Woodhouse Michael: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1670. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I find myself in the unusual position of being the member in whose name the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill is being read but of not having spoken on this bill at either the first reading the deliberation by the Commerce Committee or until slot 10 or so of the second reading. The reason for that is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What a lazy member. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: He may well be right but not in this case. In fact the bill was introduced by the Hon Amy Adams who is now in Cabinet and cannot continue with the bill and I am very grateful to her for passing the bill on to me for its safe passage through the House. I also want to acknowledge and thank Louise Upston my junior whip and friend who because of my inability to be able to do so last members’ day moved that the bill be read a second time.  
 I also want to acknowledge Dr Prasad’s very thoughtful comments on this bill because I think he does articulate a widely shared view about the importance of this issue as it relates to members of the public and that was clearly set out in the advice given to the committee by the Commerce Commission which said that in its research it found widespread public support for greater transparency in the amount of money that was collected by those collecting on behalf of charities. It is worth stressing that the purpose of this bill is not to reduce that very strong charitable streak that is in all New Zealanders but merely to give them more information with which to be able to make decisions about where that charitable effort could be put. As members know I am the liaison person for the Arthritis New Zealand parliamentary support group Parliamentary Friends for Arthritis and I am also a member of the one that supports diabetes. Both of those organisations rely very heavily on public funding public charity for their financial well-being and I am sure that nobody would want to see those organisations and others like them disadvantaged in any way.  
But I was very aware of a recent article in a Sunday paper on the amount of money that is retained by these organisations. In one case involving annual giving or monthly giving which is becoming quite the norm a particular fund-raising group kept the full first year’s donations by members of the public for itself. It would be a full year before any 1c of that money is ending up in the charity’s bank balance. That may well be perfectly appropriate; I am not suggesting for a moment that there is a rort which I think is the word that Dr Prasad used. I am not sure whether I would agree with that but I do think that much greater transparency and informed decision-making is appropriate.  
I just want to touch on another couple of issues about the use of the initial clause that was proposed to be amended. That was described as an inappropriate mechanism and I think that is a little harsh on the member introducing the bill. Indeed I am a little surprised that there has not been some concern by some members about the use of regulation which is usually the response— 
Hon David Parker 
: I’m yet to come.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Oh very good. Well we will hear a little bit about that but I think that is a valid question to be asked about whether regulation should be used in this way. But that was carefully considered by the select committee and it was felt on balance and in the context of the Fair Trading Act review which is going on to be the best way in order to deliver the policy intent of this bill. I would not call either of those two options an inappropriate mechanism but the very important thing is that the Minister prior to passing those regulations consults very carefully with the sector before such regulations are passed.  
Two other things were raised including the issue of whether this should be a Government measure. There are two aspects in what I would say to that. One is that the Government has a very busy legislative programme—far more is required to go through to deliver its plan than hours are available. Members’ days can be used for things that could otherwise be used for Government legislation. But the other inference is that somehow members’ days are only for Opposition members and I do not think that is appropriate as a backbench Government member. Mrs Adams and others on this side of the House have come up with very good ideas for how legislation can be passed or improved and I think it is entirely appropriate that Government backbench members also have this day to be able to advance their ideas.  
The last thing I want to say and I think it was a very good point raised by Dr Prasad is on the issue of non-compliance. As the member in charge of this bill although I cannot address that specific issue today I will say that it has been something that I have been reflecting on and when we do return to examine the bill in more detail at the Committee stage I would be very happy to answer any questions in respect of that and what the appropriate response is to ensure that compliance is encouraged first and then what sanctions may be necessary for non-compliance. I thank the member for raising what I think is a very good point that I share. Other than that I commend the bill.