Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Whilst you might say they are not true, I certainly take the word of those on the ground about the pressure put on them. You may not have directly done that, but certainly government agencies in the consultation may have done that. I do not have a problem with what they share with me. Despite this, when the government released the bills and the terms of reference for a committee inquiry into changes, stakeholders were given just nine days to make submissions relating to the bills. This alone illustrated this government's blatant disrespect for this sector and the contribution it makes to our nation. Perhaps this government fails to realise that our country benefits from more than 730 million hours of volunteers' time each year from over six million Australians.

It would be good, Minister, if you had some frank discussions upfront with people who deliver on the ground, because I am sure that they would appreciate the opportunity to let you know firsthand what it is that you are expecting of them and how there will be a drawing away from the front-line services that they deliver. Many of the hours that are contributed to our communities through volunteering are conducted through charities. This is a sector that is obviously for the most part well trusted by local communities. If we take that trust list in the paper today then they do far better than politicians do. It is a sector that has earned the dedication and generosity of many volunteers, who align themselves with the many and varied charities.

This government is attempting to put a spanner in the works of a system that is working well. This government is creating government interference through legislating for a sector which has been working effectively for many years. This is why I am strongly opposed to this legislation. This legislation seeks to introduce definitions for 'charity' and 'charitable purpose'. This legislation would ensure that these definitions would apply from 1 January 2014 across the entire scope of the Commonwealth government. Effectively, this legislation is attempting to regulate the not-for-profit sector through a troublesome bureaucracy that would itself make determinations on the charitable status of an organisation.

The definition of charity has been used for over 400 years. It is certainly not a new concept and it is not a concept that requires any redefinition in the way that it is occurring. Our understanding of 'charity' under common law has served us well for all of this time with the wisdom of those who have gone before us. Where is the sense in fixing something that is not broken, has served the community well and is there when it is required by those who have the need to draw on charities' services and support?

This government has pursued this legislation under the assumption that it is considering landmark changes that have not been mooted previously. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 2000, the former Prime Minister John Howard announced that there would be an inquiry into this sector. After an extensive inquiry resulting in 27 recommendations, which were then debated extensively, the coalition made the decision to legislate to add to or enhance the common law, not to overrule it. It did not make sense then to redefine charities, and it does not make sense now.

There is no sense in what this government is trying to achieve through this legislation, which is why, if elected, a coalition government would repeal this legislation. This Labor government seems to have an innate distrust of civil society, which is demonstrated in its repeated attempts to mandate more burdensome regulation and to create more government agencies to look over civil society's shoulder. The last thing that this sector needs is the burden of more red tape.

Some months ago I was speaking with stakeholders that I interact with in my electorate and through my various committee commitments. The information that was shared with me was that it appeared that this government's decision to overhaul this sector would mean that organisations would need to put on one full-time staff member simply to cover the costs incurred through the additional red tape and paperwork. It hardly seems sensible to be taking the focus of these community-oriented organisations away from the community and to paperwork simply because this government is determined to undermine a sector that is doing so much good in our local communities. Strong communities are communities that are self-sufficient. They are communities that are able to identify the needs of schools, families and individuals and are able to meet these needs through goods and services.

Unlike those opposite, we in the Liberal Party have a great respect for what our charitable organisations deliver into our local communities. The coalition support civil society, we trust civil society and we want to empower civil society. Labor's approach is to treat civil society with suspicion and distrust. The UK experience demonstrates how dangerous it would be to empower public servants to determine what is charity and what is not, particularly given the range of organisations that exist across a number of key areas and those that evolve in times of extreme need to provide a service for a troubled family or community. We have announced that we will abolish the ACNC and will repeal the legislation, and we certainly are not committed to creating a new army of bureaucrats looking over the shoulder of civil society. Organisations such as St Vinnie's, the Red Cross, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Salvation Army et cetera are trusted pillars of the community. The community trusts civil society and the coalition trusts civil society. It is Labor that assumes we should look over civil society's shoulder and force them to comply with these overburdensome regulations. Doing so takes them away from their front-line service.

The challenge, in terms of regulations, is that they are dependent upon interpretation at the various national, state and regional levels, and you will often get varied opinions as to where an organisation may be in contrast to what is required under those regulations and how they should proceed with respect to both their reporting and the information provided. What I am interested in is the final outcome of what those reports will mean and how they will be used, other than for the collection of data that may make not one iota of difference in the way that they operate. Alternatively, the risk is the collapse of charitable and non-profit organisations because of the compliance requirements that are enshrined in this legislation. The government have not demonstrated the mischief that the ACNC was established to deal with.

More broadly, we have announced that we will streamline the regulation as it applies to family service agencies. The coalition will oppose this bill and if we are elected, as I have said earlier, we will repeal it, because we believe that these organisations provide an invaluable service to the communities in which they function, operate and are located. Minister, it would have been good for you to have spent some time with some of those key organisations within the Perth metropolitan area—or certainly within my electorate—because they would have shared with you their concerns and views about a whole range of issues.

Mr Bradbury interjecting—

Minister, the process can still occur if you wish to sit and listen. But I would also then expect you—

See this speech in context