Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Charities Amendment Bill in its second reading and speak in opposition to this bill.The objectives of the bill are to make practical changes to support charities to continue their vital contribution to community wellbeing while ensuring that their contribution is sufficiently transparent towards its parties and the public. We contend that this amendment bill does not do that.National absolutely values the work that our wonderful charities and the volunteers undertake for our communities right across New Zealand. And they deserve to be able to operate under legislation that's workable and enables them and their volunteers to contribute.Volunteers contribute an enormous amount to this country—around $4 billion worth of work—and that keeps our communities connected it supports those that need support and it revitalises and enriches our communities. There are 28000 registered charities in New Zealand and they deliver a wide range of services and we say thank you to all our registered charities and all the wonderful volunteers that work in them.But because of that they deserved much more than a tweaking of the Charities Act. Labour in their policy in 2017 said they would carry out a first-principles independent review of the Charities Act. They have not done that and this Government is a master. They do not understand that they should under-promise and over-deliver. They are an absolute master at specialising in over-promising and under-delivering and we have seen that with the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill and the transformation they promised the disabled sector. We're now seeing it again in this Charities Amendment Bill and the promises of this first-principles independent review that's now landed in just a few tweaks to the Charities Act.So people are naturally disappointed in it and that is why the majority of the submissions called for the bill to be withdrawn. They made it very very clear that the fundamentals of the Charities Act are not sound that the definition of charitable purpose" is not working well and it does not meet its stated objectives of making practical changes to support charities. So they do not support this amendment bill.The bill is just another example of unnecessary and unhelpful piecemeal changes being imposed on a sector. But the bill has not been adequately thought through and you can see that from the submissions. It has not brought in the changes that were wanted; it has put in a myriad of unintended consequences that will place further unnecessary barriers in the way of charities. Even the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) said in its own regulatory impact statement that there is inadequate consultation inadequate problem definition and a lack of evidence to support the proposals.The National Party considers that the definition—let's get some specific things in here—of an "officer" should be limited to governance only the trustees of a trust and members of governing bodies. I go to a submission from one of our very very fine charities down in Southland: Number 10 Southland Youth One Stop Shop. They say in their submission "We oppose the following proposed changes to the Charities Amendment Bill. This definition of officer is broad vague and doesn't include criteria for deciding who is an officer. It confuses the governance and management relationship and is inadequate for purpose." That is the sort of submission that came in on this.Let's go to another part of the bill. The National Party considers that it's misleading to state that the bill expands the range of decisions that are able to be repealed when in fact the bill limits charities to a mere handful of decisions made by charity services. Many submitters called for all decisions made under the Charities Act to remain appealable as per the original Charities Act.Again I return to the submission from Number 10 Southland Youth One Stop Shop. So they say in clauses 23-26 (55A): it "restricts charities to four types of appeals only which is too closely prohibitive. Restricting appeals to only be heard by the Taxation Review Authority is unreasonable given that not all appeals will be tax-related. Charities are much more than their tax status. The choice to go to the High Court is expensive but charitable entities must be allowed to retain their choice of appeal body." So I'm sorry again the specifics were not supported.The National Party considers that requiring three-yearly reviews of governance procedures creates an unnecessary red tape for charities and it's contrary to the stated objectives of the bill—and we heard the Minister say that it was going to simplify things. Well it doesn't simplify things. It is a blunt prescriptive one-size-fits-all legislative rule that does not work in the areas of charities law because they inevitably fail to accommodate the diversity of human endeavour. An increasing array of exceptions and exemptions then becomes needed.So again this notion of one-size-fits-all from this Government puts our charities in a situation where they will be much worse off. The National Party members believe that the bill is fundamentally flawed and it is not able to be remedied with further tinkering. We support the call by the majority of the charitable sector submitters for the bill to be withdrawn and the Labour Government to honour its manifesto commitment to carry out a proper first-principles post-implementation review of the Act and for it to be carried out independent of the DIA.This original Act was brought in and introduced in 2005 by the then Labour Government. However at the committee stage in 2004 the bill was almost entirely rewritten and then rushed through under urgency in a single day without proper consultation. Does that sound familiar to anyone? The National Party was concerned about the process then and we are concerned about the process again.Interestingly the Minister has said that she'll consider a fuller review after this bill has been implemented. Why? Why would you implement a quick bill and then do a full review? So why are we wasting this Parliament's time on legislation that could very easily be irrelevant?There is so much in here that has been opposed by the submitters. I see again that the submission from the Number 10 Southland Youth One Stop Shop says that the bill must have greater clarification on "what constitutes advocacy and political lobbying and what is permitted." These charities are concerned and it is not addressed in this bill: the issue of charities being able to advocate for their charitable purpose without fear of their charitable status their grant funding opportunities or contracts—Government contracts—being withdrawn. That has not been addressed. The charities in their submissions have identified that and yet this Government has not listened to them.This bill we have said is another example of unnecessary and unhelpful piecemeal changes being imposed on charities against their will. It is not a full review of it. It is nothing like it and the DIA even confirm it themselves. We oppose this bill."