Upston Louise; Logie Jan; Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. It's not really answering the question but there we go. I want to now turn to new section 42G inserted by clause 20 which is the Duty to review governance procedures". And again rather than just use my voice I want to bring some of the submitters—and some of them are well-known organisations and they do exist with lots of volunteers. In terms of the two different statistics that have been quoted in the House for those who are wondering the 21 percent is kind of registered if you like or quantifiable volunteering whereas the 50 percent is much broader than that. And that's why there's a difference of figures. OK coming to Age Concern for example their view on the annual review of governance rules and procedures—and this is why I made the comment about none of us really wanting charitable organisations to be bound up with further rules and regulations that prevent their ability to do the job. And several of them really questioned whether or not the annual review of governance procedures was necessary because it would be onerous and place an additional burden on charities. I know this was amended to at least three years but there did seem to be in the submissions a view that perhaps these charitable organisations and the governance didn't really understand what their role was. And I think with the tone of some of these submissions it was that they weren't trusted to govern their organisations well or to know what they needed to do to meet the terms of its rules and purpose of their trust. And I refer in this instance to the Breast Cancer Foundation of New Zealand and whether or not the intention is as proposed by the Breast Cancer Foundation to support the development of a best-practice guide that could include a governance framework for charities as opposed to adding yet another duty or responsibility on to the charitable sector.JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. It's the struggle of a Green MP to have to juggle between different committees being here and on Standing Orders. I just want to quickly have an intervention and ask about the appeals rights. Because what we've heard is that part of the selling point of this bill is that it enables charities to be able to have an appeal process for decisions of the commission. And yet my understanding and what came through in submissions was that actually there have been three previous attempts to prescribe appeal rights. And in every single instance this Parliament has rejected attempts to prescribe appeal rights. I'd like to quote from the select committee that considered this previously which noted "It should be possible to appeal all decisions of the commission that adversely impact on a particular entity. So in fact it is the view of many submitters that the prescription in this bill while being presented as an extension is actually a limitation on appeal rights." And I'd really like to hear the Minister's response to that. I understand again that when the commission was disestablished in 2012 the Department of Internal Affairs tried to limit appeal rights and failed at that point in time to do that again and again in 2016 there was another attempt that this Parliament rejected. And I understand that the feedback from the sector was almost unanimous that all decisions by charity services should continue to be subject to appeal and that comparable regulatory regimes allow an appeal against all decisions. So I would really like to understand how in the name of building better relationships and trust this Government would present a bill and a provision in the bill that's been rejected by this Parliament three times that actually limits appeal rights rather than extends them. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): While we wait for the Minister to address the concerns and I am sorry that my colleague also is waiting for an answer on her questions—the Green Party the ACT Party and the National Party have worked closely in the select committee to try and get some improvements on this bill and we will continue trying. So I now turn to the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust another favourite community organisation or charitable organisation.Hon Scott Simpson: Love those trees.LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely love those trees and I love those protected areas and the landowners that then put their land into the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust for future generations are incredibly generous in their gift to the nation. So with that generosity how does the Government repay them? By expecting that they undertake a review of their governance on a regular basis which in the words of the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust "create[s] an unnecessarily heavy administrative burden."Unfortunately what happens when legislation has changed the two winners are the lawyers and the accountants—and that's not to have any negative say about lawyers and accountants; there are sufficient in my extended family to embrace them with loving kindness. But I do think when we are talking about National Volunteer Week and all of the amazing work that our volunteer organisations and our charitable sector do it is a bit rough to then in their words "to create an unnecessarily heavy administrative burden."And the other point that they made very carefully and I'm interested in the Minister's answer to this is when there is another legislative framework that governs an organisation such as this one which legislation takes the priority? Which one is the superior legislation? Because the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust say "A further layer of regulatory requirement has the potential to duplicate or conflict with our existing legislative requirements." So I'd like the Minister in the chair to answer the question: if there is another piece of legislation that governs the charitable organisation does that take precedence over the Charities Amendment Bill or not?Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): There have been a few questions or comments that have been made that I will clarify. Firstly to the final point made by Louise Upston the changes that are being made here only pertain as far as the decisions or the issues under the Charities Act. So that's one. Secondly the member's question around new section 42G inserted by clause 20 and the requirement: there was of course an amendment that was made from annual to at least within a three-year window. And I think the member did acknowledge that that was a select committee recommendation and a change that we made subsequently. It basically goes to the point that I made already in this Chamber which is around the need to ensure that the public continue to have trust and confidence in the sector. Part of that is also supporting organisations particularly small charities in terms of continuing with their good governance journey and improving capability there. And so new section 42G creates a duty for the charitable entity to review its governance procedure at least every three years. I don't consider that that will be particularly onerous.When conducting that review the entity must consider whether its governance procedures are fit for purpose. So it's really about the fact that good governance in the charitable sector is important as I've mentioned in terms of the public interest in charities and public accountability as well. Governance capability we know—and I know coming from the sector myself that sometimes it can be limited particularly with small volunteer-run charities. And that's why the change was made to at least within a three-year window. Finally on the point made by the member Jan Logie around appeals we have expanded the decisions that can be appealed. Previously it was—under the current legislation it's decisions made by the Charities Registration Board. That has now been expanded to include some decisions made by the chief executive as well. It would not be efficient to allow all decisions to be appealed because charity services for example will need some decisions to enable them to carry out their compliance and enforcement function particularly when they need to commence an investigation."