Almost 6 years to the day since Parry Field Lawyers opened its office in the Selwyn District, the firm has officially moved into new larger premises at 80 Rolleston Drive.

Selwyn Mayor Sam Broughton was on hand for the ribbon cutting and celebration. He praised Parry Field for having the foresight to base itself in a region which has just been confirmed as the fastest growing in the country and now has just under 80,000 people, with more new residents than anywhere else in New Zealand.

“I want to congratulate Parry Field Lawyers for what may have seemed like a courageous decision all those years ago to set up an office and being here to serve the community,” the Mayor said. “I wish you all the best in your roles but also as a business. You continue to have a name that’s respected in our community, so thanks very much and well done.”

Parry Field Lawyers Selwyn team including (l-r) Judith Bullin, Ruth Johnson, Tracy Stanners, Cora Granger, Whytney Parker and Paul Owens

Partnership Chair, Kris Morrison, says it’s exciting to see the team and services in Waikirikiri Selwyn grow as the region has. With several partners and other key staff based in the district, he says Parry Field already felt there was an established relationship and connection with the area, and it has seemed like a natural fit for the business.

The other important aspect of Parry Field’s decision on office locations is all about accessibility. “Often you hear that people feel lawyers are up in their ivory towers and there’s some sort of mystique about going to see a lawyer. That’s not really our ethos,” he told the guests at the opening.

“We’ve always wanted to be accessible to our clients, so being able to be closer to them is really important to us. From what we’ve seen people appreciate not having to drive into Christchurch for a lawyer visit.”

He said Parry Field is planning to continue its work to support local businesses with a series of complimentary free ‘check-ins’ for new start-ups in the district.

“We want to work with them to make sure they’ve got all the bases in place that they need.” There’ll be more details on the initiative in the New Year.

Further information: enquiry@parryfield.com or you can get in touch directly with one of our team in the new Selwyn office.

Much like a criminal investigation, when an employment matter is raised in a workplace, every case is different – and the approach to solving each matter will be different too.

Understanding when it’s best to have an independent investigation or just have one of your own team ask a few questions can make all the difference to the outcome and speed of resolution.

Trust and confidence in the investigation process is key for employers, who will need to manage perception of fairness not only by the parties involved but the wider team, and potentially other external stakeholders.

Typically, investigations will be necessary when an employer receives a complaint or has concerns about bullying, sexual harassment, or other misconduct.

Calling in independent assistance may be the wisest course of action for several reasons, including the nature and volume of allegations made, or who any the allegations are made against.

Employers often won’t have the time or expertise to investigate to the level that might be required, or to provide a line of sight to all potential legal risks in any course of action.

Workplace investigations – what to expect

Once an independent investigation starts, terms of reference will usually be drafted as a first step. This might seem a formal process, but these are important as they provide a ‘road map’ for any investigation. They’ll set out things like how the investigation is to be approached, scope of the enquiries, how interviews will be held and timeframes.

The investigator would then meet the complainant, respondents or any other witnesses to interview them and understand the key relevant information. A written report would then be drawn up with findings and recommendations to provide confidence in the next steps.

Adding value

One other valuable aspect of an investigator’s role during employment investigations is to guard against accusations of bias. Using someone independent to complete an investigation means you can demonstrate objectivity, which sometimes just isn’t possible with internal investigations.

Legal specialists can also offer expertise in some of the more specialised areas of employment law, such as bullying, harassment and sexual harassment, dedication to client service, professionalism, integrity and commitment to community.

Further information: parryfield.com/employment

Immigration Changes Overview

There have been many changes in the immigration space in recent months. This article is a brief overview of the key changes.

Post Study Work Visa (“PSWV”)

The PSWV allows you to stay and work in New Zealand for up to 3 years if you have studied in New Zealand.

Changes to the PSWV settings came into effect from 7 September 2022 and apply to you if you applied for a student visa after 11 May 2022.

These changes include:

Visa length being dependent on your qualification;
Visa conditions being dependent on your qualification;
Only being able to be apply for a Post Study Work Visa once; and
Showing you have $5,000 of available funds.

Visa Length

If you have a Master’s or doctoral degree level, your PSWV will be three years.

If you have a qualification at degree level 7 or 8, the length of your PSWV will match the time you have spent studying fulltime in New Zealand, and you can consecutively complete qualifications for longer visa length.

If you have a qualification which is non-degree level 7 or below, the length of your PSWV will match the time you have spent studying fulltime in New Zealand.

