Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the amendment of the shadow Assistant Treasurer in opposing the legislation before the chamber that the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the ACNC, be abolished.

When I spoke in relation to the legislation establishing the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission on 11 September 2012, I referred to the submission to the Senate Economics Committee by Dr Matthew Turnour, an expert in the area of not-for-profit law and regulation and a director of the Australian Charity Law Association. He quoted English academic, Jonathan Edward Garton's book, The regulation of charities and civil society, in identifying six overlapping grounds justifying the regulation of not-for-profit organisations. They include the following: preventing anticompetitive practices; controlling campaigning; ensuring trustworthiness; coordinating the sector; rectifying philanthropic failures; and preventing challenges to organisational quiddity. Dr Turnour, and others who have been quoted by the shadow Assistant Treasurer, are in support of the ACNC.

Indeed, Colombo and Hall, in writing in relation to the laws and regulations concerning charities, have pointed out that in ancient Greece, ancient Rome and in ancient Egypt there was regulation in respect of charities and, indeed, evidence of tax favourability. In the UK, since legislation introduced by William Pitt in relation to income taxation, there have been exemptions for the benefit of the not-for-profit sector. When I spoke on 11 September 2012 I actually said that I doubted if those opposite—the now government and the then opposition—would actually attempt to overturn this legislation, and I admit that I was wrong. It is something that the Prime Minister can barely bring himself to admit in relation to his broken promises. I was wrong.

I did not think that the government would actually do this, because the sector is overwhelmingly in support of the ACNC. Pro Bono Australia surveyed their people—and in fact, there were 154 submissions to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry that are available on the inquiry's website—and it reported that more than 80 per cent supported the ACNC. The member for Mitchell is wrong, in that respect, to cast doubt in relation to Pro Bono Australia's work. Curiously, it also reported that of the 13 organisations and individuals who were invited to give evidence at the inquiry's public hearing, more than half supported the repeal of the ACNC Act.

The Abbott government really does not care to listen to the voices of the sector and those who donate their time, money and effort to it, who want accountability and transparency. The Abbott government does not care that the ACNC is already cleaning up the sector, revoking the charity status of more than 240 organisations this year and moving towards deregistering another 3,500. This government does not care that, according to evidence given in estimates in October, the ACNC cost just $15 million annually, but it saves Australian charities $120 million annually in compliance costs. I will repeat that: it costs $15 million annually but saves Australian charities $120 million annually in compliance costs. So much for this legislation actually reducing the burdens and costs on the sector.

The government does not care that it seeks to return the regulation of charities to the ATO after it has already cut 3,000 ATO tax experts through its actions. The government does not care and does not consult. When it does, it does not listen to the sector. Its intention is to abolish the ACNC. It is an insult to the work of the not-for-profit sector and it will cause chaos in the sector. As the Community Council of Australia has warned, abolishing the ACNC would be a clear sign that the government is not interested in the views of the sector. Of course, it reeks of ideology surrounding its decision. That has not gone unnoticed in the sector. The St Vincent de Paul Society told the recent Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill that it is wary of what appears to be an ideological opposition to the very existence of the ACNC. We agree with the St Vincent de Paul Society.

The Abbott government's mistreatment of the sector stands in contrast to the consultative and collaborative way we approached the sector in government. We understood that the sector is vitally important to the nation's economy and the health of every Australian community. According to the latest ABS data, about 600,000 organisations make up the not-for-profit sector. Of these, almost 60,000 are economically active, employing more than a million Australians and contributing $54 billion annually to the economy. A further five million people volunteer in the sector, contributing $15 billion in unpaid work. The government has not paid this sector respect. It plans to kill off the ACNC despite the overwhelming support of the sector for the ACNC.

The Uniting Church told the recent Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiring into this bill:

The Church was surprised that the current Federal Government wished to abolish the Commission and to separate various aspects, functions and roles of the current Commission which effectively threatens the benefits of one body being responsible for all. Additionally, we struggle to ascertain what will be the successor bodies, their roles and responsibilities, and how they will better benefit the sector and the Federal, State and Territory Governments.

The Australian Council of Social Services told the same inquiry:

It is unusual for an industry to be championing regulation. However, as the recipient of ineffective regulation for many years, the Australian NFP sector recognises the value of an effective, sector-centred, streamlined and proportionate regulatory regime.

The sector supports the ACNC because it spent 20 years advocating for a single-point, sector-centred national regulator. It was crying out for the harmonisation of the fragmented regulation under which it operated. That is why it supported it. The sector understands that these regulations require structured reform—reform which was wholeheartedly supported by both the 2010 Productivity Commission report commissioned by the then Labor government and the Henry tax review.

The Productivity Commission found that the not-for-profit sector faced an ad hoc regulatory regime—a dog's breakfast, would be more accurate. The sector was regulated by 180 pieces of Commonwealth, state and territory legislation and 19 separate agencies. Labor was the party that established the ACNC to streamline the regulation of the not-for-profit sector. The Productivity Commission described the situation as 'an unnecessarily complex, confused and costly regulatory environment'.

