Collins Judith: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19960] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I want to look at one particular clause that really does strike at the heart of this legislation which is too socialistic for even the Greens to support as it has too much Government regulation. There may be a snigger coming from members opposite but they know it is true. I refer to clause 26 “Grounds for removal from register” which states that “The Commission may remove an entity from the register if—” and in particular I refer to subclause 1(e)—“any person has engaged in serious wrongdoing in connection with the entity;”. What does that mean? I turn to the definition— 
Rodney Hide 
: Would John Tamihere be interested in this? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes I think Mr Tamihere would be interested in this. But I turn to the definition of “serious wrongdoing” in clause 4 and that definition is given as “(a) an unlawful or a corrupt use of the funds or resources of the entity; or (b) an act omission or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to the public interest in the orderly and appropriate conduct of the affairs of the entity; or (c) an act omission or course of conduct that constitutes an offence; or (d) an act omission or course of conduct by a person that is oppressive improperly discriminatory”—and what does that mean?—“or grossly negligent or that constitutes gross mismanagement”. 
What that means for charities is that if the charity is unfortunate enough to become the victim of a con man the charity suffers. It is the charity that folds and that has to be one of the most stupid provisions in this legislation. What does it mean? Well the Problem Gambling Foundation a few years ago had a big chunk of money ripped of by Ralph Gerdelan who was at that stage I think the chief executive. He stole money from that organisation and under this law when it comes through that very victim the Problem Gambling Foundation would in fact be liable to have itself deregistered. 
Rodney Hide 
: How would Stephen Ching get on? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I think Mr Ching might also have some problems. How many laws do we have where the victim pays yet again because of the wrongdoing of the perpetrator of the crime? This is like having the poor old person who is stolen from suddenly lose his or her house as well. That is exactly what this silly silly law is all about. It is a complete overreaction. We have 37000 charities in this country. We know the ones that get ripped off because we discuss these matters in the House day after day and it normally involves people whom we all know. Yet what we have here is a bill that punishes the very people who are the victims. I can just imagine that if another party had put forward this sort of silly legislation the Government would be screaming and saying: “Oh no we cannot attack the victim twice.” 
This bill attacks the victims of crime by saying that they could lose their charitable status. What about the charities that provide homes for abused women? What if one of them happens to be ripped off by a con woman a con artist or whoever? What about them? They are liable to be stripped of their charitable status by some unfeeling Government body full of people who have never put themselves on the line full of Government appointees and people who have never done a charitable act in their lives except at their last caucus meeting as the Labour Party just did and who make their living out of the taxpayers of this country and have never contributed a cent that they did not get from taxpayers first.