Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue in this second reading cognate debate on the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission Bill 2012. What this Labor government is telling the not-for-profit sector is that they need a watchdog to promote transparency and trust. In a sector that has given no reason for such distrust—and in a sector that has the overwhelming support of the general populace—this move has come from left field. The government has provided no evidence or identification of suspicious activities that would warrant such a heavy-handed approach.

This bill provides the commission with wide-ranging authority to conduct activities such as issuing warning notices, issuing directions, entering into enforceable undertakings, applying to the court for injunctions, suspending or removing responsible entities and appointing acting responsible entities. In effect, this means that the commission will have the power to revoke the registration of any registered entity without appeal, which is a concern to the many stakeholders.

Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Council of Social Service, Dr Tessa Boyd-Caine, highlights that the provisions make no allowance for the commission's deregistration decisions to be delayed until an appeal is heard. She says:

Because there is no capacity to stay a decision in that area, we see potential for organisations to be deregistered in advance of capacity for appeals in advance of administrative review of decision making that might well overturn a decision.

This bill is trying to stifle our nation's culture of giving and volunteering and it is trying to penalise those who are going above and beyond. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission would be established with such far-reaching powers as to make it one of the most powerful Commonwealth regulators.

This legislation has been resoundingly condemned by the sector itself. This could come as no shock to those opposite in light of the extremely limited stakeholder engagement process the government went through for this legislation. A mere nine working days were provided to stakeholders to make submissions on the bill. With such blatant disregard for the input of stakeholders, one can only imagine how little the sector's views were taken into consideration in the final draft of this legislation.

But even with such limited opportunity to provide feedback, stakeholder submissions demonstrated an overwhelming disappointment with and disapproval of the legislation. Overwhelmingly, submissions indicate that this bill will result in a massive regulatory burden. The Australian Council for International Development stated in their submission:

There looks to be a very real possibility that there will be an increase in red tape for charities with the introduction of the ACNC ...

The Australian Council of Social Service points out:

The Bill does not yet contain any provisions that make it explicit that the reduction of unnecessary compliance and regulatory burdens is a core object of the Bill, nor does it identify these kinds of reforms as policy directions or drivers of the ACNC's purpose or activities.

Financial Services Australia's Senior Policy Manager Eve Brown identifies:

The bill therefore creates a new layer of regulation that applies to trustee companies and public trustees as trustees of registered entities. This is unnecessary and incompatible with current federal, state and territory regulation schemes.

The Housing Industry Association stated in its submission:

Governments do not need new legislation or the ACNC to control NFPs' accountability for and management of any government grants they may receive—the current system of contract law is perfectly adequate.

When I consider some of my local housing service providers and the work that they do, I am deeply concerned by any regulation that will take them away from their service to my local community. Every minute spent in filling out paperwork and jumping through bureaucratic hoops is a minute less they can spend finding housing, food and goods for those in need.

This is not to say that some changes in this sector will not be beneficial. Earlier this year the coalition announced its commitment to establishing a small educative and training body for the not-for-profit sector. Unlike the bill that we are debating here today, this initiative would not be a heavy-handed regulatory body that adds to the red-tape burden for charities and the not-for-profit sector. The coalition would not seek to change the way that not-for-profit organisations are viewed and it would not create disincentives for volunteers to be involved in not-for-profits. The coalition is committed to empowering this sector so that it can continue to thrive, for we on this side of the House understand that the not-for-profit sector adds vibrancy and richness to our society that could not be gained any other way.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Longman for his excellent speech on the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012 and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012.

What do we have before us? We have more Gillard government incompetence. Only this government could set up a commission to reduce red tape that will actually create it. Its incompetence knows no bounds.

An opposition member: Incompetence on steroids!

It is incompetence on steroids. If this was a one-off you could say, 'Okay, we can sort of understand.' But it is not a one-off. Look at what we had last week. We had a bill before this parliament on which the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities had to rush in amendment after amendment because, when it was first introduced, it wanted to ban the use of fishing rods. It wanted the minister to be able to prescribe that he could ban the use of fishing rods. That is how incompetent it was.

Again we have the minister who has become famous in this place as the minister of the clawback. Every time she has spoken in this place it has been about clawing back. Now what does she want to do to community organisations and charities? She wants to break their backs. She wants to use red tape to break their backs. This is what she is all about. Forget the clawback. This minister wants to break their backs. She wants to get red tape and regulation and break their backs.

The sad thing is that this commission has been set up to do the opposite, yet it is just going to, sadly, burden community groups, who do fantastic work, who bind together. I must say that whenever I travel around my electorate nothing makes me prouder than seeing the work these not-for-profit organisations and charities do. What is their reward for their giving? This government is going to saddle them with red tape which is going to make their lives harder. As the member for Longman said, every minute that they spend on this additional red tape is a minute that they are not doing the valuable work that they do within our communities.

