Clause 23 would amend section 27 by removing the current restrictive list of search criteria. This change would allow the charities register to be searched under any criteria, subject to any regulations that may be made under section 73(1)(e) of the Act. No such regulations have been made to date, but they could be introduced in the future to address privacy concerns.

Clause 24 would repeal sections 28 and 29 of the Charities Act. Section 28 sets out a restrictive list of purposes for searching the Charities Register. Section 29 provides that any search not in accordance with sections 27 and 28 would constitute an interference with privacy under section 69 of the Privacy Act 2020.

As a future-proofing measure, we recommend retaining section 29 and applying it to the newly amended section 27. This would ensure that there would be consequences if people do not search the register in compliance with any future regulations.

As proposed by the Minister, we recommend adding a new clause 22A to amend the Act. This new clause would clarify that the powers and functions of the Charities Registration Board would not be affected by any vacancy in its membership. In July 2023, the Charities Amendment Act 2023 came into effect; among other things, it increased the membership of the Charities Registration Board from three to five members. The proposed amendment would allow for a potential vacancy and align with other legislation.

Regulation 15 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Regulations 2024 sets the levy payable after a valuation that is apportioned between residential and non-residential under regulation 14. Clause 92 would replace regulation 15(1) to provide that the valuation would be available if the property is deemed to be less than 50 percent residential. Regulation 15 is intended to ensure that the levy payable would be the lesser of regulation 15(2)(a) or 15(2)(b).

Submitters suggested amending regulation 15(2)(a)(ii) to clarify that the calculation under regulation 15(2)(a) includes a maximum of $107.40 per annum for each residential property.

We agree that regulation 15(2)(a)(i) is intended to account for the cap for each dwelling. However, the current drafting may not clearly incorporate the cap. We recommend further amendments to regulation 15 to clarify that the calculation should account for the maximum levy payable per dwelling.

We also recommend amending section 81 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act and regulation 13 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Levy) Regulations to clarify definitions as they relate to residential percentage calculation for a mixed-use property.

Clause 85 and Schedule 3 would insert new Part 2 into Schedule 1 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act. New Part 2 provides that the transitional arrangement for the levy would continue to apply to the following contracts of fire insurance:

• a contract of fire insurance entered into on or before 30 June 2026 and not varied; and

• a contract of fire insurance entered into on or before 30 June 2026 that was subsequently varied, but only if, at the time of the variation, the contract was intended to terminate on or before 30 June 2027.

Submitters suggested adding a further subclause to Schedule 3 to address mid-term adjustments for multi-year contract works insurance for large construction projects.

We support extending the transitional period for contract works insurance until 2031, as this would support the smooth implementation of the new levy system from 1 July 2026. Therefore, we recommend amending proposed new Part 2 to include “a contract of contract works insurance that was entered into on or before 30 June 2026 and is varied on or after 1 July 2026 but only if, at the time of the variation, the contract is intended to terminate on or before 30 June 2031”.

We also recommend amending Schedule 1 of the Act to clarify that a variation may include changes to measures of insurance value besides the sum insured. Subclause (2) should make it clear that changes to any insurance value used for the transitional levy are included, not just the sum insured. Adding “amount for which the property is insured” would make the provision more inclusive of different forms of measuring insurance value.

Clause 123 would amend section 52 of the HART Act. This section relates to the requirement for providers to have systems in place to track donor offspring births. New section 52(2) would allow the Registrar-General, upon request, to tell a provider the number of donor offspring births recorded for a particular donor. Currently clinics cannot easily find out if a donor has donated at multiple clinics because of the restriction on information sharing under section 62. This limits the clinics’ ability to monitor how many times a donor’s sperm is used and the risk of donor-conceived individuals forming relationships with unknown siblings.

Submitters commented on the provision saying it does not go far enough and suggested ways to strengthen it. We think this issue should be considered further. However, any such change would be outside the scope of the bill. If any changes were to be made, we believe these would need further engagement with stakeholders and detailed policy design.

Section 10 of the HART Act restricts and prohibits the storage, manipulation, and use of a human gamete or embryo that has been stored for 10 years or more. Submitters suggested amending section 10 of the HART Act to:

• increase the 10-year limit for the storage of gametes and embryos

• require that overseas storage does not count as storage within New Zealand law

• give the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology discretion to consider applications for extension to the storage limit, even after the expiry of the applicable period.

We think that this matter should be considered further. However, any such change would be outside the scope of the bill.

Clause 158 would insert new sections 20A and 20B into the Public Records Act. New section 20A would allow the Chief Archivist to authorise the destruction of a public archive if it posed a risk to the health and safety of any person.

We recommend narrowing the scope of this provision to ensure that the powers are used only when strictly necessary. Section 20A should be amended to make clear that the power may be used only when there is no reasonable alternative way to mitigate the risk to health and safety.

We also recommend amending section 20A and adding new clause 156A so that the Chief Archivist must keep a register of all public archives destroyed under new section 20A, including the reasons for destruction. We expect a digitised copy to be kept when the physical file is destroyed.

Clause 158 would insert new section 20B to clarify that a public record sold under section 20(1)(d) becomes the property of the purchaser and ceases to have status as a public record under the Act.

Submitters suggested that sold public records should be marked to indicate that they are no longer public records. We do not consider it necessary to mandate marking sold public records to indicate their changed status. However, we recommend amending the Act to require the Chief Archivist to keep a register of sales made under sections 19 and 20.

Clause 160 would insert new section 26A into the Public Records Act. New section 26A would allow the Chief Archivist to authorise amendments to a public archive by notation or addition of new material. We recommend amending new section 26A to require that any amendments be dated and include the signature, name, and designation of the person making the amendment.

Clause 162 would insert new section 60A into the Public Records Act. New section 60A would allow the Chief Archivist to grant an exemption for a public office operating overseas under a multinational arrangement from compliance with an obligation under the Act.

Submitters raised a number of concerns about clause 162, including:

• concern that the New Zealand Defence Force would be exempted from complying with the Public Records Act in overseas deployments

• uncertainty about how and when exemption decisions would be reported

• concern about the provision acting as a secrecy measure, and its effect on freedom of information.

Given these concerns, the majority of us consider that exempting public offices should require further public consultation and detailed policy design. Therefore, we recommend removing this amendment from the bill. The Department of Internal Affairs told us that it will continue to work on this issue, and we encourage it to continue to progress this work.