Cunliffe David: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3437. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to join the discussion on this member’s bill from Michael Woodhouse and to confirm that Labour supports this bill. The Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill is a good bill that addresses an area of concern for the public and that is why we are supporting it. 
The bill was rewritten in the Commerce Committee to enable regulations to be made relating to disclosure by fund-raisers making requests for charitable purposes. Currently there are no rules on what has to be disclosed except that no misleading or deceptive statements may be made. 
It does raise the question of why given that this bill has widespread support in the House and given that its purposes are clearly in the public interest this is not a Government bill. There is a tendency for the Government to pass to members to handle as members’ matters matters that from the point of view of the Labour Opposition are worthy of the support of the Government in a more formal way. It is thus open to the interpretation or perhaps the misinterpretation that it is trivialising matters that are of some considerable value—in this case to the charitable and non-governmental sector. 
In 2002  
Consumer 
 magazine conducted an inquiry into the Children At Risk Education Foundation or the CARE Foundation and found that 75c in every dollar was going to its telemarketing company. The issue was again raised in the media as a result of Epilepsy New Zealand’s decision to cut ties with the fund-raiser the Epilepsy Foundation. In the last 3 years according to Epilepsy New Zealand the Epilepsy Foundation gathered $2.82 million in donations on its behalf and approximately $2.1 million out of that $2.8 million went straight into the pockets of the telemarketers. 
I think for the average New Zealander on the street when they hear numbers like that they just have to ask the question as to how that can be right because they give generously to the purpose for which the telemarketing is being done which is to help the vulnerable individuals who are the recipients of the care. They do not do it simply to patronise in this case some 75 percent of the margin going to the telemarketers. Another example: the telethon on TV3 for the benefit of the KidsCan charitable trust was in the spotlight for claims that less than 20c in the dollar raised was passed through to disadvantaged children. The trust recently announced that 80 percent of the proceeds were passed on to the charity. 
In a former life I used to manage an overseas aid programme with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In fact it was two former lives ago but not so long ago that I have forgotten the level of the administration costs of New Zealand’s foreign aid. In those days it was 11c in the dollar and 89c in the dollar went to the needy people in the countries—in that case in the South Pacific—that New Zealand was seeking to assist. So if it is good enough for the New Zealand Government to manage its overseas aid endeavours on an 11 percent overhead it is certainly incumbent on private marketing agencies to take less than 80 percent and this bill is to be commended for shedding light on that issue. 
Another example—and I hope the World Vision organisation will not mind me saying that I understand that its overheads are somewhat less than 20 percent. It is still not insignificant but it is not at such a level that donors would feel aggrieved. In any case those overheads are transparent in its accounts and are known to donors such as probably many of the members in this House who support children through that organisation. The Television New Zealand show  
Dancing with the Stars 
 was also caught up in the controversy with just about 60 percent of the money raised for charities by contestants actually making it to recipients. 
The bill recognises the right of people to know where their hard-earned money will go: to the charity of their choice or to some profit-making third party. It is consistent with sound consumer rights principles like transparency and informed choice and we need the Minister of Consumer Affairs to start addressing the important transparency matters for consumers such as the actions of loan sharks. 
I recognise the presence in the House of Sam Lotu-Iiga who has done some useful work in that area much of it at the prompting of Carol Beaumont the former Labour MP. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: All of it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I would say “all” in response to my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson. How can I put it—all the useful stuff in response to my former colleague Carol Beaumont. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What’s she doing? What’s she doing right now? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Is it not interesting how Mr Lotu-Iiga was woken from his slumber by the actions of the Labour Party—woken from his slumber. Look it is remarkable. It is remarkable how some members opposite can make controversy out of a universally supported bill even when I was paying him half a compliment certainly not the whole compliment. But there you go. That is Parliament. No wonder the public thinks it is an acquired taste. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why are the Nats cutting up Sam’s seat? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That is a very interesting question and I say to my raucous colleagues we ought to be decent to Mr Lotu-Iiga for as long as he is here with us because with the boundary changes coming that may not be that long. It is very nice to see Jonathan Coleman here from saving the Western World from whatever it is he has been saving it from and we hope that he is here for not too long as well. 
But I go back to public accountability for charitable giving. Surely that is something that all members of this House can agree on provided that it is not too burdensome. We say only the following: that this should have been a Government bill. The Commerce Committee is currently working its way through the consumer goods law reform and that is another area where I anticipate there will be broad consensus in this House. I guess the public watching or listening in will probably be reassured to see Parliament actually can cooperate on quite a lot of things particularly in select committee and often on members’ days when a common-sense idea is brought to the House. I commend Michael Woodhouse for doing so on this matter. Thank you.