Dalziel Lianne: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2974. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am pleased to be standing in support of the final reading of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I want to traverse a little bit the history of why we are debating this bill separate from the review of the whole area of fair trading that is being undertaken at the moment. I think that legislation is in front of the Commerce Committee at the moment. Jonathan Young is helping me out from the other side of the House and nodding his head. As I am no longer on the Commerce Committee I do not necessarily keep myself up to date with all of the particular goings-on in that committee.  
I think it is a shame that the bill is separate from that legislation because the legislative framework that is now in front of the select committee is actually I think far more integrated than dealing with things on a piecemeal basis would ever allow. I think it would have been better to be able to include this bill with it. However we were persuaded and we agreed as a select committee—and I chaired that committee at the time—at the request of Amy Adams the sponsor of the bill at that time to allow this bill to proceed because it had raised a significant amount of concern within the community. Certainly that was reflected in the submissions that we received but the submissions were not unanimous in the views that they expressed. We did not receive from all of the charities universal support for the approach that the bill was adopting.  
I think people were relatively comfortable with going down a regulation-making pathway that has all of the consultative requirements as the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse has just explained to the House but they were a little bit concerned about the message that might be sent about certain approaches that were adopted by professional fund-raising organisations fund-raising—totally transparently—on behalf of charitable organisations but expecting a professional share of that for the professional services they were providing. I think one of the clearest examples we had of that was the organisation Greenpeace where people could in fact be contributing for up to a year before the professional fund-raising arm of the organisational aspects had been fully recompensed and then as far as Greenpeace was concerned it had a member for life. It was that ongoing gift of the lifetime contribution to the organisation that actually made the initial contribution worthwhile. It did not want to see anything passed through Parliament that actually prevented it from having professional fund-raisers being able to operate in that way. I see that the member is shaking his head and I know that the legislation is crafted in a way— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.