Curran Clare: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Curran Clare: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2126. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I too being the first speaker on this side of the Chamber to speak to this bill in the Committee stage would like to acknowledge the work that the Commerce Committee did on this bill under the chairpersonship of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It was very well chaired and there were some really interesting discussions and some good submissions. As I always do I would like to acknowledge the work that the Commerce Committee does as it is a very effective and functioning select committee. I would also like to acknowledge the work that the member who originally brought the bill to this House Amy Adams did and the good work she put into it. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: And thank you Clare. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: You are very welcome. I would like to reference some things that were said during the second reading of the bill and talk a little bit further about them. I think it was Louise Upston who actually spoke first in the second reading of the bill. She said that the purpose of the bill was to increase the transparency and public accountability of third-party businesses that collect the funds on behalf of registered charities because there was a concern that a disproportionate percentage of donated money may be retained by third-party collectors to cover costs. We reiterate that those views were very important. Ultimately this bill is about recognising the right of people to know where their hard-earned money goes when they choose to donate to charity: to the charity of their choice or to profit-making third-party collectors. 
There is always—or there should be—an underlying principle behind any bill. Sometimes in this House I wonder whether there is but certainly in this bill there is actually an underlying principle which is a worthy principle. It is that it is consistent with sound consumer rights principles like transparency and informed choice for consumers. I have a lot of commitment to those things as do the members of the party who sit on this side of the Chamber and I consider that those things are actually pretty damn important. 
I too went to a function during the dinner break. It was a function about polling about truth telling in polling and about how polling is reported and actually conducted. That is also an issue that is quite dear to my heart as evidenced by the background that I have and the work that I have done for the past 20-something years. Truth telling in polling and reporting is really important just as it is in debate discussion policy and legislation that is conducted in this Parliament. I would like to talk in relation to those principles of consumer rights and transparency and informed choice in relation to this bill—if I do not finish I am sure I will get another chance during the debate in the Committee stage of this bill. 
In the last 4 and a bit months of this year a series of debacles in the House have come from that side of the House that are certainly not about truth telling are not about consumer rights and are not about transparency or informed choice. I actually wrote a list of them—I am sure some of my colleagues would certainly come up with a few more—and there are some very significant ones that are not about transparency. The point is how can you trust a piece of legislation that is brought in the name of truth telling consumer rights principles transparency and informed choice when there is not any being demonstrated from that side of the House? [ 
Bell rung 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Clare Curran. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I am just getting started. I would like to list them because they are all to do with dirty deals cronyism and background backroom discussions that really are not about informed choice or discussion with the public of New Zealand and the public of New Zealand does not really know what is going on. They have to cop what is being decided by that side of the House. We will start with the Crafar farms. Then we had the asset sales and the asset sales legislation. And as part of the asset sales we are now seeing in relation to consumer rights and the principles of transparency and informed choice which lie behind this particular bill the Skycity issue which is essentially selling the law; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade debacle; and the teapot tapes the cup of tea with John Banks— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are talking here tonight about the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. The member who is an experienced member of the House should know better and should bring it back to the relevant legislation that we are discussing tonight not some sordid allegations that she is dreaming up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. First of all can I say that I did actually indicate to the member on my left to narrow it and she did so and then she moved out again. I just warn the member to try to talk to the debate. Can I also say to the member on my right that points of order are terse and to the point. Thank you. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I would like to reiterate that the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill has as its base principle the principle of transparency and informed choice. The point I am making is that in order for that legislation to be trusted by the public of New Zealand the principle of transparency and informed choice in legislation needs to be reflected across the behaviour of the party that is actually bringing the legislation into the House. What we have seen in the last 4 and a bit months is certainly not transparency. The principles of transparency informed choice and consumer rights have not been reflected in that behaviour. So I think it is important with reference to this legislation the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill that we have the ability to do a comparison with some of the issues that have arisen consistently in this House. 
I was going to also refer to the issue of the child poverty documentary where you saw the Prime Minister’s own electorate chair who sits on the board of New Zealand On Air which funded the child poverty documentary objecting to it being shown before the election. That case actually—with relation to transparency and informed choice for the public of New Zealand—is certainly relevant here and important because it has actually been shown through a recent decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority that there was no bias shown in that documentary. When you think about transparency in a piece of legislation— 
Louise Upston 
: Are you going to talk about charities now? 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Charities? Well the thing is if you want to talk about charities you could talk about donations. We could get into donations to charity and the amounts of donations that have been made—two lots of $25000—to certain members of this House who have had convenient amnesia— 
Hon Members 
: Point of order.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I know the member was responding—order! Both of you sit down please. I know the member was responding to an interjection and so I let her respond to that interjection but now she needs to come back to the bill. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I would like to reiterate that this piece of legislation is a good piece of legislation. Labour has supported it. It certainly does no harm. There has been a wide debate within the select committee. There were some very good submissions received and there were some good submissions received from a number of charities who had some very good points to make. As you know they included Arthritis New Zealand which the member tonight referenced and a number of other charities who had some very valid points to make in good faith about the importance of the issues they were bringing before us. And I suppose you know when you look at the points that are being made tonight about transparency if a piece of legislation like this is actually going to the heart of what—