Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the previous speaker noted, the not-for-profit sector is 'mature' and 'adult', and that is why it is vigorously opposed to the changes proposed by the government. In actual fact, last year, a pro bono survey found that 81 per cent of the 1,500 respondents were opposed to the government's suggestion for change to this sector. Recently, 54 major Australian charities signed a statement in regard to the attempt by this government to abolish the ACNC. They noted:

The launch of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission in 2012 was a major step forward in creating a regulatory environment that works for the not-for-profit sector rather than against it.

They went on to say that they extensively support it. If I had any doubts about why the ACNC should be retained, the paucity of argument from the Minister for Social Services has added to my position. He has come back to say that that was signed by only 54 individuals. He should look through those charities, which are from across the spectrum in this country. Father Riley, in my own electorate, who does so much for the homeless, was a notable signatory. He noted problems with the UK regulation. The UK example has no connection with what happens in Australia. The most laughable reason that the minister gave for the legislation, given the recent budget, was that it was an election commitment. That is the major reason he gave for proposing this legislation. Quite frankly, that is questionable. A Choice survey of 2008—for those people who are interested in consumer affairs et cetera—indicated very strong support for an organisation like the ACNC. It has been endorsed by the 1995 Industry Commission report, the 2001 Howard government inquiry into charity definition and in many other international surveys leading up to the 2010 Productivity Commission report.

Really, we should ask: why is the government trying to do this? I am very indebted to an article by Mike Seccombe in TheSaturday Paper of 29 March 2014, in which he indicated that the major people calling for this legislation are rather interesting—private administrators of charitable trusts—an industry with $3.2 billion in assets. He noted in the article that in 2009 these rather altruistic, kindly people managed to get legislative change in this country that meant that their fees were not to be on the percentage of capital but on income.

That article further quoted Peter Winneke, who was responsible for the Philanthropic Services of the Myer Family Company. He surveyed these private companies that have come to control so many of these charitable trusts in this country. As I said, they are a major advocate for abolishing the ACNC. I wonder why. Because they do not want oversight. They do not want the Australian people to know what is wrong with some charities. They do not want to give confidence to the broader non-profit sector.

He noted that in some cases they were getting up to 40 per cent of earnings of a trust siphoned off to their fees. I notice that they are members of the Financial Services Council of Australia. Mr Seccombe actually looked up the 2011 to 2013 AEC donations and he found that the Financial Services Council had a history of contributing to people on both sides of politics who just happen to be involved in this portfolio area and members of relevant parliamentary committees in their field. The Financial Services Council, representing this body that wants the abolition of the ACNC, made an interesting donation in 2011-13 to the North Sydney Forum, which is run on behalf of the Treasurer of this country. While we are talking about charitable matters, that is the favourite charity of Australian Water Holdings.

We have seen significant support for this legislation. People who are supposedly regulated too much, people who are affected by this onerous red tape, are saying that they actually want this organisation to operate. We have seen two entities already—South Australia and the ACT—abolish their state alternatives to oversight this field because there is confidence in the recently established federal ACNC. It has been, as I said, at a very early stage able to give confidence to the sector. People do want to have confidence because it is not as though there are no problems. I noticed as recently as 15 March this year the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, as covered by The Sydney Morning Herald— (Time expired)

See this speech in context