If the government had a good conscience it would take this bill back and say: 'We got it wrong. We haven't done a proper job. We haven't consulted properly.' Nine days of rushed consultation has led to this bill. Take it back, start again and do the process properly. Surely you can learn that what leads to gross incompetence is rushing stuff before this parliament. We have seen it time after time. So step back and say, 'Okay, we're big enough to admit we got it wrong,' and start again.

I will just give you an idea of all those who have problems with this bill before us today. I think it is worthwhile for the House to hear about these groups, because they are not the sort of groups who raise concerns about legislation on a whim. If they are concerned about it, the government should stop and listen. We have Add-Ministry Inc., the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, Australian Baptist Ministries, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and the Australian Conservation Foundation—a key supporter of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and of the government. We have the Australian Council for International Development, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Australian Institute of Public Directors, Carers Australia, Catholic Health Australia, Catholic Social Services, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia, the Community Council for Australia, Community Employers WA, the Conservation Council of South Australia—

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a long list.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Aston says, it is a long list, but I have not finished. I am going to continue so that we might just be able to get a message through to this government that maybe they need to step back and think again. We have the Financial Services Council, the Australian Financial Services, the Housing Industry Association, the Independent Schools Council of Australia—

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Schools as well!

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Schools as well. We have the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia—accountants as well. We have Makinson & d'Apice Lawyers—we have lawyers as well. We have Mission Australia, National Disability Services, the National Roundtable of Nonprofit Organisations, the Not-For-Profit Sector Reform Council, the Philanthropy and Exemptions Unit of Treasury, Research Australia, RSM Bird Cameron chartered accountants, the St Vincent de Paul Society—

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Vinnies as well!

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Vinnies as well. And what wonderful work Vinnies do. Yet what are they going to do to Vinnies means that, instead of doing the wonderful charity work that they do, they will be filling out paperwork. They will be smothered with red tape. We have Surf Life Saving New South Wales, the Salvation Army in Australia, the Smith Family, the Uniting Church in Australia, UnitingCare, World Vision Australia, YWCA Australia and Neumann & Turnour Lawyers. And I am sure there are many more.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unions?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not quite sure about the unions, but if you say so.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It doesn’t cover the unions.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not cover the unions?

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Funnily enough!

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why doesn't it cover the unions? That's a surprise! They obviously were able to go to the government and say: 'We don’t want this amount of red tape put on us. We don’t want our backs broken by red tape. Please exempt us.' Why didn’t they do the same for the accountants, the lawyers, the church groups and the charity groups? I do not know. It is a good question—maybe we will get some answers when those on the other side speak on this bill. Or maybe they have run out of words now and they just want to usher this through as quietly as they can.

This bill is opposed by all those organisations and more, and the reason it is opposed is that it will drown them in red tape. We must ask: what is the government's motive, what is it driving at here? Why did it set up this commission? Is it trying to regulate these not-for-profit organisations and charities so that, after they are brought into this commission, the government will have the ability to tax them? Is this a plot to help try and achieve their fanciful budget surplus? They are prepared to attack these community groups, these not-for-profit organisations and charities, to try and obtain their budget surplus because of all their wasteful spending. Is this what this is all about? It is hard to tell, but hopefully we will get an idea.

The other thing which is important to raise here is that this cannot work without the states. If the states are not involved in this it will not work. What consultation was done with the state governments? My understanding is that none was done. The states have made it very clear that they do not want to go down this path because they do not want to burden these organisations with extra red tape. They understand that you do not set up a commission to reduce red tape that actually increases it. They do not want to head down the path of incompetence. That is why the government has not consulted with the states and has not been able to get them involved.

It is not only the burdening of these organisations with red tape which is of concern to us on this side; it is also the powers that this bill gives to the commission. The worst power of all is that, if the commission decides, it can revoke any registered entity. Where is due process here? What are the mechanisms for these community organisations or charities to say, 'Enough's enough. We're not going to let this big, regulatory body come in and crush us'? What if they say, 'No, we are not going to put up with it'? They could have their licence revoked as a registered entity. It is not only going to smother them; there is a big stick waiting there to whack them. No wonder the unions did not want to be part of this. Instead it is left for our poor old community organisations and charities to have to fight against this commission.

