Woodhouse Michael: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2135. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I thank honourable members for their contributions so far. I think there have been a couple of issues raised that are worthy of addressing. I think the first one I really have to address is probably the least charitable call I have heard in this Chamber for a long time and that was from the Hon David Parker. I do think that it really is against the spirit of this debate and this bill the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill to be quite so uncharitable about a bill that has very noble purpose.  
I would accept something of a rebuke for the fact that the bill did have to be substantially amended were it not for the fact that the speech came from the Hon David Parker. More experienced members will well remember as I am sure Dr Nick Smith will that member bringing to the Committee of the whole House in 2008 the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preferences) Bill with 785 amendments by way of Supplementary Order Paper which went through absolutely no democratic process completely rewriting that bill after 1000 other amendments went in 2 days before the closure of submissions—completely re-engineering the bill. He may well have a very good justification for that but I will not accept the rebuke from that member on this bill.  
He also talked very uncharitably about this being a worthless waste of money. Ms Curran and Mr Twyford also said that it does no harm so they will support it. Well I think that lacks something actually. If Labour members think this is a worthless waste of time they should actually put their votes where there mouths are and vote against the bill. I would be quite happy to have that challenge laid down. I do not mind that but the bill went through select committee under the very able Hon Lianne Dalziel and it recommended that it be passed so let us stop talking about it as a worthless waste of time.  
I think it is very helpful to look at the case for change and it was somewhat well articulated by the Hon Amy Adams. I think it is also worth referencing the Charities Commission and the work that it did in 2008 to survey charitable givers.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that there appear to be strangers in the Chamber. We are currently on a member’s bill and there is not the provision on a member’s bill for officials to be in the Chamber. There appear to be people sitting on the bench reserved for Ministers’ officials. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will seek some advice on the issue.  
Hon Tau Henare 
: Can we carry on while you look for an answer? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think we will carry on in the meantime while we are checking this out.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no give us a ruling. You can’t do that.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The issue is being checked. I am advised that the member in charge of the bill is entitled to have officials.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. A member in charge of a bill who is not a Minister cannot have officials. Officials are Government officials; they are not members’ officials.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I have been advised that members may have advisers. So I have been guided and the situation is that members are allowed to have advisers.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I seek an assurance that these are the member’s advisers and that they are not departmental officials.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Speaking to the point of order I can assure the honourable member that they are advisers to me who happen to work for a Government department. But they have provided advice as they did to the select committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I can speak to you as a matter of record that during the Labour period of Government I had a member’s bill in respect of the engineering profession and in exactly the place where the officials are sitting today with the Labour Government’s consent at the time I had sitting in exactly that place officials from the department as well as from the Institution of Professional Engineers consistent with the Standing Orders. What is taking place today is no different from what occurred during the period when Labour was the Government.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The trouble with the last submission you just heard was and is that if there was no objection raised at the time that does not give it status as a precedent in this Chamber. We need to know precisely who they work for now and we have not heard that.  
Hon Chester Borrows 
: It appears to me Mr Chair that you have ruled on this matter and people seem to be taking issue with that ruling from their seat without getting to their feet.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have sought advice on it because I am not sure myself of the position with the officials who are sitting in the Chamber.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Speaking to the point of order I am pleased to advise the Committee that the people providing advice to me are employees of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. They have provided advice to the Commerce Committee in the 49th Parliament and will continue to advise the Minister of Consumer Affairs when the bill is passed into law as to the framing of the regulations.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek a point of clarification. The member in the chair has not told us what we want to know. He has given some explanation— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: It’s not question time.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well in your case it should be.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Can I say to members on my right that when a point of order is being taken it is heard in silence and there is no interjection whatsoever and to the member that points of order are to be terse and to the point.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The terse point I wish to make is: who are they employed by now? Not what advice have they given in the past but as of right now who are they in the employ of: the Minister or the department?  