Visa Conditions

If you have a qualification at degree level 7 and above, your PSWV will allow you to work in any occupation, for any employer, in New Zealand.

If you have a qualification which is non-degree level 7 or below, your PSWV will allow you to work in a role relating to your qualification and your qualification must be on the list of Qualifications Eligible for a Post Study Work Visa.

Active Plus Investor Visa

The Active Investor Plus Visa aims to attract experienced and high-value investors to directly invest in high value and growth investment opportunities in New Zealand.

It is a residence class visa, and an investor can apply for permanent residence after 4 years of keeping funds in New Zealand.

An investor can include a partner, and dependent children aged 24 and under, in their visa application

An investor must:

Have acquired investment funds lawfully;
Invest a total of between NZ $5 million and NZ $15 million in acceptable investments (how much is dependent on what is invested in) in New Zealand for a minimum of 48 months;
Spend 117 days in New Zealand in that 48 month period; and
Be able to speak English to at least Level 5 of the International English Language Testing System.

Acceptable investments will have different weighting:

Direct investments into businesses will have the highest weighting (3x);
Investments into managed funds such as private equity or venture capital funds will weighted at 2x;
Investment into listed equities and philanthropy will be weighted 1x (and are both capped at 50% of the NZ $15 million).

The weighting in total must be NZD $15 million (for example, NZD $2.5 million in direct investments (which is 3x), NZD $2.5 million of managed funds (which is 2x) and NZD $2.5 million of listed equities (which is 1x), would have a total weighting of NZD $15 million).

Property is not an acceptable investment, however it can be 20% or less of an exchange traded fund or managed fund’s total assets.

Parent Resident Visa (“PRV”)

The PRV restarted on 12 October 2022. It is a residence class visa to allow New Zealand citizens and residents to bring their parents to New Zealand.

Number of visas

The number of visas that can be granted each year has increased from 1,000 to 2,500.

Sponsor

For a Parent Resident Visa, any New Zealand resident and citizen who has lived here for at least 3 years can sponsor their parent’s/s’ application for residence if they meet the sponsorship criteria. A parent can be sponsored for the Parent Resident Visa by:

their adult New Zealand citizen or resident child
jointly by their adult child and their partner (if they have been living together for at least 12 months), or
jointly by their adult child and another adult child of a parent included in the application.

Income threshold

The income threshold required for sponsors has also been lowered, and the lower income threshold applies to EOIs before and after 12 October 2022. A sponsor now must earn 1.5 times the New Zealand median wage (before it was twice the median wage). This increases by half the median wage for each joint sponsor or additional parent.

The median wage is currently $27.76 per hour ($57,740.80 per year), however it will increase to $29.66 per hour ($61,692.80 per year) on 27 February 2023.

Expressions of interest (“EOIs”)

Selections for EOIs were paused in 2016, so there could be a review of the Parent Category settings. It was not restarted in 2020 because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

INZ will restart selections of EOIs from the current queue from 14 November 2022. After that, EOIs will be selected in sufficient numbers to meet the annual limit.

EOIs before 12 October 2022

EOIs will be selected in date order. The first selection will be on 14 November 2022 and after that will be selected in sufficient numbers to meet the annual limit.

INZ estimate this will take 3 or 4 years to complete.

EOIs after 12 October 2022

Any EOIs after 12 October 2022 will be selected by ballot, with the first selection in August 2023.

EOIs that have not been selected from the ballot expire after 2 years.

500 visas will be available each year for EOIs selected by ballot.

Skilled Migrant Category Resident Visa (“SMCRV”)

EOIs

Selections for EOIs under the Skilled Migrant Category were suspended in March 2020 and will resume on 9 November 2022.

In the selection on 9 November 2022 (1^st selection), INZ will select all EOIs with at least 160 points.

The 2^nd selection will be on 18 January 2023, and INZ will select all EOIs with at least 180 points. From 18 January 2023, EOIs must have at least 180 points to be selected.

EOIs before 9 May 2022 that are not selected on 9 November 2022 will expire. They will not be reselected.

Future Changes

In May 2021, the Government stated that it will turn down the tap on its previous immigration settings to reduce New Zealand’s reliance on “lower-skilled migrants”, and that would include reviewing the Skilled Migrant Category.

The Productivity Commission undertook an inquiry into on changes to New Zealand immigration policy and its final report was presented to the government.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is now consulting on proposed changes to the Skilled Migrant Category Resident Visa, so there may be future changes to the category.

