SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. It's said that charity begins at home and that means a person's first responsibility is to meet the needs of their own family and friends. So this Charities Amendment Bill is an amendment to the initial Charities Act 2005 which was again amended in 2012. So the Act's been in place for 16 to 17 years last amended 10 years ago.Charity begins at home. I'll come to speak to the bill but just on that key point this is about charitable organisations and the provision of goodwill and contribution of services to meet the needs of their own within communities. In the general debate today there were constructive comments and there were reality checks made about how the Government ought to be providing charity by addressing the needs of our community in the interests of our people at home. My colleague Chris Bishop talked about the homelessness that we have in this country and the reality check despite the comments from the Government benches of a pessimistic outlook from the Opposition benches. The reality check is: that is life in the hardship of New Zealanders—charity begins at home.I turn now to the Charities Amendment Bill. It's interesting because there has been a 127-page regulatory impact statement which I've endeavoured to read in the last couple of hours but I do turn to some key critical points about that. The context of this bill is—I've talked about 2005 when the Charities Act was passed; it was amended in 2012. Prior to that there was no register of charities and no consistent information about their activities and funding. Then further in the regulatory impact statement a 127-page document talks about the engagement of the Department of Internal Affairs with public consultation in 2019 consisting of 27 community meetings held across the country that 1200 people attended an online presentation was viewed 650 times and there were 364 written submissions. There are approximately 28000 registered charities in New Zealand out of over 114000 non-profit organisations. This is our community and voluntary sector. Charity begins at home and is in our communities.So approximately 28000 are registered under the Charities Act. My point is that the stakeholder engagement commenced in 2019—the department reported back in 2021 that it conducted targeted consultation with representatives from the sector but that there were limitations in relation to that. One of the key findings that came out of the report—and for people who are interested to read that it's identified at page 14—is that First principles issues have been excluded from this work including some issues that were raised by submitters in 2019." Those first-principle issues importantly include an examination and redefining of what "charitable purposes" are under section 5 of the Charity Act 2005. That has been totally deemed out of scope by the Minister in terms of the review and the consideration of amendments to this bill—there's the first limitation the oversight by this Government factoring in and taking into account the engagement with the public and the community in 2019 by already limiting the scope of the revision of this bill.So that's really important and that's why the National Party does not support this bill. But in saying that by not supporting the reality—reality check is this is going to select committee where it will be examined and scrutinised by the Social Services Committee on which the National Party is represented by my colleagues Maureen Pugh and Louise Upston. So the Minister in addressing the House earlier on has talked about the critical elements that will be examined. The most critical element is that the scope of this bill is limited. My colleague Maureen Pugh addressed the House and the importance that the National Party—we value our voluntary sector; we value the work that is done in this important charitable space. However we also value the commitment and honouring of promises that have been made. The Labour Government included a first-principles review of the Charities Act in their 2017 manifesto. Regrettably we're not seeing that evidenced out. Intent and goodwill is all very well and good; we need to address the substance and the substantive issues that are impacting on our communities.In typical fashion the Government has failed to deliver on that promise. Here we are before the House striving to hold the Government to account. This bill will go to the first level of scrutiny at select committee then it will get reported back to the House. But how much? Again because the reality is—reality check New Zealand public—select committees are weighted in favour of the Labour Government. Despite submissions that are made from the public despite the representation and advocacy made from the Opposition benches in support of the public's views the Labour Government has an intent and an intention on matters that it brings before the House. So yes it will be scrutinised—it ought to be appropriately. But will the Government be accountable and listen to the public with the concerns that have been expressed? The public consultation was in 2019. Thus far it's not been evidenced in the scope and with the proposed amendments in this bill before the House.In concluding I said that charity does begin at home. I invite members in the House to debate and address the issues in the bill. Charity begins at home. I've heard some uncharitable comments in this House as members have spoken to address this bill. So on that note the National Party regrettably—and the reason we do opposite this bill is because the scope isn't addressing the significant critical substantive changes that are required to make better to improve not only the legislation but how that impacts on our people our families our communities. The National Party and I as I stand as the last speaker for the party and my colleagues oppose this bill. I do invite the Labour members sitting on select committee to factor in and heed what our public is saying. Although the scope's been limited this seems to be a foregone conclusion. The National Party regrettably opposes this bill in its current form because it's scant and it's missing significant substantive factors."