Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. If we look say for example at the Charitable Trusts Register we know there's a whole lot of very simple charitable trusts that deliver wonderful things like Surf Life Saving. And then there's some very unusual ones. It must be quite difficult to administer Minister. I'm thinking about trusts that purport to be doing things for charitable purposes and in fact have gone to court to demonstrate that. I'm thinking of organisations whose members like to glue themselves to the road like Greenpeace. I mean it must be quite difficult to work out how to administer a charitable trust and hold them to account when it appear that they're primarily advocating for political reasons and in order to force New Zealanders to stop driving for example.I'm wondering the costs of administering the Charitable Trusts Register when you'd have to spend all of this time and effort working out whether Greenpeace for example are really a charity or if they're just having a loan of the Government departments' goodwill and the people of New Zealand's goodwill with the way they wander around busy CBDs with clipboards trying to convince people that if they sign up they'll save a whale or a polar bear. There must be quite a wide range of time and cost that's put in to administering different individual charities for example; building societies; and all of these other organisations that are registered on this Companies Register. It's not clear Minister and it wasn't clear when the officials came to the committee how they allocate their time whether they have a basic system—like I don't know if this is something Government uses like Oracle or SAP or an Excel spreadsheet even—to determine how they allocate their time from their general overhead to the activities that are required to administer the register.While the ACT Party supports the bill I'm starting to feel queasy and it's not just because of the unusual meal that I accidentally ate at Coppers tonight which I think was vegetarian but I wasn't sure until it was too late. It's because we really don't have clarity Minister. Then I just want to come down to this thing. If we look down to section 405(5)(k) and (l): (5) The regulations may— … (k) specify penalty payments for the late payment of a levy." We expect the Government to be diligent in the way it collects money but I wonder if the penalty payments would be any different say for a charity like Greenpeace or a union which donates to the Labour Party. Would the penalty regime be any different for a Surf Life Saving club or one of those organisations that is quasi-religious but largely a political advocacy organisation? A number of those have also lost their charitable status recently. How will the penalty regime be determined?The Minister is asking the House and the people of New Zealand to put an awful lot of trust in officials. But again in the ACT Party we would like to think that the ministry of M Bs Is and Es actually knows how to operate business systems. They were after all set up by that doyen that grand lord of business Steven Joyce who set up this superministry—the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE)—on the basis that they would know how to run business on behalf of the Government and administer it better. Potentially under this Government's governance the functions of MBIE's operations haven't been subject to the same rigorous tests as they would be under say a regime which had a whole lot more ACT MPs in a Government. For those of us who've run businesses who've actually filled out time sheets and had to report on profit and loss every month this is important to us. I'd appreciate you describing how this is intended to go Minister."