The proposed changes include:

A new points system;
All applicants must have a job or job offer and be paid at least the median wage;
A higher income requirement for some roles, including in retail and hospitality, where employers should be drawing down on the domestic labour market.

Accredited Employer Work Visa (“AEWV”)

There have been changes to the AEWV, which opened to applications on 4 July 2022.

Chef

Immigration New Zealand has changed the immigration instructions in relation to chefs. Chefs are no longer required to have a certificate at NZQF Level 4 or higher, which includes the credit and knowledge requirements of a New Zealand Certificate in Cookery (Level 4), or comparable overseas qualification.

Median Wage

For an AEWV remuneration must be at or above the median wage if not an occupation listed as exempt.

The median wage is currently $27.76 an hour. It will increase to $29.66 on 27 February 2023.

Exemptions to the median wage threshold for specific occupations

If the occupation is listed as exempt, it is exempt from the median wage threshold (“median wage exemption”).

Until April 2023, remuneration can be $25.00 per hour or above where it is an occupation listed as exempt as part of the:

Construction and Infrastructure sector, or
Tourism and Hospitality sector.

Until April 2023, remuneration can be $25.39 per hour or above where it is an occupation listed as exempt as part of the Care Workforce sector.

In April 2023, the median wage exemption will increase to $28.18 per hour (which is 95% of the new median wage).

In April 2024, the median wage exemption will end. Therefore, remuneration for an occupation listed as exempt must be at or above the median wage from April 2024.

Open Work Partner Work Visa

Of An AEWV Holder

From December 2022, an AEWV holder whose occupation is not on the Green List or who is not earning at least twice the median wage will not be eligible to support a partner work visa application. This work visa has open work rights, so a partner can work in any occupation, for any employer, in New Zealand. The AEWV holder will, however, be able to support a visitor visa for their partner.

Of A Student Visa Holder

A partner of a student (who started studying before 7 September 2022) can apply for an open work visa.

A partner of a student (who started studying after 7 September 2022) can apply for an open work visa if their partner is studying:

any master’s or doctoral degree; or
a level 7 or 8 qualification on:
- the Green List; or
- the Qualifications Eligible for a Post-Study Work Visa list.

Please note that this article not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. Please feel free to contact us by email immigration@parryfield.com or by phone 03 348 8480.

18 October 2022

Advertising your fundraising effort

Your business is thriving and you need substantial additional capital to fund the next stage of your growth. You have read up on the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (“FMCA”) (available here) and would prefer to raise funds through one of the Schedule 1 exemptions from product disclosure statement requirements (discussed here). Being proactive, you have already approached your close business associates, relatives, and employees while also taking full advantage of your statutory small offers limit, but it is still not enough.

You decide that it is time to widen the pool of potential investors – you need to reach the deeper financial resources of Wholesale Investors (discussed here) by advertising your offer to them. But how do you that and what are some of the risks in advertising to Wholesale Investors?

Inserting a Disclaimer

To begin with, it is important to be open and honest with the people who come across your offer that your investment is only open to Wholesale Investors. Doing so will avoid potential misunderstandings and hopefully prevent a flood of enquiries from people that will not qualify for the Wholesale Investor exemption. We have seen offers include a disclaimer similar to the one below to highlight that the offer is only available to Wholesale Investors:

“DISCLAIMER: [These] offers are only open to investors who fall within the exclusions applicable to offers made to “wholesale investors” as set out in Schedule 1, clauses 3 (2)(a)-(c) and 3 (3)(a)-(b)(ii) of the Financial Markets Conducts Act 2013 (FMCA). You can obtain further information on FMCA requirements, and whether you come within the exclusions and their requirements at [our website]”

Promotional Conduct

Making it clear that your offer is only open to Wholesale Investors is just the first step. You also need to ensure that your promotional efforts are not misleading or deceptive (see S19 of the FMCA). The recent case of Du Val Capital Partners Limited v Financial Markets Authority [2022] NZHC 1529 offers some key takeaways in respect of the S19 fair dealing requirements:

In assessing whether your offer may be misleading or deceptive, your target audience matters. In this regard, your choice of marketing channels is relevant: advertising your Wholesale Investor-restricted offer in social media and other online channels may be a factor in the Financial Markets Authority (“FMA”) determining that your offers were targeted at inexperienced investors.
You cannot assume that because your offer is restricted to Wholesale Investors, your advertising audience will be more experienced and knowledgeable. Wholesale Investors are not all inherently more sophisticated than non-Wholesale Investors.
If your promotional material is misleading, it cannot be saved by subsequently making more detailed materials available to investors.

