Mallard Trevor: Crown Entities Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Crown Entities Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2242. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will support this bill the Crown Entities Reform Bill through its second reading but we are giving notice that at the Committee stage there is a part of the bill Part 3 that we will be vigorously opposing. There has been I think quite a lot of discussion amongst members on this and I think this bill is a mixture. Part 1 I think is generally very well supported and might be regarded as good legislation and towards Part 2 I think there is a feeling of ambivalence on this side of the House and maybe a variety of views but Part 3 is an area that we are opposed to because of the loss of the autonomy that is currently enjoyed by the Charities Commission when it goes to effectively being a board subject to being run out of and through the Department of Internal Affairs.  
We will not speak much at this stage of the bill on the ongoing question of the mess that has been made of State sector restructuring by this Government. I think it is a little bit unfair to blame Jonathan Coleman for the mess that Tony Ryall has made and for the extra work that Murray McCully has caused the State Services Commission and I think it is probably important therefore to focus on this legislation.  
There is a review of the Charities Act 2005 that is due to take place on the completion of the current review of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 and I think most of us would accept that a review of a 1908 Act probably has some priority over the 2005 Act. But what the Government has decided to do is to anticipate the results of that review by transferring functions to the Department of Internal Affairs and members on this side of the House think that that is a premature thing to do. We think currently there is a robust agency normally resilient and we think it generally gets its decisions right although I am one of the people who know that every now and again there have been some decisions that have been made that would not exactly cover the Charities Commission in glory. One that has been quoted to me has to do with the Anglican Church apparently not being allowed to be registered as a charity and the reason was the lack of a wind-up clause in the church’s constitution. Apparently that was a requirement of some of the bureaucrats at the—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I suppose it would be possible to have one might say a second coming clause as part of the wind-up. But I think that was taking bureaucracy too far on the part of the Charities Commission and there certainly has been some work in the past. But the feedback I have had has been that in the last few years the Charities Commission has been working in a way that has been much more positive and has been working closely with charities. There is a general satisfaction with its work and especially with its autonomy and you do get to the point of asking the question why if it is not broken we should be fixing it. That appears to be the case with the Charities Commission.  
The other thing is that it has over time built up a good reputation for independence and integrity. That is something that is very important; there is always suspicion around a Government department that it is more subject to a bit of a nudge from the Minister. I do not even know who the current Minister of Internal Affairs is. Can someone enlighten me? 
Hon Members 
: Tremain. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Is it Tremain? Chris Tremain is the current Minister. I am sure he would act in a totally proper way and would not ever try to influence it but if for example Murray McCully was the Minister could anyone believe that he would not be giving a nudge nudge elbow or kick to the Department of Internal Affairs? 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Wasn’t Shane Jones internal affairs Minister? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There he goes again. The poor man’s Paul Quinn is interjecting again. Jami-Lee Ross is interjecting yet again. He can never ever get anything right. 
 But let us work back to the report of the select committee where the committee did make it clear that many of the members were convinced that the legislative safeguards in the bill were not sufficient to maintain the degree of integrity and independence that the current Charities Commission provides. We think that the charities-related functions will be much less accessible to the public and that the charity sector work will be carried out in a much less transparent manner if these functions become just another part of the grab bag that is the Department of Internal Affairs. As many of us know the MOBIE—whatever that stands for—is whatever Steven Joyce wants to have within a department and the Department of Internal Affairs is for what no one wants to have in their department; it goes to the Department of Internal Affairs. There is therefore a certain lack of support there.  
It was a very fine thing: the Labour Party caucus spent much time deliberating as to whether or not we should support the bill. On balance we decided that we will at the second reading probably as a result of the good work of the deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee the former member for West Coast - Tasman. He has convinced us that it is worth going to the Committee stage. I do want to signal that I have tabled—it may be on the Table of the House and if it is not it will be on the Table of the House later in the day—an amendment that would put a 3-year gap after the Order in Council bringing the Act into effect until the Charities Commission wind-up occurred and the transfer occurred. What that would do would be to provide a window for the review that is required in legislation to happen and for the Government to make a decision as to whether or not it wanted to proceed with what we think is ill-thought-through legislation. Notwithstanding that we will be voting against Part 3 and we will make decisions at the end after that process as to our vote on the third reading. Thank you.