Prasad Rajen: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1668. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I spoke very positively about it during the first reading because it addresses a real concern that a number of us have heard about and have seen examples of relating to donations for charitable purposes where all of the money intended for the charitable purpose or organisation did not get there. It is also refreshing. If we consider the juxtaposition of these two bills—this one and the one before—this one is remarkable for the passion that the Hon Amy Adams when she first introduced her member’s bill brought to it whereas the one preceding this the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill which we have discussed seemed to be going through the motions. As others have quite justifiably said it seemed to be one of the worst ways of addressing what ought to have been addressed in an omnibus bill. Therefore this is a good bill. 
It comes at a time when many charities rely to a large extent on donations from a very giving New Zealand public. Currently there are no rules. There are no rules about what needs to happen to make sure that the money collected actually gets to where it was assumed the money would go so the potential for abuse in the current system is enormous. Indeed abuse has occurred. This particular area has become a big business. In 2002  
Consumer 
 magazine conducted an inquiry into the Children At Risk Education Foundation—CARE—and found that 75c in every dollar of donations was going to the telemarketing company. I mean that is enormous. It can only be described as a rort that such a small fraction of what was raised actually ended up with the particular charity yet it was feelings for that particular charity that generated the donations in the first place. 
The issue was again raised in the media as a result of Epilepsy New Zealand’s decision to cut ties with 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 through telemarketing and approximately $2.1 million of this went straight back to the telemarketers. I mean that is a rort in anybody’s language. It is a business it is unconscionable behaviour and so the pleasure that this side of the House has and we all have in supporting this bill and its provisions is there. 
The telethon on TV3 for the benefit of the KidsCan charitable trust was also in the spotlight because of claims that less than 20 percent of the amount raised was passed to disadvantaged children. So 80 percent there went to telemarketers. Television New Zealand’s show  
Dancing with the Stars 
 was also caught up in controversy when just 60 percent of the money raised for charities by the contestants actually made it to the recipients. 
What this bill does is address a very very real problem. It is good to see this bill come back from the Commerce Committee. The select committee process is the next bit I want to address. It fundamentally changed the bill. Obviously quite a lot of detailed thinking by officials and by the advisers to the select committee went on in that select committee. Where the original bill was about disclosing how much was retained clearly an appropriate mechanism had not been thought through as to how that could actually happen. The select committee in the proposals it has come up with in the bill’s amendments actually has addressed that. Perhaps it is not unusual that a member’s bill does not think through the nitty-gritty of how an idea or an intent is unpacked into legislation. The select committee in this case has done a great job in putting its mind to the task and it has thought through how the bill’s purposes could be achieved. 
The select committee has amended the bill to enact regulation-making powers relating to disclosure by those who raise funds. It will be regulations now that determine exactly how it is and the bill sets the framework for that. When the regulations come out they will direct how in a particular case the rules are to work out. So essentially what the select committee has done in the amendments is to design a system for the purpose of the bill to be met. I congratulate the select committee on doing that work and on thinking through the purposes of the bill in that particular way. 
But there are two other matters I want to refer to. One is that some matters are so important that they ought to be Government measures and this is one of them. The last bill that went through here was also such a matter and there are other areas of fair trading that are currently being looked at. One would have thought that these matters would be put together and that the Government would take charge of the whole package of rules regulations and laws that needed to be amended and the system that needed to be redesigned and would bring them back together in a comprehensive kind of way. I think there is another member’s bill—it is before a select committee where it has been parked—introduced for very very similar reasons. So it could have happened in this particular case. Sometimes it is useful for Ministers to think that through particularly Ministers with responsibilities in the area. That has not happened in this particular case. But fortunately this bill will go through the Committee stage so we will have an opportunity to go through it have a look at it understand it and make amendments as the Committee of the whole House. Interestingly enough it was not commented on that the last bill did not have a Committee stage. That also kind of reflects the irony of the situation of the bill we discussed prior to this one. 
Finally I want to raise one other matter that is on my mind. I note that the provisions of the bill show the framework for the regulation-making powers but as I read through them I just wondered what the sanctions were if somebody did not comply with those particular regulations. At some point maybe in the Committee stage—or perhaps the next speaker or the member in charge of the bill—someone might just clarify for me as to what the process is by which non-compliance is dealt with and what the sanctions are. Are they to be in the regulations? If so should that not be in one of the amendments or the clauses? Is it something taken as read or should there be a particular clause which we look at in the Committee stage where the sanctions are discussed? 
This side is very pleased to be supporting this bill. It is a genuine member’s bill from somebody who feels passionately about these kinds of things. They have obviously come before the Hon Amy Adams since she has brought the bill here and given us the opportunity to discuss it. We all as members of Parliament have had this experience. Here we are at a fairly advanced stage now taking the bill through its processes. I think that what the select committee has done is a great job. I hope the final piece is addressed and I am sure it will end up being a very good piece of legislation.