Final Caution

The FMCA requires that an offeror know its target audience and engages with them openly and honestly. This includes ensuring that promotional materials are not misleading or deceptive. If you have any questions on fundraising, please feel free to reach out to us if you would like specific input on your context. We have helped many companies with their fundraising efforts and each situation is unique. Please do not hesitate to contact one of our experts at Parry Field Lawyers- stevenmoe@parryfield.com, yangsu@parryfield.com, sophietremewan@parryfield.com, michaelbelay@parryfield.com or annemariemora@parryfield.com

This article is general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice. You should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Reproduction is permitted with prior approval and credit being given back to the source.

Introduction to the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme

Background and Operation of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme

The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (the “NZ ETS”) was introduced as a tool to combat climate change in Aotearoa New Zealand. It was created under a 2008 amendment to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (the “Act”) with the purpose to help Aotearoa New Zealand meet its international greenhouse gas emissions obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, and to meet its 2050 targets and emissions budgets.

The NZ ETS achieves its purpose by setting a requirement for businesses to measure their annual greenhouse gas emissions and report it to the Government. The NZ ETS broadly covers all of Aotearoa New Zealand’s emissions and includes the following sectors: forestry, agriculture, waste, synthetic gasses, industrial processes, liquid fossil fuels and stationary energy.

These sectors, excluding agriculture, also pay ‘the price for their emissions’ by having to acquire and then surrendering one New Zealand Unit (“NZUs”) to the Government for each one tonne of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas they emit. The agriculture sector will be governed by a separate greenhouse gas levy system which will come into effect in 2025. Obligations under the NZ ETS are set high up the supply chain so consumers and smaller businesses are not directly caught by the NZ ETS obligations. Nevertheless, consumers do indirectly pay for emissions as the costs of NZUs are passed down the supply chain.

NZU’s

NZUs can enter the emission trading market in multiple ways. The Government controls two key methods by publicly auctioning NZUs and freely allocating NZUs to certain emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries. The other main way that NZUs enter the emissions trading market is when participants in the NZ ETS ‘earn’ NZUs from the Government by growing forests and undertaking other activities that remove emissions. All NZUs can then be bought and sold between participants in the NZ ETS through the New Zealand Emissions Trading Register.

Non-Compliance with the NZ ETS

The Environment Protection Authority monitors compliance under the NZ ETS with strict liability offences resulting in fines for low-level non-compliance – please see here for a breakdown of fines. Prosecution is available where there is more serious non-compliance.

If you would like to know more about the statutory requirements for the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, please do feel free to reach out to us.

While the Employment Relations (Restraint of Trade) Amendment Bill (“the Bill”) is yet to have its first reading in Parliament, what is apparent on current information is that it could significantly limit the use of employment related restraint of trade clauses in New Zealand, particularly for lower to middle-income earners.

Currently, the starting point with restraints is that they are generally considered contrary to public law, anti-competitive and therefore unenforceable. Nonetheless, restraints can be valid in certain instances, particularly where an employer has what is known as a legitimate ‘proprietary interest’ and can prove that the restraint is no wider than what is reasonably necessary to protect that interest(s). For example, an employer is entitled to protect trade secrets and/or a continuing business relationship, so long as it does so in a reasonable manner.

Over the years however, restraints of trade have been used liberally by New Zealand employers and have not infrequently been included for roles which may not in fact warrant them. In turn, employees have been left in a difficult position when their employment ends, unsure of whether a restraint is enforceable against them and/or if they can or cannot accept a new role which might breach the restraint.

In drafting the Bill, Parliament have recognised a number of issues of public interest, including the two raised above, and has effectively sought to even out the playing field.

This includes:

seeking to prohibit the use of restraints for lower and middle-income employees (which would be achieved by providing that such clauses will have no effect if an employee earns less than 3 times the minimum wage); and
employers of higher income employees needing to carefully consider whether a restraint clause is actually required and to compensate employees appropriately where a restraint is imposed, both during and following termination (i.e. during the restraint period).

If the Bill passes through Parliament and receives Royal Assent, employers will need to work through a number of matters set out in the Bill where they are proposing that a restraint of trade clause apply to a new employee. Employers will also need to turn their mind to whether restraints which apply to current employees will be effective and valid on the termination and the potential implications if they are not.

A new bill introduces a provision that clarifies what directors should consider when they make decisions. This is actually big news because it signals a move away from ‘shareholder primacy’ towards stakeholder capitalism where directors consider many perspectives when making decisions.