We listened to the sector and we established the ACNC. It has already reduced some of the duplication that can arise in our federal system. The ACNC administers a charity passport based on a 'report once, use often' framework. In consultation with other reforms which we brought in, a passport will reduce the amount of time charities and the not-for-profits will spend filling out forms and will allow them to spend more time working in their communities.

The ACT and South Australia will exempt nationally registered charities from having to register in their jurisdiction. We on this side of the chamber are concerned that the government's abolition of the ACNC will weaken transparency and accountability in the sector—transparency which has significantly increased through the creation of the ACNC's national register of Australian charities and not-for-profits. As of today, that website has almost 60,000 charities and not-for-profits on its register.

Importantly, it is freely available to the public to peruse. Anyone can check the register for details of a purported charity, including its ABN, its charitable status, where it operates and the services it provides. The ACNC register makes it easier for people considering donating their time and money and effort to a charity.

A recent search of the ACNC register shows that it lists 241 charities and not-for-profits active in my electorate of Blair, within the 4304, 4305 and 4306 postcodes. They include Choices Family Day Care; Ipswich Hospice Care; the 24/7 Cycling Safety Fund; Hannah's House; Kambu; Focal Extended; Ipswich Assist; IRASI; the Whitehill Church Of Christ; the Pine Mountain Rural Fire Brigade and the Ipswich Women's Centre Against Domestic Violence. And many of those organisations were actually at my Blair Disability Links event last Friday, 28 November, in which over 40 service providers participated, where I relaunched the information booklet. I am pleased to see so many of those organisations present there listed on the ACNC Register.

Some of those organisations work in my electorate and some of them work also outside it, but often they face cuts at the hands of the Campbell Newman LNP Queensland state government. And they are now facing the attitude taken by this government, here in this chamber—they are not listening.

What we need to do for this sector is to support it. Protection is provided by and available through the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, which clamps down on fraudulent behaviours—though, thankfully, they are rare. In its first year of operation, the ACNC received 202 complaints against charities, including 48 for fraud or criminal activity.

But, as the shadow Assistant Treasurer pointed out, it is also engaged in an Indigenous communities engagement strategy. And, as the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, I am pleased to see that the ACNC has employed two Aboriginal liaison officers who can provide help to those clients who are of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent, in those community-controlled services, because it is important to provide those, to end disadvantage, and it is important to improve closing the gap activities, and many of these not-for-profits are involved in such activities.

But where does this come from? This comes from the attitude of the current government—despite the fact that they will not listen to the Community Council for Australia; they will not listen to ACOSS; they will not listen to the Law Council of Australia; they will not listen to Legacy Australia Council; they will not listen to the Breast Cancer Network Australia; and they will not even listen to the Uniting Church in relation to this. Where does it come from? It seems to come from the attitude of the Minister for Social Services. I refer to a speech he made at the Aon Breakfast Forum on 30 April, subsequent, by the way, to the legislation being introduced in this chamber—and it has been in this House for such a long time, I wondered what they were going to do. He seems to rely on a 1942 report, the Report of the inter-departmental committee on social insurance and allied services, better known as the Beveridge report, which talked about the 'giant evils' of society—squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease—as if, somehow, that report, of 1942, was that which we had to follow. No-one in this chamber, I think, would be against getting rid of squalor, ignorance, want, idleness or disease, but simply to be committed to this sort of approach seems out of date, conservative and as if not listening to modern Australian needs. It is certainly not listening to the sector.

What is interesting is that he says in that speech, 'Government doesn't have all the answers.' Seriously, I do not think that anyone in Australia believes that government, or any organisation, individual, company or not-for-profit has all the answers. But, of the Abbott government, the minister said in that speech:

Ours is a Government steeped in a humble awareness of its imprecise knowledge and imperfect capabilities.

What an interesting comment, in view of the 'barnacles' they are trying to get rid of at the moment. But it is an interesting attitude to take—it is a 1942 attitude that the minister seems to have.

But the minister is yet to reveal anything about what will replace the ACNC. In a speech in January this year, he referred to a national centre of excellence, which would act as a sort of fount of innovation and advocacy. It sounds a bit fluffy, if you ask me; it sounds as fluffy as the Treasurer's and the health minister's medical research fund. And he talked, in the media reports, about a US based charity evaluator called the Charity Navigator, which simply rates charities but has no power to intervene as a regulator. Indeed, the charity regulators in the USA are looking to replicate our successful ACNC. So I am very curious about what the government is going to do about this, should this legislation actually get through both the House and the Senate.

But we will not sit idly by while this government tears down the ACNC and removes the only pathway to guaranteeing a transparent and accountable Australian not-for-profit sector. So we will oppose this bill.

See this speech in context