Hon Simon Bridges 
: The right honourable member did not raise a point of order and you should not rule on it.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: At the moment we are seeking some advice. I have in front of me a situation regarding the admittance of strangers to the Chamber and it quite clearly states that “To the right: … a person invited by a member in charge of a Member’s bill a local bill or a private bill to advise that member on the bill;”. In this case that is what we have.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Which Standing Order is it?  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is covered under Ancillary Rules to the House.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No but someone’s got to make the rules— 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member Trevor Mallard shouted twice from his seat asking you questions without asking to be called and not standing yet you seemed to engage with him on that. Could we have some dignity in the Chamber please?  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. This comes from “Rules for Admission to the Chamber Lobbies and Galleries of the House of Representatives during Sittings of the House made by the Speaker pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House”. That is where it comes from and I am assured that the people here sitting behind us have the right to be here.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is a very timely reminder to thank the advisers who have given advice not only to me but also firstly to the Hon Amy Adams in the initial stages of the bill and secondly to the Commerce Committee—and now me—for the outstanding advice that they have provided and continue to provide. 
Andrew Little 
: So where are the draft regulations?  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I am coming to that—patience. I just firstly want to address the initial point which was the case for change. The Charities Commission conducted two surveys of public trust and confidence in charities and in those it noted “an increasing public concern over the fundraising techniques of charities and a reduction in confidence in the charities sector.” In particular 34 percent of respondents in 2008 reported high levels of trust that charities ensure a reasonable proportion of donations get to the end cause and at least 38 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “Charities use more dubious fundraising techniques these days.” I think the Hon Amy Adams gave us a couple of very compelling reasons why this legislation is very important.  
Labour members are free to decide what they do with that but what I have heard in two previous calls is that it cannot be in primary legislation and it should not be in regulation so what they are really saying is that this cannot be fixed. Yet this is a matter of very important public interest to those who give to charities.  
I also want to touch on the issue that Mr Parker raised. I may have misheard him but I thought I heard him say that the Fair Trading Act already provides for regulation powers in this respect but in fact that was not the advice of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs which told the Commerce Committee that the Fair Trading Act would have to be amended to specifically allow for disclosure about third-party collectors as section 27(1) currently does not allow that. So there is definitely a need there is definitely a public interest and there is definitely an improvement to the environment in which people provide charitable giving.  
 To the question asked about whether or not there are draft regulations that have been made the answer is no but they will be advanced over the next 12 months. The bill– 
Andrew Little 
: Oh! All this lack of public confidence and no regulation. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: If they will listen they will get the right advice. They asked the question but do not seem to be prepared to listen for the answer. The bill provides for the Minister to consult—in fact it requires the Minister to consult—with affected parties before the regulations are drafted. 
Andrew Little 
: Regulations can be made without consultation. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No that is not what it says. I will provide the necessary position for the member. It says somewhere that there is an obligation on the Minister to consult albeit that that Minister’s failure to consult does not necessarily invalidate the regulation. That is a way of framing regulations that is quite customary. It happened under the Labour Government; I cannot give you an immediate example but that is quite a normal way of framing regulations. In any event I am sure the honourable member Charles Chauvel will have something to say to that when it gets to the Regulations Review Committee.  
Although we have not drafted regulation yet I have sought advice anticipating the question as to what the regulation might look like. In fact there are precedents around the world for the Ministry of Consumer Affairs in advising the Minister as to what that might be. The UK model has what is known as a solicitation statement which requires fund-raisers to state the institution that they are fund-raising for whether there is more than one charity the names of those charities how the fund-raiser’s remuneration in connection with the appeal is to be calculated and the amount if it is known. In Australia there are a variety of processes under regulation that are a bit different. In Victoria collectors must disclose how much they are paid to collect. That is probably the intention that the member introducing the bill had when she talked about the 20 percent and 50 percent thresholds. In New South Wales collectors are simply prohibited from retaining more than 50 percent of the funds raised. In Tasmania they use the term that the benefit cannot be “manifestly excessive”. So there are quite differing ways to do that. My own view—and it will actually be up to the Minister of Consumer Affairs in any event—is that the UK model is probably the pathway that we should explore. I think it provides the comprehensive statement that we need but it is not overly prescriptive and indeed it talks about not being overly prescriptive.  
The last thing I just want to touch on in respect of the things that have been raised is the timeliness of this and I have spoken with the Minister of Consumer Affairs. It is important that we do not let this drift. I think there is a high level of public interest and he has indicated to me that he is quite willing to get advice on this in a timely manner and that the regulation should be drafted consulted on and passed into regulation in the next 12 months. I thank the Minister for his commitment to doing that because as I say this is very much a matter of public interest.