I am sure those opposite at some stage will ask: what is the alternative? Let us be clear that we have put up an alternative. We put up an alternative some time ago which is to: implement one contact with the department for each agency instead of multiple contacts; require the department to negotiate the content of the contracts with the agencies instead of simply imposing it upon them; simplify the auditing process to require only one financial report from each agency annually; and replace the current system of rolling audits with an initial benchmarking audit that has a period of five years with spot audits to be undertaken if the Commonwealth is made aware of any adverse contact on behalf of the agency. We will streamline the process. We will not set up a wonderful, big, new Orwellian commission to stifle or to create such red tape that these bodies will be spending more and more of their time dealing with the red tape rather than being able to do the wonderful charity work that they do.

Let us just stop for a minute and think back. As this new commission is being set up to break the backs of these charities and these community organisations with red tape, let us remember the commitment that this government gave in 2007. For every piece of red tape that was going to be introduced they were going to take one out. Where has that got to? What happened to that commitment? It has disappeared. It has absolutely disappeared. Now what we are seeing from this government is that, at every opportunity, they are increasing red tape and green tape wherever and however they can. I will say that this needs to stop because, if this government continues unabated, this country is going to drown in red and green tape.

I would say to the minister for clawback: forget about the clawback and concentrate on not breaking the backs of our charities and community organisations. If you keep doing it you are going to absolutely eat at the fabric of our society. These groups do such wonderful work within our communities that you should be doing everything you can to encourage their work, to help them with the great work they do, to help them raise the moneys so that they are able to give to those who are needy in our community, and to help those community organisations which keep our clubs and organisations going. They deserve government support. They do not deserve a government which wants to make it harder for them every step of the way.

I ask you again, step back, and think again. Say, 'This legislation is not going to do the job that it set out to do.' This is not a commission to reduce red tape; this is a commission to increase it. It is going to lead to perverse outcomes. It is going to do exactly the opposite of what it has been set up to do. Halt, stop, think and realise that this is another incompetent piece of legislation which has been rushed. Stop, step back and adopt the coalition way, because you can do this in a simpler and neater way which will enable these organisations to continue doing the great work that they do.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to speak on this matter because I am very concerned personally at what I think will be the outcome of the proposal to establish a new statutory office, the Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, which will be the Commonwealth regulator for the non-profit sector. My concern is one of a person who has been in public life for some 39 years next weekend and as somebody who has been involved with voluntary organisations. I am somebody who has seen voluntary organisations struggle to pursue their fundraising activities and their administration. Often the amounts of money are quite modest, and there is never enough money raised to employ professional staff. My principal concern is that these people, who are going to be involved in running these voluntary organisations that are so much a part of our communities, are going to be concerned about whether they can leave themselves and their families exposed to the risks that this legislation will place upon them.

I cannot understand for the life of me why we would want to put upon those volunteers that level of accountability that is going to, in many cases, lead to the closure of very important community based organisations. So it is important to look at what is being proposed because the legislation, as I understand it, which was designed to initially deal with the problems that arose as a result of the High Court decision in relation to the sorts of bodies the government could fund and support led to the government seeking to put in place special conditions for income-exempt entities to: provide they must be operated principally in Australia and for the benefit of the Australian community; standardise the other special conditions that entities must meet to be income tax exempt such as complying with substantive requirements in their governing rules; and, being not-for-profit entities with some exceptions, standardise the term 'not-for-profit' and replace it with a defined and, might I say, undefined use of 'not-for-profit' through the tax laws to codify the Australian special conditions for deductible gift recipients.

This range of measures, which the government announced in the 2011-12 budget, including the creation of the Australian Not-for-profit Commission, which was originally to come into operation on 12 July, is a part of a total regime involving the Commonwealth in administering some 600,000 entities in the not-for-profit sector. It has been estimated that about 400,000 may access Commonwealth tax concessions through endorsement processes or by self-assessment at the moment.

ASIC has a smaller role in the regulation of the not-for-profit sector at the Commonwealth level. It is currently responsible for regulating approximately 11,000 entities incorporated as companies limited by guarantee. ASIC also regulates the professional trustee companies as well some charities which are incorporated into other types of companies under the Corporations Act. The state and territories regulate incorporated associations and charitable trusts through public and private ancillary funds that are regulated at a Commonwealth level. The states undertake the rest as well as the fundraising activities and imposing some reporting and governance requirements on entities that receive state and territory funding.

Not-for-profit agencies have raised this very issue that I have spoken about—that is, the issue of reporting requirements that are inconsistent, increasingly and excessively complex and burdensome across the sector, requiring these agencies to direct resources away from front-line services and towards complying with the needs of government. The sector is concerned that there is also currently no single reference point for the non-profit sector to access information and education and that is why the coalition has supported a small commission to engage in innovation and advocacy.

