Cold as charity..?

This is rather interesting! Although there have been questions raised about it in the past , it seems like something's only being done about investigating it now.

I first read about it on the Anorak site, with their Charity case story:

And at the foot of the list is the latest gaffe. The Australian speaking tour - for which Cherie was paid a reported £102,000 - is attracting the attention of the Australian authorities.
The Times says that at the A$195-a-head gala dinner, held in aid of the Children’s Cancer institute, A$192,000 (£81,000) was raised. But only A$16,000 (£6,774) went to the needy. Celebrity speaker Cherie took home £17,000, although the Telegraph says her fee remains undisclosed.
This looks bad for Cherie, and worse the charity. Under the terms of the state of Victoria’s Fund-raising Appeals Act at least 60 per cent of funds raised in an appeal has to go to the charity.

Isn't it amazing that someone who is rich, secure and healthy can take home more money than was given to a charity to help children who are dying? Less than 10 percent of the money raised at the event actually made its way into the charity coffers. In addition to the money, she apparently got free accommodation, meals and flights.

Although it seems she's consistent with things at least - she accepted $US30,000 to present a talk in Washington earlier this year while Tony Blair was there to talk about canceling African debt. You couldn't get more ironic if you tried, really.