O'Rourke Denis: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1222. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First certainly does support the purposes and content of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I do think that fund-raising for charities is something that needs regulation and of course public confidence is the main reason why that is so. I think it is unfortunate that sometimes some professional fund-raisers are so slick in their methods that they turn people off. The reason for that is that they are not absolutely sure where the money is going. These regulations when made will have the effect of improving public confidence and hopefully ensuring that more people make donations to charity. I think that the methodology that has been adopted in this bill by empowering the making of regulations is the right way to go because of course there needs to be flexibility and we need to make sure that those organisations that are going to be affected by the regulations are in fact able to work within it properly. 
It is a very complex area. Many of the organisations have quite different needs from others and different attributes so it is quite difficult to tailor-make all of that in an Act of Parliament so regulations are the sensible way to go. I would say also that I often hear from some other members opposite—especially the ACT Party I would have to say—why it is so important to have less regulation less legislation and less government but here we see a situation where regulations are the sensible way to go. Of course regulations are often very valuable ways for this country to govern itself and in particular when you get situations of this sort of complexity. 
It is very important that the Minister of Consumer Affairs should use the provision in the bill for consultation because the people who are affected as I have just said do have very different needs and there needs to be a very pragmatic approach to the way that these regulations are implemented. We must listen to the needs of the various organisations concerned to make sure that they are assisted in their objects and not hindered by the regulation that will come down as a result of this legislation. 
 The only other thing I would like to say is this: there is a possible problem I think with the definition of “fund-raiser” in the bill which is that some charities exist for the purpose of raising funds for other charities. They may be caught—and maybe they should be caught—by the term “fund-raiser” but it is not clear in the definition how those organisations would be dealt with. So it would have been preferable if there was a further provision under the definition of “fund-raiser” especially in new section 28A(5) where it firstly says in paragraph (a) that a fund-raiser “means a person who in business makes requests”. Of course charities that exist for the purpose of raising funds for other charities are not in business so would probably not be covered by that. However in paragraph (c) under the definition of “fund-raiser” we see that it “does not include—(i) the charitable organisation concerned”. That probably does not apply to a charity that is raising funds for other charities but that would be a matter for interpretation. In subparagraph (ii) it refers to “a volunteer (being a person who does not expect to and does not receive any financial benefit for his or her fund-raising activities)”. Perhaps charities that raise funds for other charities would come under the definition of “a person”. 
I am just making a point that it is not perfectly clear in the bill what the situation is where a charity raises funds for others. I can tell you that I happen to be a member of a trust broad that does exactly that. It is a charitable organisation and its only purpose is to raise funds for other charities. It would be uncertain for its members when they read this bill how they would be treated under it. So I just raise that as a possible problem. I do not think it is a huge issue and I do not think it is one that would warrant an amendment at this stage. 
But subject to those relatively minor reservations New Zealand First is very happy indeed to support regulations when they are made under this legislation and therefore to support the legislation itself which we think will assist charities in their objectives of raising funds by giving people confidence that the money will go where it is supposed to go and that there is adequate supervision in the way set out in the bill. So New Zealand First will be supporting it wholeheartedly.