But that does not mean you need to have this very significant regulatory approach. What is happening is Labor is reversing the arrangements that are presently in place. It is saying we need a watchdog to promote transparency and trust, that the community trust sector is presumably doing something wrong and that community based organisations are presumably doing something wrong. But, for my part, there has been no identification by the government of the mischief that it thinks warrants the suite of powers that will be granted to this new commissioner. While the government has claimed that it will consult further on the content requirements, it is quite clear that these will involve very considerable additional requirements of what are, in the main, the sort of charitable organisations that all of us are familiar with in our electorates and constituencies.

The bill does provide that this commissioner will have a range of enforcement powers. These powers have been modelled, as I understand it, on those given to other regulators such as ASIC, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The bills provide that this new body will have authority to issue warning motions and notices, to issue directions, to enter into enforceable undertakings, to apply to courts for injunctions, to suspend and remove responsible entities, and to appoint acting responsible entities. This is in relation to the local P&C. This is in relation to the group of mothers that raise money for Save the Children.

I look at and think about the nature of the voluntary sector in my electorate and the obligations that are being imposed upon them and I ask myself why. It is remarkable that we have heard a great deal about what has been happening in the trade union movement. Trade unions that handle very much larger sums of money, pay people very large salaries—sometimes much more than members of parliament, as I understand it—are not hit with these sorts of regulatory arrangements. If they were—

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Their compliance is higher.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, their compliance is not. You have only seen it through the inquiries that have been undertaken in the malfeasance that has been occurring. Yet we hear no allegations of the sort that we have heard in relation to the trade union movement, in relation to the voluntary sector. This is a very considerable concern to me. The sorts of entities we are speaking about are charitable institutions, religious bodies, scientific institutions, public educational institutions, charitable funds, charitable trusts, clubs established for community service purposes, employer and employee associations, public hospitals, clubs established for sports generally and clubs established for musical purposes. The regulations that can be proposed are particularly broad.

It is not as if the government has not been warned about this matter. The stakeholders have been quite vociferous in making the points of concern that they have. What we heard from PilchConnect is that this imposes a very high burden upon cross-border philanthropy. World Vision has said that the measures are too onerous and unclear. World Vision also said that the government should remove these provisions or, in the alternative, that they should be more tightly drafted to identify the mischief that the government is concerned about or to allow reliance on a statement that funds will not be applied offshore. There were concerns expressed as to effect by some legal advisers. It has been argued that donations of funds to another organisation should not jeopardise the tax exempt status of particular bodies, particularly when they have a wider role. There have been calls to clarify that misuse relates only to the extent of misuse and for the financial year in which it occurred. Stakeholders have sought clarification on the time limit for tracing and clarification about having to guarantee that funds are spent. The Uniting Church has expressed concern about the prescribed conditions for the power to disregard the use of grants. These matters are of very considerable concern.

The regulatory burden has been raised with key stakeholders by the opposition. These charities and not-for-profit organisations, which are struggling to meet the demands of providing the services that they now provide, are concerned about these questions. We also have the potential for several layers of authority unless the states and territories agree to hand over their powers to the Commonwealth. I am one of those who has argued very strongly over time that there should be greater harmonisation of Commonwealth and state laws, but it appears that these matters have not been discussed or worked through with the states and territories at this point in time. It is the Commonwealth going its own way and saying to the states, 'It's our way or no way,' as it seems to me.

The stakeholders have expressed concerns that the powers and penalties contained in these bills are heavy-handed and that they will deter members of the public from taking up voluntary roles. It is not just me that has identified that factor. Sector agencies have raised issues in relation to reporting requirements and governance standards and they see enforcement powers that are inconsistent with and overlap the common law of trusts as well as state and territory legislation. This is going to increasingly become an issue in which there will be the potential for considerable resort to legal advice to find out how these new arrangements are going to operate, with the broader community that is involved in charitable efforts being faced with state agencies giving them advice on the one hand, as against the Commonwealth charitable body dealing with them on the other.

What has been remarkable to me has been that this government relies very heavily upon the advice from David Gonski in relation to the education area and yet he, as the Australian Institute of Company Directors chief, said that Australia may be:

… the first country in the world to make being on a not-for-profit as a director more onerous than being on a for-profit.

I think that is a particular concern. I think the government, rather than pressing on with this legislation at this time, for the purpose of, it seems to me, filling the parliamentary program, ought to withdraw the measures. It ought to constrain the extent to which this covers voluntary organisations. I think the government has made a very wrong call about the way in which voluntary organisations work in Australia by imposing burdensome requirements of this sort upon them.

