts for people for a long time and I just cannot understand a bill that would allow dishonest criminals to be officers of charities under a bill that is meant to protect people from dishonest officials. It is extraordinary. 
I will leave it at that. I cannot keep repeating myself forever. I hope the Government will see the light and support the provisions that it supported originally and it was right in doing so. I cannot understand who asked the Government to take them out. The Greens do not support this. They have a vested interest in keeping people who have committed crimes with a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years on the committees. They voted for the amendment to this part at the select committee when we voted against it. We voted against the amendment at the select committee.