Lotu-Iiga Sam: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and talk to this bill the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I also want to commend the member who introduced the bill Amy Adams as well as our Commerce Committee which worked quite diligently on the provisions of this bill. I just want to start by saying that the bill as has already been explained across the House is about increasing transparency and accountability for those third-party businesses particularly that make it their affair to collect funds on behalf of registered charities. To give you an idea about how important this part of our society is not only does it support great charities as Ms Upston has referred to in terms of Plunket Greenpeace and other charities but also it is a billion-dollar industry. It is a billion-dollar industry supported by 25000 registered charities across this country. 
One of the issues as has already been alluded to by members is that people do not know how much is being given to the charity and how much is being taken by these telemarketing groups or these third parties. We have had cases in the past revealed by the media thankfully where between up to 75 percent and 90 percent of funds donated have been going to these third parties. That leaves 10 percent. If you extrapolate that out over $1 billion that would be $900 million going to third parties which are really not adding much value and not actually donating to charitable causes. So it is a problem that many understand and it is a problem that this bill addresses. 
We also addressed within the original bill that came before us a provision that set up a disclosure regime such that over 20 percent of funds raised would be disclosed to the public and it would be disclosed in a way that was general but if 50 percent was used for the third party or these telemarketing groups then it must be disclosed proactively. We had a number of charities that actually came in and argued against this particular clause—this key clause of the bill as first presented. One of the reasons they said this was that often there was a huge amount of marketing up front in order to get long-term clients—clients who were not just donating on the street but who were prepared to pay moneys over a number of years. We took these submissions into account when we looked seriously at how this bill would be applied in practice. 
We could not in good conscience I suppose impose the original regime as presented by Ms Adams so we have put in the bill a regulation-making power that allows officials through an Order in Council as enabled by the Governor-General to sign off on these regulations. Although everyone has said thus far that that is acceptable I have got to say as a legislator that I do this with great reluctance. We should do it with great reluctance because we do not know what those regulation powers are to date—we do not. We delegate a lot of that discretion to officials who work behind the scenes. My preference personally is for us as a Parliament to table the clauses debate them and put them into law but we could not find that solution. I am surprised that members opposite did not make that point because we struggled long and hard during the select committee submissions over that particular point. 
Having said that I think the mischief behind this bill is important. I think we have all agreed upon that. What it would do is increase the trust and confidence of those donating to charitable trusts. It would also discourage these opportunists who actually prey on others. I know that the last speaker referred to his own charity that he is on but some of these charitable organisations are preying on the smaller organisations and taking large and substantial fees for their services. We are not here I believe to intervene in those transactions made by private parties; all we are asking for is a little bit of transparency and a little bit of disclosure such that those donating understand where their funds are going—and I do not think that that it too much to ask. I think that once we get that trust and confidence back into the donating process that New Zealanders go about every day you will see more funds more of those billion dollars in funds that go to charities actually go to those worthy causes to which people have originally donated their funds. 
Wrapping up I certainly support this bill. As I said I do so with reluctance to make a regulation-making power but it was the best solution that we came to at that point in time in the committee. I think that accountability and transparency will actually be a good thing for the sector and a good thing for those who prey on these charitable organisations. I am pleased that parties across this House are supporting this bill. I urge you all to vote for the bill and certainly I am looking forward to this coming to pass whether it be through regulations or an enactment in this Parliament. Thank you.