I have been involved, as have many people in this chamber, with political organisations that are faced with regulatory requirements in relation to our own fundraising activities. We rely upon volunteers to be the treasurers of our organisations and we have imposed very significant obligations upon them. We ought to know, from the difficulties we have faced in our own organisations in getting people prepared to the treasurers, what this legislation will do to voluntary organisations in our community when they are faced with the same difficulties in finding people who are prepared to take up those responsibilities when they are so much more onerous.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012 and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012. There have been a number of participants in this debate over the last couple of days and I have to say that, for a sector which is held in such high esteem by members on both sides of the chamber, it might be surprising to people who have been listening that there can be such division on this issue. It seems from my reasonably close encounter with the legislation through the overview by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Finance and Corporations that there is a resounding voice from the sector itself willing, urging and, indeed, in many cases demanding that this bill goes through in the interests of the sector and of the services they provide to the Australian community.

One of the key points we keep hearing from those opposite, who continue with this litany of fears and campaign of negativity, is a concern about red tape. Importantly, this bill provides the sector with an opportunity to have a one-stop shop, one place to which they can provide critical information about how their charity is working. It also provides a place to which the Australian community can go and find out information about the charities they so generously support on so many occasions, not just when crisis situations emerge but also as they look around their local community and feel compelled to act in support of local people and local issues.

I make these comments in the context of what has preceded this moment, where we find ourselves on the cusp of passing this legislation through the House at the end of a period of seven reviews since 1995, five of those reviews in just the last four years. Mr Deputy Speaker, I alert you to the range of reviews that have been undertaken across this sector, with many, many committees having had a look at this and each one of them encouraging the very action we are proposing to take.

I am not the only person who believes this. I think a number of people on the other side, in their heart of hearts, agree with this issue. In 2006, a member of the Senate, warning that effective reviews of charitable status are not regularly undertaken by the Australian Taxation Office—which currently oversees the charity sector—said this:

BRW’s Adele Ferguson put the potential consequences of this benign regulatory neglect more starkly, observing:

Without adequate supervision or transparency, the not-for-profit sector is a ticking bomb. It would take just two or three scandals to harm all the good that the other charities are doing. Even larger charities such as the Salvation Army concede that the sector needs reform ...

Heeding that advice, which has been repeated on many occasions since 2006, Senator Brett Mason said:

I have little doubt that the vast majority of organisations are doing the right thing and are doing great work. The problem is that we cannot sort out the many good not-for-profit groups from the handful of bad ones or those who are underperforming. It is my belief that this threatens the donor-charity trust relationship within the sector at large.

It is here that government needs to step in and provide clarity where confusion prevails.

This is in the interests of clarity and in an effort to avoid confusion and that very real concern that all the good done by the charities—and the goodwill to those charities—could be undone by a few bad eggs. Senator Mason goes on to say:

Aside from setting up an independent regulator, some of the other significant initiatives warrant thought.

That is what we have done. With further consultation—wide and extensive consultation—with the sector, we have come to these particular bills.

I want to take a moment to look at the objects of the bill. The objects of the bill have been clarified at the request of the sector, which, in a hearing before the House Standing Committee on Economics, made a number of very powerful arguments which resulted in no fewer than 13 amendments to the draft legislation, which have now formed the essence of the legislation before the House. The sector requested that the objects of the bill be made very clear. It wanted the bill to articulate that the framework to be overseen by the ACNC will be to maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in the Australian not-for-profit sector—the sector requested that that be transparently stated. The framework overseen by the ACNC will support and sustain a robust, vibrant, independent and innovative Australian not-for-profit sector. It will promote the reduction of unnecessary paperwork, because duplications in the Australian not-for-profit sector occur. These are the intents of this bill and they are clearly the intents of the sector as well.

Why does this matter so much? Those listening might be keen to hear just how large this sector is and why it is critical, as Senator Brett Mason had indicated and as the sector itself is indicating, that we have the ACNC, this one national body overlooking our charities and not-for-profit sector. The real facts are that Australia's not-for-profit sector is quite large, certainly diverse, and is responding to a range of different needs and sectors in the community. There are about 600,000 entities engaged in economic, social, cultural and environmental work. About 60,000 of the 600,000 entities are charities and 21,000 of them have deductible gift recipient status. That was at 21 July. Amongst that mix, about 5,000 of the charities are constituted as companies and there are about 136,000 not-for-profit incorporated associations. Currently they are registered with states and territories.

I know those opposite are making much of the fact that the states and territories are already doing this job. They are saying: 'Why is the federal government coming in over the top? Why do we need a national regulator?' Again I repeat: we need a national regulator because those in the sector are calling for a national regulator. As I said, 136,000 of them are registered with the states and there is no clarity for people who want to find out about them. There is no easy pathway for people who are contributing to these charities to find out what is going on. There are also, in addition, 440,000 organisations that are small, unincorporated not-for-profit participants. Given the size of the sector and the clear beneficial objects of the bill, it is not surprising that we stand on this side of the chamber supporting this legislation.

