O'Rourke Denis: Crown Entities Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Crown Entities Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2359. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Denis O’Rourke. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: But he didn’t call.  
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: I did call. The Crown Entities Reform Bill as some others have said is proceeding in advance of an imminent review of the Charities Act 2005. 
Todd McClay 
: Already this is better than the last one. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Well of course. It is unwise for this bill to proceed at this time in the face of a review that is about to come and that I hope would make a better job of reforming the Charities Act than Part 3 of this bill would do. It is a piecemeal approach and that is very bad lawmaking. The real issue we should be dealing with tonight as far as charities are concerned is a new definition of “charitable purposes”. That is the one that people want to be addressed not some mindless unnecessary restructuring of the administration of charities which this bill represents. 
It is untrue that to disestablish the Charities Commission as it now is at this stage would somehow create a more robust and resilient agency in the form of what is now proposed. That is absolute poppycock. The truth is that that structure will actually weaken the independence of charities and the result of that will be negative for the whole community. In fact the new structure would be less robust and less resilient—totally the opposite to the purpose that this bill is supposed to achieve. The result of all this is going to be less public support for charities fewer donations and the Government seen to be trying to take over the charities sector. That is a more Government approach not a less Government approach and that is surprising from a National Party and surprising from an ACT Party which will no doubt support this bill as well. It is totally opposite to their stated— 
Brendan Horan 
: Is he still here? 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: —philosophy. Well he is still here for the time being. We will wait and see. There will be more cost to the Government from this structure not less because the Government will have to pick up the pieces from charities that are less robust and less able to do the things that they do for us all today. The essential issue as many have said is the issue of independence. The current commission is in fact and is seen to be independent. To transfer so many functions to the Department of Internal Affairs removes genuine independence and it certainly will not be seen as being independent. The new board of three people will be seen as nothing more than Government lackeys by a lot of people and there will be some justification from that point of view. The truth is this: whatever the bill says about preserving independence means nothing. It is the practice that really matters. I have to say that some Ministers would have integrity and would abide by that principle but I am afraid that others would not as well. Others would not. That is the problem that we have got here.  
Independence is important because when you look at the purpose of the bill you see that it is to promote public trust but it will not. In fact it will alienate public trust. So it is going to defeat the very purpose that it is stated to be trying to achieve. It is said that it would promote the effective use of charitable resources. I do not know really what that means but if it means State interference in the charities sector which does a damn good job of it right now then I see no advantage in it at all. If in fact it is so bad then it should be reviewed and done in a holistic way as I said before. That is why New Zealand First will also support the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The truth is that the donors and the charitable organisations themselves should decide what is an effective use of charitable resources not some department of the Government. More ominously still we see that the bill would seek to empower a chief executive to carry out functions. That means again more Government. It means more interference in the private affairs of people and charities. It means more bureaucracy less freedom less public encouragement to donate less flexibility and less public engagement. All of the things that you would hope the Government would be trying to achieve this bill is going to defeat so it should not go ahead. For those sorts of reasons this bill is not wanted by any of the charitable organisations I have had contact with and I have had contact with quite a few. Quite a few of those who have contacted me have objected to the loss of independence of a board they have objected to the loss of flexibility in the administration of the charities sector and they certainly do not want more bureaucracy because that is time-consuming it is uncertain and it is just a hassle for them and they want to avoid that as we all would. 
Bureaucracy itself is a dead hand on something that is actually functioning very well in this country. It would mean no real fair or impartial access by charities to the system of administration. I know those in the Government departments would say that no that is not going to be the case. I am afraid that in practice it would be. There would be no real transparency of decision making either. Decisions made under this structure will be secretive will be made behind closed doors typically non-consultative and that is not what we want to see in this sector. But that is typical of Government departments which do not reach out and contact well with the people out there who are trying to raise money and distribute it for charitable purposes. Instead the Government should be encouraging and engaging not regulating and controlling. A Government department culture is not appropriate for these sorts of functions and the current commission I think is building a good culture for itself and is a better way to conduct the administration of the charities sector in this country than what is proposed in this bill. 
New Zealand First I am happy to say does support charities does heed their views has listened and has agreed with them. On the other hand the Government has ignored their needs and their views and has set itself up in opposition to the charities sector as a whole. This bill weakens the charities sector. It undermines public confidence in the independence of charities it creates barriers of bureaucracy it provides less transparency less accessibility and certainly does not have anything like the public support that a measure of this sort should have. Part 3 of the bill is bad law and it should not proceed.