Rich Katherine: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19955] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Part 1. Looking at the part I find it very interesting to see how much of it the Government has changed. It is not often that one picks up a bill and finds that more or less an entire part has been rewritten word for word. The only thing I can see that has not been rewritten is the definition of “chairperson” which means the chairperson of the board. The rest of it has been struck out by majority and new provisions have been put in. I am not surprised as to why either because after 753 submissions all of which have said that the legislation as originally drafted was nuts the Government did not like being bagged by charitable group after charitable group and being told that the bill was an absolute nonsense. 
One of the first things to be struck out was the idea that if a body was not registered under the new Charities Commission it would not officially be able to receive funds and that groups community trusts or financial groups would not give one funding if one was not an approved donee. That was one of the major things that this bill created concern about. Members of group after group said that it was hard enough being a volunteer and being involved in a charitable group without the level of bureaucracy and registration required plus the cost which will make their work more and more difficult in times when it is harder not easier to collect funds. So the Government has done a total flip-flop. 
The Government has rewritten this entire part. It has taken out the bits of heavy-handed regulation because it knew they would be unpalatable in an election year and it has put in a few clauses that it thinks will get the bill through with the help of a few parties in this Parliament. I think that that will backfire. We have already heard the Minister introduce this part with as little passion as could possibly be used in such a delivery. That is because her heart is not in it either. She knows that this bill will provide a level of regulation and cost that we have not seen before. Thousands and thousands of charities will find it harder not easier to do charitable work in this country. 
A lot in this part was an absolute joke. My learned colleague Judith Collins told me in the House today that 37000 groups will be looking to register through this new organisation. What a waste of money! It will not put one more volunteer on the street. It will not make their work any easier. It will not help one single New Zealander to get any better service. It is all about Government control. It is about the Government sticking its nose in so that it can collect more tax. That is all it is. That is what we are seeing here. The Government wants to collect more tax from some of those groups and get its hands on money that it does not actually earn. As to saying that the whole point of the bill is to protect people I tell members that those organisations that rip off New Zealanders will not bother to register through the Charities Commission. They will not bother to go through the processes to become legitimate charities. That is the whole point—they are criminal. They will go ahead and rip off New Zealanders without getting the registrations and things that this bill requires. Even some of the reporting required in this part is just absolutely outrageous. 
I wonder whether any members of the Government have been involved in a voluntary group of late because if they have they would have heard people saying: “What is the point of becoming a volunteer when we’re going to be in the gun if things go wrong?” So we have seen a total rewrite. Part 1 does not look anything like what was in the original bill because the Government knows that the bill as first drafted was an absolute joke that was designed to create problems—and boy it is not like the criticism from some of its mates when they turned up to give submissions on this part. Time and time again this legislation was bagged and Government members sat like sad sacks— 
Judith Collins 
: Like they are now really. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Like they are now but they are probably thinking more about John Tamihere than anything else. It is interesting though that while we are talking about the Charities Bill the Government has shown the ultimate charity to Mr Tamihere by allowing him to stay. So why is the Government being so charitable to Mr Tamihere when it is being super-uncharitable to those charities and organisations?