But we are not the only ones who support this legislation. Clearly there is support within the not-for-profit sector for a national regulator, and the introduction of the ACNC is supported by a range of groups from every possible sector. Welfare groups, social welfare organisations, healthcare providers, international aid organisations and religious entities all support this bill. The Australian Council of Social Service noted in its submission that the sector itself has 'long championed' the introduction of a national not-for-profit regulator. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has argued that the establishment of the ACNC is a result of the sector's long-term advocacy for national regulatory consistency.

From the National Roundtable of Nonprofit Organisations, we have an articulation that there are about 12 million words, 39,000 pages, on the public record in support of the case for establishing this national regulatory body. They urge us to get on with this, not to go on with the continual delay. They say:

Once again, we are at the altar of the reforms we want and need and we ask for the support of our national parliament and of the states and territories to deliver for us better and smarter regulation. We don’t want to be jilted yet again.

Yet, with 12 million words, 39,000 pages, of resounding support from the sector—indeed, overwhelming requests from the sector over many, many years—we still have those on the opposite side of the chamber saying: 'No. We know better than the sector. Our wisdom is greater than the 39,000 pages of wisdom collected from the sector. We, the 'noalition', know better than Australia's not-for-profit and charity sector.' The breathtaking arrogance would surprise me, except that I have been here for two years and have listened to their constant carping negativity, their discussion of fear, their amplification of anxiety about the future and their determination to stop every move in a positive direction for this country.

Philanthropy Australia was one of the participants in the hearing that was most recently convened here in parliament, just a couple of weeks ago. We heard from Mr David Ward of Philanthropy Australia. This was his assessment of the current regulatory regime that those opposite seek to uphold and continually seem to argue is quite adequate for the job—despite the fact that Senator Brett Mason, I think, actually articulated very clearly what the threat of doing nothing in this sector is. David Ward said:

The current arrangements are so fragmented that the commencement of reform is absolutely needed. … I am on a small not-for-profit run by volunteer boards which was volunteers only up until recently. It is required to produce audited financial statements, has ASIC reporting requirements, has ATO reporting requirements, is technically regulated by one state attorney-general, has six state fundraising licences and files information to seven separate agencies.

At the other extreme there are charitable funds, claiming in excess of $1 million of franking credit refunds annually, in cash, from the ATO—totally legitimately, I would add—which are currently not required to produce financial statements, which are not audited and which report to no-one.

In our view, neither of these examples is satisfactory.

I think any ordinary Australian would consider Mr Ward's view very valid. Indeed it is not satisfactory that there are onerous requirements heaped on charitable entities that are operating across states, with a whole sector able to get franking credits to the tune of $1 million without being forced to report. The establishment of the ACNC—its change from its current preparatory status to a fully-fledged statutory body after the passage of this bill—will make sure that that is no longer the case, that there is fair and transparent reporting.

I also want to make the point that, amongst those we heard from, there was a real desire for what the chair of the ACNC, Susan Pascoe, was articulating as a 'report once, use often' regime. It is a form of passport for all the charities and not-for-profits to be able to identify critical information, to have that information available for funding bodies that might be seeking to get money into the community to support particular causes, to be able to go to a website, find the details and the data, just as any ordinary Australian would, and for that reporting to be in a format that is simple and accessible. Once that report is established, it would be available as a working document for many, many agencies to be able to refer to.

The notion of reporting once and being able to use often is something that is extremely attractive to those in the sector who are burdened by incredible levels of paperwork currently. This legislation is Labor leading—leading in a way that listens to the community, that respects the voice of those who know, that listens and responds in an appropriate way to enable them to get on with the job that they want to do and that encourages the states to come on board and make sure that they make this an accessible and better-functioning sector. (Time expired)

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate on the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012 and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012. At the outset, I want to say that, in this place, we should be doing all that we can to facilitate the work of charities. Charities perform a role that is essential yet hard to quantify and sometimes ignored by governments. The health of our charities and not-for-profits reflects on the health of our society as a whole, and we must be mindful that our charities can withstand only so much regulation and intervention from governments.

Charities have traditionally been the domain of state government law, a point which I will discuss in more detail later. One of the state governments across Australia to recognise not only the importance of charities but the potential they have to deliver social benefits for the state has been the Barnett government in Western Australia.

In its 2011-12 budget, Mr Barnett won widespread plaudits from not-for-profit groups for the $1 billion social services package which included an innovative $604 million for sustainable funding and contracting with the not-for-profit sector. I was particularly pleased to see a million dollars in that budget for Youth Focus, a youth suicide prevention charity based in my electorate of Swan. I see the Special Minister of State here and I know he is a strong supporter of Youth Focus as well. He would understand that the last thing an organisation like Youth Focus would want is more red tape and more regulatory burden. We can achieve much by financially supporting these dedicated groups on the ground and we see this with Youth Focus. What the Barnett government has shown us is that supporting charities or civil society is not about hard regulatory measures. It is about facilitation, it is about enabling and it is about creating an environment in which charities and volunteers can do what they do best.