Section 131 of the Companies Act 1993 (the “Act”) explains that a director of a company, when exercising powers or performing duties, must act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interest of the company.

The section is silent on what a director should consider when determining what the best interests of the company are. Generally a key consideration of the past has been the generation of wealth for the company’s shareholders.

The Bill adds a new subsection (5) to section 131 that reads as follows:

(5) To avoid doubt, a director of a company may, when determining the best interests of the company, take into account recognised environmental, social and governance factors, such as:

recognising the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi):
reducing adverse environmental impacts:
upholding high standards of ethical behaviour:
following fair and equitable employment practices:
recognising the interests of the wider community.

The key here is that this amendment introduces additional environmental, social and governance factors that directors may consider when determining the best interests of the company. It is a statutory recognition that directors can (and should) look beyond the generation of wealth when making decisions for the company.

One question to consider – and possibly submit on – is whether the term “may” reduces the impact of this proposed change. What if it were “must” instead. Another argument some make (that we do not agree with) is that directors already do all this so no need to have a change. In our view this is a helpful change which clarifies the position for directors.

You can here more about the proposed changes and what they mean in this Seeds Podcast episode, where our Partner Steven Moe interviews Dr Duncan Webb on his bill.

We have helped many for purpose entities over the years and would be happy to discuss your situation with you. Please feel free to contact us at Parry Field Lawyers.

Many start-ups choose to utilise independent contractor agreements, volunteer agreements and/or offer equity to workers as opposed to paying wages, particularly when cash flow is an issue. However, in the event the legal status of such a worker was challenged in the Employment Relations Authority (the ERA) by the workers themselves, or alternatively, the Labour Inspector, the evidence of the parties’ intentions and/or the existence of a signed agreement stating the worker is not an employee will not suffice from preventing a finding that the worker was in fact an employee. Rather, the Courts will look to determine the ‘real nature of the relationship’ using several established tests to determine the legal status of the working relationship.

If the ERA found a worker to not be a volunteer or contractor, but an employee, that individual could be entitled to receive all minimum entitlements available to them by law, which include, but are not limited to:

The Minimum Wage (currently $21.20) for each hour the employee worked since the commencement of their employment with the company;
KiwiSaver payments;
Annual leave (four weeks per year, however pro-rated if the employee is not a fulltime worker); and
Sick leave.

Therefore, as raised above, while many start-ups pay their workers in shares or offer other non-waged arrangements, if an employment relationship is later found to exist with those workers, the payment of shares alone will not override the company’s statutory duty as an employer to pay the Minimum Wage + other entitlements owed.

Consequently, directors of start-ups and companies should be aware of the potential legal risks associated with using agreements which may not necessarily truly reflect the nature of the company’s relationship with their workers. For example, in the event a worker’s relationship with the company was determined to be an employment relationship by the ERA and the relationship had lasted for several years, the remedies available to the employee for Minimum Wage payments alone could result in a not-insignificant sum being awarded to the employee.

In respect of Minimum Wage entitlements, where directors of companies who have in any way been “knowingly concerned” with a breach, or party to a breach of the Minimum Wage Act, can be held personally liable for the breach itself. Recently, where such breaches have been established by the courts, employees have been permitted to pursue the directors of companies personally for compensation, even where the companies in question had been wound up and liquidated.

Finally, the personal liability of individual founders in start-ups is an interesting question, given that founders usually hold many different roles within their companies, for example, as directors, shareholders, volunteers, employees, contractors, etc. and therefore it can be difficult to assess exactly what type of liability could arise, particularly where there is more than one founder involved in the company. However, as raised above, what is clear is that if the legal status of a worker in a company becomes an issue, the Courts will look to determine the real nature of the relationship, which could cause issues for start-ups, where for example, there has been an imbalance of work completed between multiple founders and a claim is made against the company.

If you require any assistance regarding anything raised above, please do not hesitate to contact our employment team.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should consult your lawyer about your specific situation. Please feel free to contact us at Parry Field Lawyers.

Recent changes will affect many larger entities in New Zealand from next year who will need to make new disclosures about climate related issues. This impacts everyone because it is an indication of where disclosure trends are heading.

The Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (the “Amendment Act”) received Royal assent on 27 October 2021. The Amendment Act makes climate-related disclosures (“CRDs”) mandatory for some organisations by amending the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, the Financial Reporting Act 2013 and the Public Audit Act 2001. The External Reporting Board (“XRB”) has recently finished its consultation process on CRDs and expects to issue Aotearoa New Zealand Climate Standards in December of 2022 (see here).

