Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

To repeal the Australian charities commission, you would think the charities sector would be calling for its removal and shouting about the red tape burden, but the reverse is true. Today the Abbott government has managed to unite 54 leaders from the charities sector. This government loves their charities; they will turn up at the opening of a charity. There is no doubt that when it comes to the photo opportunity, those opposite are charities' best friends. But when it comes to red tape and protection of charities: missing in action, no appearance. We have 54 leaders from the sector taking the unprecedented action of issuing an open letter to retain the current framework. Let me say that this is courageous by these charities. We know what a vindictive, critical, punishing mob those opposite are. Those 54 charities have dared to disagree with this mob opposite. We will be watching you to see if you punish them, because that is your form guide. Indeed, some opposite seem to think that the charities sector is in love with their propositions.

Mr Andrews interjecting—

The Minister for Social Services says it is only 54 out of all of them. Minister for Social Services, say nothing. Let me go through what some of these 54 have said. The Minister for Social Services, who deals with them, so disrespects their right to have a separate opinion to his own. Tim Costello says:

The commission is actually working for us and it gives the public confidence, it underpins the consumer benefit to charities.

Watch out for World Vision's funding, I would say now, in light of that comment.

Professor Myles McGregor-Lowndes, Director of the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies at QUT, states:

During its short history, the ACNC has played a positive role in the overall regulatory environment of charities, and it is well-placed to continue that role. In the short term, it provides the infrastructure for a ‘one stop shop’ for Commonwealth regulatory requirements, and a dedicated force to work with other Commonwealth agencies to streamline their present arrangements. Its stellar improvement in terms of timeliness, consistency of decision making and responsiveness to emerging issues of previous ATO functions, surpasses the sector’s original high expectations.

Then we have all sorts of other groups. David Crosbie, Chief Executive Officer of the Community Council for Australia, has said:

The ACNC is more efficient than the government regulators it replaced, is doing good work and deserves a chance to achieve its three goals of reducing red tape—

a goal which the Prime Minister rhetorically dedicated himself to this morning—

increasing public trust and strengthening the charities sector.

I know the Prime Minister is a strong rhetorical supporter of our charity sector; I congratulate him on his Pollie Pedal. I should just say that David Crosbie did not congratulate him; that was me. David Crosbie continued:

Axing the ACNC would be a very clear sign that government is not interested in the considered views of the charities sector.

There we go. Louise Walsh, the CEO of Philanthropy Australia—no doubt another nest of Marxists, according to the ideologues over there—says:

Since the ACNC’s establishment as an independent charities regulator, Philanthropy Australia has consistently supported the ACNC’s important role in our community. The ACNC has only existed for just over a year – so far the progress is promising and we want it to be given the opportunity to realise its full potential.

There you have it. That is what the 54 people that the Minister for Social Services just dismisses. What did these people ever do to be dismissed by you, except dedicate their lives to looking after other people? What an arrogant chap you are! This ministerial statement on the charities commission goes on to show that, when it comes to this government evaluating the beauty parade between ideology and pragmatic, moderate common sense, pragmatic, moderate common sense never wins.

In August 2013, a pro bono survey—Oh! There are more than just 54 here; this might change the random remark that the Minister for Social Services made before—of over 1,500 members of the not-for-profit sector found that 81 per cent supported the ACNC. That would be more than 1,200, Kevin. Only six per cent of the survey respondents in the charitable—

The SPEAKER interjecting—

Sorry, the member for Menzies. Only six per cent of the survey respondents in the charitable sector supported a return to the ATO as a default regulator. The not-for-profit sector employs over one million Australians, turns over about $1 billion, involves almost five million volunteers and is the heart of all our communities. The Productivity Commission and the Henry tax review recommended a national charities commission. The Productivity Commission, so beloved of the government, declared the previous regulatory framework to be complex, lacking coherence and transparency and costly to charities. Abolishing the charities commission is an insult to taxpayers, who want to see where their donations go, and it is an insult to charities, who will lose their visibility and governance support. It is bad for the public, who will be vulnerable to more frauds and scams. So on the charities commission we have the government talking with high-blown rhetoric about how much it wants to cut red tape, but when it has a chance to turn its words into deeds they—the Abbott government and the Prime Minister—do not live up to their own rhetoric.

But there is a second example of how the government is inconsistent with the rhetoric of the Prime Minister's opening speech. When it comes to turning good words into good actions they go missing. I talk of course about the future of financial advice legislation. What a disturbing proposition that is from the government. The Assistant Treasurer, with the support of the Prime Minister, is determined to reduce the protections of mum and dad investors. The Assistant Treasurer was up-front during Senate estimates about his game plan to prescribe new regulations to dismantle the current consumer protection laws, with immediate effect, as soon as the parliament rises next week so there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of these changes—none. Putting aside Labor's concerns about the substance of the Assistant Treasurer's changes, we are most aggrieved at the process. This is all about pulling the wool over the eyes of Australian investors. Just as bad, the financial services sector faces the very real prospect of having to deal in a short period of time with competing regulatory regimes: the regulations that take effect from 27 or 28 March; the current laws, if the regulations are disallowed in the Senate; and whatever legislative landscape we end up with after 1 July when the parliament has dealt with the government's legislation. This is a red-tape nightmare dreamt up by the fevered imagination of the Prime Minister of Australia. The Assistant Treasurer appears to be proceeding in a ham-fisted manner, without any regard to the outcomes.

Labor went through numerous rounds of consultation when refining our policy. For the benefit of some of the new members of the coalition who might not have been in parliament at the time of the events that triggered this current round of consumer protection law that Labor put in place, it followed the collapse of Storm Financial. Bernie Ripoll's Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquired into that and put legislation into parliament that it debated, inquired into and passed. Having seen the lesson of Storm Financial, those people opposite turn their backs on the experience of history. I cannot say when the next financial disaster will happen and I cannot say who the victims will be, but I know one thing: because of what you are doing, you are guaranteeing another Storm Financial and upon your heads it will rest. We will hold you responsible for your abandonment of basic common sense when it comes to consumer protection.

This is dodgy law done in a dodgy way which will lead to dodgy outcomes. If you want to make the changes, make the case via legislation. Front up and have a parliamentary inquiry. We saw what happened in Storm Financial; we saw what happened in Westpoint—high-profile collapses where in certain instances investors were lured into these investment products because financial planners were receiving hidden commissions to promote those products. Our financial laws, which you are seeking to dismantle, would protect consumers with a best-interest duty. There would be opt-in measures, requiring advisers to get their clients to opt in to receive ongoing service every two years, and annual disclosure—somehow annual disclosure is a bad idea. And then there is conflicted remuneration.

We put the government on notice. They want to reduce red tape, and I have outlined why we think as a principle that is sound. We put this Abbott government on notice that we do not want to effectively decriminalise and deregulate financial fraud in this country.

We are a constructive opposition. We will give the package they put forward careful consideration. We support the repeal of redundant 1901 legislation. We will not allow important protections to be recklessly cut. Labor stands for the protection of consumers, the protection of workers and the protection of investors. Markets are fundamental, but one economic lesson which we all know in this place is that markets periodically need the help of government. Regulations protect against abuses. We have a proud record of removing the unnecessary regulations, but we will be guided by the interests of all Australians, not just blind ideology. (Time expired)

See this speech in context