This idea of easing the regulatory burden was cited by the government as the reason for the legislation being debated by the House today. That is why, when this legislation was first announced by the then minister, Bill Shorten, the charities and not-for-profits were pleased. In fact they were positively enamoured. However, the legislation we are debating today, several years after that announcement, has turned out very differently from what was initially envisaged. It has morphed into a piece of legislation which would deliver the opposite of the minister's initial aim.

These bills would increase the regulatory burden and have, naturally, alarmed charities and not-for-profits across the country. This is evidenced by the many substantial submissions by the not-for-profits to the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics. Ultimately, for the charities, the ramifications of the extra regulatory burdens are significant. As Dr Matthew Turnour said:

Every time you introduce more regulation, you discourage more volunteers. It really can be very hard to get people to volunteer when they know that there is potentially personal liability attached.

It will of course be the small charities which will struggle the most, much as it has been small businesses which have suffered most from Labor's economic policies.

As I said, voluntary organisations can only withstand so much regulation. For the local resident who wants to start a charity, adding even more regulation might create just too much of an impediment. It is essentially for this broad reason that I oppose these bills and will cast my vote accordingly when the opportunity arises. By imposing a new federal layer of bureaucracy, these bills will make it more difficult, not easier, for charities to go about their work. That new layer of bureaucracy is being imposed despite the fact that there is no agreement with the states on harmonisation.

At stake is the future of our finely balanced Australian civil society. The volunteer wetlands groups operating out of my electorate, the ladies that run the Langford Senior Citizens Centre, the good citizens manning Vinnies in East Victoria Park—they need us to strike the right balance and this bill does not. There are many other not-for-profits in my electorate of Swan which will be affected by this legislation—the Esther Foundation; SIDS and Kids, of which I am the patron in Western Australia; Southcare; NGALA; and many early learning centres and schools. As a result of the deficiencies in this legislation, the shadow minister has said that, if the Labor government continues with this bill and forces it through the House and Senate, an elected coalition government would repeal its provisions and return us to a sensible framework which respects the demarcation between the institutions of civil society—institutions the government should serve rather than seek to have power over.

One of the main unresolved issues of this bill is the question of federal and state responsibilities. The regulation of charities, as I said before, is traditionally the domain of the states. Therefore, unless the states and territories agree to hand over their powers to the Commonwealth regulator and harmonise their laws, these bills are going to add an additional layer of red tape for the sector to deal with. Yet we understand that the states have not agreed to hand over to the Commonwealth any of their powers with respect to charities and not-for-profits, such as their powers with respect to incorporated associations. Moreover, based on the coalition's discussions with relevant state ministers, we do not believe it is likely that they are going to submit to handing over their powers in this space to the Commonwealth in the foreseeable future. As Susan Pascoe, head of the implementation task force for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, said:

We are only going to achieve full red-tape reduction with the involvement of the states and territories.

I recommend that the government goes back to the drawing board and consults with the states on this legislation.

The two Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission bills provide for the establishment of a new regulator, to be called the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. They also provide for the role of the ACNC Commissioner. This change to the current regulatory situation is in fact a reversal. Presently, the ATO and ASIC oversee and make determinations on income tax exemption, deductible gift recipient status, refundable franking credits, fringe benefits tax and goods and services tax concessions. By determining whether charities and not-for-profits are eligible for these concessions, the ATO is at present the default regulator for determining charitable status. This new regulator will have additional powers, including oversight of registration and the power to enforce reporting, record-keeping and duty-to-notify requirements. With these powers, the commission will have the authority to issue warning notices, issue directions, enter into enforceable undertakings, apply to the courts for injunctions, suspend or remove responsible entities and appoint acting responsible entities.

It is also worth noting as background that ASIC has a smaller role in the regulation of the sector at the Commonwealth level and is currently responsible for regulating 11,000 not-for-profit entities incorporated as companies limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act 2001. ASIC also regulates professional trustee companies as well as some charities which are incorporated as other types of companies under the Corporations Act 2001. ASIC also has responsibility for the registration of incorporated associations and cooperatives wishing to operate outside its jurisdiction.

The bills would grant a number of powers to the proposed ACNC and its commissioner. In the area of registration, the bills provide the ACNC Commissioner with the power to register not-for-profit entities under their type and subtype. The commissioner will also be responsible for maintaining a register keeping specified information about each registered and formerly registered entity. The bills set the framework for a set of governance standards and external conduct standards to cover such things as the conduct of a registered entity's governing rules, the conduct of the registered entity and the processes that the registered entity must have in place.