Who has to make these climate disclosures?

Approximately 200 entities in Aotearoa New Zealand will be required to produce CRDs, which include:

All registered banks, credit unions and building societies with total assets of more than $1 billion;
All managers of registered investment schemes (other than restricted schemes) with greater than $1 billion in total assets under management;
All licensed insurers with greater than $1 billion in total assets or annual premium income greater than $250 million;
Listed issuers of quoted equity securities with a combined market price exceeding $60 million; and
Listed issuers of quoted debt securities with a combined face value of quoted debt exceeding $60 million.

For now, the current statutory regime only requires large enterprise value entities to produce CRDs. However we can anticipate that smaller entities that obtain or apply for funding from such entities or obtain insurance from such entities may in future be required to report on their own climate change risks in order to secure funding or insurance.

Purpose of requiring disclosures and some comments

Although the XRB has not yet issued the standard for CRDs, there are a few key observations to note:

Currently, the CRDs are designed to help publicise the risks that climate change may pose to a reporting entity’s enterprise value.
Given the above, the primary users of the CRDs are expected to be investors, lenders and creditors – people who are most concerned about the financial health of the reporting entity.
The XRB’s the proposed standards for the CRDs have a ‘single materiality’ lens (e.g. the focus is on climate change’s financial risk to the reporting entity) but considers that this approach is a foundation that can be built upon to possibly include ‘double materiality’ in the future (e.g. disclosing on the reporting entity’s environmental impact).
In our view requiring these entities to also be talking about the impact they will have on climate would be a positive step (only reporting on the impact on the entity means this regime remains wrapped in a ‘shareholder primacy’ lens ultimately focused on impact on the shareholder – rather than the broader impact the entity will have on stakeholders).

We will update this article as the XRB releases its standard for CRDs. If you would like to know more about the statutory requirements for climate-related disclosures, please do feel free to reach out to us at stevenmoe@parryfield.com or yangsu@parryfield.com.

This article is general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice. You should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Reproduction is permitted with prior approval and credit being given back to the source.

Introduction

With over 28,000 registered charities in New Zealand, the Charities Amendment Bill (the “Bill”) will have a far reaching impact in the for purpose sector. The Bill had its first reading on the 28^th September 2022 and submissions are being accepted until 9^th December 2022. This article explains how you can make a submission, with Part 1 explaining the key changes introduced by the Bill.

What are submissions?

A submission is an opportunity to present your opinions, observations and recommendations on the Bill before a select committee. Submissions are written, but you can say within your submission that you would like to talk to the committee in person if you wish. Once the select committee has completed its work on the Bill, it will create a report that explains what it has learnt and suggests recommended changes to the Bill. The Bill will then move on to its second reading.

Making your submission

Before making a submission, we suggest you read our article on the key changes introduced by the Bill and look at the Bill itself. You may also find it helpful to do further research on what others are saying about the Bill, look at other submissions that have been made here, or even talk to people involved in your organisation about the Bill. You can listen to the discussion Sue Barker and Steven Moe had on the Bill here.

Once you have an idea of what you would like to say in your submission, you can write your submission. Parliament’s website explains that it is easier for a select committee to understand your submission if it is presented well.

You can make a submission by visiting this link on Parliament’s website and clicking the “I am ready to make my submission” box. You will be asked for your details, whether you want to make an oral submission and to either upload your submission or complete an online submission form. You can then review and submit your submission.

You have until 11:59pm on Friday 9^th December 2022 to make your submission. Making a submission is a great way to share your thoughts on what you would like to see in the Bill and provide input on the law that affects all 28,000 charities in New Zealand.

Summary

We also have other free resources available for charities and for purpose entities that may be of interest:

Our Charities in New Zealand: A Legal Handbook
Our Information Hub on the new Incorporated Societies Act 2022
We host monthly impact calls to hear from a variety of voices across the for purpose sector – you can find out more here
Here is a discussion of the Charities Amendment Bill with Steven Moe and Sue Barker – this goes into more detail about the changes and how you can make a submission

We have helped many for purpose entities over the years and would be happy to discuss your situation with you. Please feel free to contact us at Parry Field Lawyers.

Immigration Changes Overview

There have been many changes in the immigration space in recent months. This article is a brief overview of the key changes.

Introduction to the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme

Background and Operation of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme

NZU’s

Non-Compliance with the NZ ETS

Christchurch CBD

Christchurch

Rolleston

Hokitika