David Norris (Independent)

I would love to go along the line Senator Buttimer has so effectively promoted but I do not believe that is the case. I do not think that it is outside, sinister forces who are pushing a particular political agenda on behalf of the forces of reaction. This is weak Government. Senior civil servants in Departments are driving Government policy. I am sure that is the case. It is inappropriate to name the particular senior civil servant in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform but the Minister will know exactly who is involved. It is treating the House with contempt that those kind of pathetic non-answers should be read into the record, prepared by other people, and not to answer the questions that were asked.

I do not follow the conspiracy theory. I do not think all kinds of mad pro-lifers, George Bush neo-cons and doodahs are behind the Bill. I do not suggest that my balanced friend, Senator Buttimer, was suggesting that, but that might be an implication that could be taken from it by more hysterical people. I do not believe that for a minute, but it is up to Government to govern or listen to the advice of its civil servants. I emphasise the second word, because they, like the Ministers, are servants of the people, and if the Government does not listen to the advice and then makes a decision on policy, it is in difficulty.

The reason the matter that has been raised by Senator Buttimer is so important is not that these sinister agents were involved but that the door has been left open for them to walk right through it. That is the problem. That is why I put on record the vulnerability in these cases that was found by the British Charity Commission's report. Senator Bacik did the same. The danger is that one is leaving it wide open.

Turning to the specific amendment, which relates to charitable purpose and public benefit, I am interested to hear the Minister of State's reply. Since I am not the proposer of the amendment I will not be able to speak again. I am reminded of those rather innocently sectarian days when one had collections for the Catholic boy scouts or the Protestant orphans. I always thought it was rather unchristian, whatever about the skirts, I beg your pardon, the shirts. I have a slight verbal confusion — the scouts. Skirts, shirts, I eventually got scouts right. Whatever about the scouts, is the idea of public benefit intended to make sure that if any of those groups who make collections have survived, that they widen their focus so that they take in the full public within the remit of their benevolence rather than narrowly collecting for the charitable purposes of assisting, for example, the Protestant orphans.

Thinking back on it, I remember there were Protestant gentlewomen also, and even Protestant lepers in India. I thought that was a little bit discriminatory. My heart went out to the poor Catholic, Muslim or even Hindu lepers who were deprived of that munificence. I am curious about that point. What is the effect of this measure and why was it necessary technically to change it because the change is not substantial? I do not have the original wording in front of me but the Minister is now saying, "A purpose shall not be a charitable purpose unless it is of public benefit". I think there was a phrase after that saying "within the meaning of this Act". What is the point of removing that? I seek to be informed.