O'Rourke Denis: Crown Entities Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Crown Entities Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First does not support Part 3 of the Crown Entities Reform Bill disestablishing the Charities Commission. Therefore it will vote against the bill as a whole and later when it is divided. I will have no comments to make however on Parts 1 and 2 and my following comments relate to Part 3 exclusively. I first of all want to refer to the procedure by which this part of the bill has got to the House. The bill was first introduced as we know in the previous Parliament and people have been given only 1 month since then to make submissions to this Parliament on this bill. That is clearly and obviously a totally unreasonable and inadequate period of time for organisations involved in the charities sector to consider and make submissions. That is just not satisfactory and it should have been much longer—at least 3 months if not longer than that. A lot of those involved actually and they have told me this directly did not even know that this bill was coming back to the House in this form—and these are the people most directly concerned so you see how poor this procedure has been.  
So there has really been very little consultation on this and the Government is sailing out on its own without taking any notice of wide public concern about the disestablishment of the Charities Commission. I have many letters and emails to demonstrate that. The public are really being ignored in this process and that is a very poor process indeed.  
The essential problem is of course lack of independence for the new board. The current commission is and is seen to be independent and that is a great advantage for the charities sector. The transfer of these functions as the bill does to the Department of Internal Affairs does remove genuine independence. The new board of three will be seen as Government lackeys simply because their functions are so utterly restricted. They will be seen to be there to do the Minister’s bidding and the fine words in section 8(4) in clause 45 which talks about “not subject to direction from the Minister.” are just that—fine words not in any respect real at all.  
Independence is important. The purpose of the bill is said to be firstly to “promote public trust”. But in fact it will do exactly the opposite. It will alienate the public from the charities sector and the Government administration of it in the form that is set out in this bill. It also says that the purpose of the bill is to “promote the effective use of charitable resources:”. What on earth does that mean? I have not heard any of the Government MPs describe what that is and I would like to hear some discussion on that. Does it mean interference in where charitable resources should go? That is certainly the appearance it gives. If that is a purpose it is a very bad purpose indeed. The Government and its departments are not suited to that sort of function. Donors should decide and charitable organisations should decide.  
Thirdly it talks about registration and deregistration. That of course is already achieved as is compliance with rules which is already achieved. We see also that the new chief executive is to have a lot of executive powers to carry out functions. That means a lot more executive power and a lot more Government power—yes more government not less government as the previous speaker asserted. It means more influence in the private affairs of people and of charitable organisations it means more bureaucracy it means less freedom it means less public encouragement to donate to charities it means less flexibility and it means less public engagement. True independence not just words in the statute must be a culture—not just some words in a statute. That is not going to be achieved by this bill and the administration system that is set out in it. That is simply not possible in a Government department. I am not criticising Government departments for that; it is just the way they work. They are not suited to it. A separate commission with the appropriate culture—which the current commission was developing—is the right way to go. So Part 3 of this bill is entirely misconceived and cannot achieve even the purposes that are stated in the bill itself to be achieved. It is not wanted by charities for good reasons: lack of independence too much bureaucracy and less flexibility in administration.  
I want to read to the House some of the comments from some of the communications to me. “I have not met one single person in the charitable sector that thinks the absorption of the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs is a good idea.” “The sector fought so hard for so many years to get a Charities Commission. Please do not allow it to be disestablished now.” “The number of submissions should not in any way be taken as evidence that the sector are ambivalent about the potential loss of the Charities Commission. They are not. Everything I have seen and heard to date indicates that the sector feels very strongly that the Charities Commission should not be disestablished.” “No matter what measures are put in place the proposed independent board connected to a Government department is very unlikely to be perceived as independent. This will have a profound effect on the public trust and confidence which is so important.” Of course those comments are from the sector itself and should be taken notice of by the Government.  
What are the effects of bureaucracy? First of all there will be no real fair or impartial access to the system by charities and those involved with them. Secondly there will be no real transparency in decision making which is typical I am afraid of Government departments which do not reach out to the community and are probably incapable of doing so in any real way.  
What is needed of course is to encourage the sector and for a commission to engage meaningfully with it not to regulate and control as Governments and their departments do. New section 10 in clause 45 for example makes it very clear: the chief executive officer has functions that are set out in these terms. First of all issuing guidelines is what the chief executive officer is to do. Does that really mean directions by the bureaucracy? I fear that it will. Secondly we see the term “model rules” in section 10(1)(ii) in clause 45. That will effectively be regulations—it will effectively be regulations. Also in section 10(b) in clause 45 there are the words “appropriate information”. What is that? Will only the chief executive officer know what is appropriate? I fear so. The Crown Entities Reform Bill is done in advance of a review of the Charities Act 2005 which is unwise and unnecessary and it is untrue that to disestablish the Charities Commission now will create a more robust resilient agency. That is poppycock. It will do no such thing. The current commission would do that much better. In fact a new organisation will weaken the sector generally it should not be supported and it should await the review of the Charities Act so that this can be done holistically and efficiently. This cherry-picking this piecemeal approach by this Government is very unwise and should not proceed. For all those reasons New Zealand First supports the charities sector which obviously the current Government does not. We support the charities sector and we support what it says which is not what this Government is doing. This bill should not be supported now and when it is subdivided later into three separate bills.