Jones Dail: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19976] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 It is not often that I have the opportunity in Parliament to support legislation that when I was in legal practice I wanted to see introduced as I have with the Charities Bill. As I said earlier when I was in legal practice and forming charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act for various people I became concerned that the Act had no real means of dealing with people who robbed money from charitable trusts or who just did not operate them satisfactorily. Members will recall that in the early 1980s when National was in Government and I was in Parliament—and in the later 1980s as well—there were all sorts of groups setting up charitable trusts under the Charitable Trusts Act especially Maori groups for employment schemes. When I set up a few of those I was concerned that people were getting money from the Government and there did not seem to be any control on those charitable trusts as to what would happen. 
We have heard recently about ACT’s concern about the lack of control over Te Wananga o Aotearoa. I would have thought that ACT would support this legislation in order to make sure that there are real controls over how money goes to the various trust groups and I am disappointed that ACT is not following up some of its allegations by supporting the legislation. 
I have had concerns about this issue. I wrote to the Minister of Justice in the early 1990s about it. I got a report that went back to 1979 which set out a court case from 1967 in which Justice Gresson expressed his concern about charitable trusts. In that report there was a concern from the National Council of Churches as to the way in which charitable trusts and charities were being operated. 
I have had a long-felt regard and concern about the way in which charities have been operating improperly and without any adequate supervision. So I was delighted when this bill was introduced to the House and I am even more delighted by the changes that were made in the Social Services Committee as a result of the committee giving good consideration to the bill. I mention to the Minister that New Zealand First had a subcommittee on the bill that consisted of myself and Mr Gudgeon. I spoke on the first reading and because of my interest he and I communicated regularly on the bill and I kept a close watch on it. So when I had the opportunity to be present for the final deliberation of the bill I took it with both hands. 
I believe that in Opposition one does not oppose just for the sake of it. If one sees something that is good coming forward one should support it. As Martyn Finlay would say it is not just a question of opposing it is also a question of proposing. In this legislation something that I have had a great concern about for some time is being remedied. There has been a mischief—a Judge of the High Court and the National Council of Churches have said that there was a mischief—and I am sure that the Government would not have introduced this legislation if there had not been some form of mischief because otherwise it would have been a complete waste of everybody’s time and most Governments do not tend to waste taxpayers’ money as freely as that. So I am delighted by the bill coming into the House. 
I have just one criticism of the bill that I think is important but I was not about to spit the dummy out and throw my teddy bear out of the pram just because I did not get my way on that issue. But I think the Government will have to do something about it fairly soon. The Government had originally intended clause 15(2) to state: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more: (d) a person who has been convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 2 years and has been sentenced to imprisonment for that offence: …”. The Government and the select committee decided to take that provision out because groups like the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said that plenty of people had been convicted of disorderly offences—perhaps while opposing the Springbok tour or for driving while disqualified—that are not dishonesty offences and that that provision covered them. 
Then the Government came up with this alteration. In place of that provision it would put in clause 15(2)(c) which states: “(2) The following persons are disqualified from being officers of charitable entities: … (c) an individual who or a body corporate that has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961) and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years:”. That means that anyone who has been convicted of that crime 7½ years ago can be an officer of a society. That includes people who have been convicted of receiving blackmail theft or stealing theft of animals and theft by spouse. I am referring to the sections in Part 10 of the Crimes Act regarding the conversion of vehicles breach of trust the punishment of theft the power of search etc. 
When appointing someone to a trust one wants someone who has not committed a breach of trust. But this Government will allow people who have been convicted of the offence of breach of trust 7½ years ago to be officers of a charitable entity. That just does not seem to me to be right. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: There has to be the possibility of rehabilitation. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes there has to be the possibility of rehabilitation. But as Judith Collins said when she was being critical of a trust that may get into difficulty and she was considering what could be done a trust is likely to get into difficulty because some fraudster forger or thief is a member of it and has fallen back into his or her old ways again. That is the case. 
We are not talking about people who have committed minor offences. We are talking about people who have committed serious offences and this Government is saying that those people can be officers of a trust. We in New Zealand First take a tougher line in some areas. As has been asked in this Chamber if people steal from a trust where is the indemnity for the other members of the trust? It all goes. 
One of the concerns has been the question of indemnity. Who will indemnify the other people in a trust if that money goes down the tube? I have raised the issue. I have received no support from the Government. The Minister—as she is entitled to do—offered no support. I suggested that the words “and has been sentenced for that crime within the last 7 years” be removed so that clause 15(2)(c) would relate to anyone who has been convicted of an offence under section 2(1) of the Crimes Act. I did not receive support. I suggested that the original clauses 15(2)(c) and (d) should go back in because that was the Government’s original intention. That is what the Government wanted in the first place. 
So I have given the Government all the options. For the purpose of the third reading I just record that that was what happened at the Committee stage—which is one of the reasons for a third reading debate; it used to be the case and I am sure it still is. If something goes wrong I will say: “I told you so.” especially if a substantial trust has to be wound up as a result of a former criminal defrauding it. 
The Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society said to us that we should be lenient and we should make sure that prisoners who had been found guilty of forgery and suchlike had the chance to redeem themselves. But there is too much hard-earned money involved. People have knocked on doors to collect that money. They work extremely hard. There are people at the other end of the chain who deserve that money and I do not believe that there should be any risk of it being lost. After all the Government has put a time limit in the provision of 7 years. It considers that people should not be on a trust if they have been sentenced for a crime within the last 7 years. I am merely saying that they should not be on a trust at all. 
I disagree entirely with Judith Collins. She can be soft on this if she likes but New Zealand First takes a hard line on law and order issues. We are concerned that people with records will be on a trust. At the moment there is a land transport bill is there not that relates to people who have committed offences. The Government is saying that those people should never be able to have a land transport licence and that they should have no right of appeal. That is how tough the Government can be. Why is the Government not being equally as tough on forgers receivers and other people who have committed dishonesty offences particularly in respect of charities for which people go to a lot of trouble to raise money? Not only could a trust lose money but it could lose everything else as well. 
I just raise that issue. As I said New Zealand First will not die in the ditch on it. We believe in the essential principle of the bill. We wish all charities well. We ask them to be extremely careful about whom they employ—although once again the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act will make it difficult for them to ensure that the people whom they employ have not previously been convicted of a dishonesty offence. There are a couple of barriers for all employers but as far as a charity is concerned there is an even bigger one.