Enclosed within the Australian charities and not-for-profits commission bills is a fair bit of change and large doses of regulation. What does that mean for the charities? Charities and not-for-profit organisations will have a number of new requirements to fulfil. To comply with the registration requirements, charities must apply directly to the ACNC for registration, operate consistently within the definition of 'charity' specified in Australian law, or the requirements of any other type or subtype, and comply with prescribed registration conditions and requirements. All registered entities will be required to provide an annual information statement, with the first needing to be lodged with the ACNC by 31 December 2013. The proposed legislation will require registered entities to notify the ACNC commissioner of certain matters.

Stakeholders have expressed concerns that the powers and penalties contained within the bill are so heavy-handed that they might deter members of the public from taking up voluntary roles within the sector. These are burdensome requirements to say the least and, as I am sure members can imagine, have prompted great concern from charities across the nation. As Add-Ministry said:

… what we now have still appears to be a document that is designed to tightly control the Charity Sector with a plethora of regulatory obligations.

…   …   …

… we have a legal document full of red tape and inflexible regulation to show us what we must do, or risk being penalised.

ACOSS said that it is 'regrettable that cabinet determined to locate the ACNC within the framework of the law and the ATO, against the sector's advice.' From a legal perspective, John Colvin of the Australian Institute of Company Directors said:

… why should we have a system in Australia, which would make us a laughing-stock around the world, of having liabilities for volunteers greater than those for for-profits?

In WA the Chamber of Commerce and Industry went further, stating: 'CCI does not support any move for the ACNC to be the "shop front" for the NFP sector.' And, from the education sector, Reverend Brian Lucas of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference said:

Schools constantly complain about the burden of detailed regulation. Just as it was said, for every 1½ hours of compliance you lose an hour of doing good work …

I could go on, as it seems difficult to find a single charitable body that approves of this proposal—again, it seems that the government has not listened. Consultation is easy, but acting on the results of the consultation often is not. I see time and time again, in my role as the member for Swan, government bodies put out a document for consultation when they really have already made their minds up and are just looking for someone to rubber-stamp the project—as is the case with this legislation. It is tokenism at best.

I know that, in the case of these bills, key stakeholders have described the consultation process for the ACNC as having been excessively secretive and unnecessarily rushed, with not-for-profit agencies in some cases being provided with as little as nine working days to make submissions on important aspects of the exposure draft. Nine days is not long enough for a consultation on such a substantial piece of legislation. It makes one wonder whether the government was really interested in what people had to say. Still, in that short space of time dozens of submissions were received, as can be seen by many of the quotes read into Hansard from members on this side of the House. We heard the member for Wannon list at length the corporations and not-for-profit and charity organisations that oppose this legislation. It is clear from the legislation we are discussing today that the government has not listened to the charities, which is a great shame. One of the areas we in my electorate office take pride in is the number of surveys we run on local issues to consult with constituents. Ultimately, we listen to what they have to say and do our best to help our community.

I will mention briefly another relevant bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (Special Conditions for Not-for-profit Concessions) Bill 2012. This bill stems from the Commissioner of Taxation's unsuccessful 2008 High Court case Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Word Investments Ltd and is in essence an attempt to change the 'in Australia' requirement. Briefly, Word Investments, a tax-exempt charitable institution, carried on a funeral business and also received donations. It paid its profits to another organisation, also an income-tax-exempt charity, which used its funds in overseas missionary activity. Under this bill, the 'in Australia' test will require tax-exempt entities to operate principally in Australia and pursue their purposes principally in Australia. The controversial amendments relate to situations where a tax-exempt institution provides money, property or benefits to another entity that is not itself an exempt entity, a so-called 'conduit not-for-profit entity'. In this situation, if the entity uses the money, property or benefits outside Australia, the exempt entity must take that into account in determining whether it is operating principally in Australia.

As one can imagine, charities have raised concerns about these provisions. World Vision, for example, has said that they are 'too onerous and unclear' and 'the provisions should be more tightly drafted'. I can see potential problems for a range of charities. With their links to the UK and the work that they do for the lost innocents, I can imagine that Care Leavers Australia Network might potentially run into some difficulties with this provision.

To conclude, there is significant concern here about the regulatory burden that will be faced by charities across the country should these bills go through. I think the government has recognised some of the problems in the legislation, and there is talk of some 15 amendments being drafted at the moment. The time to debate these amendments will no doubt come, so there is still some degree of uncertainty with respect to this legislation. I note, at the end, that the New Zealand government is currently in the process of undoing its equivalent legislation in that country.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened closely to this debate and followed the progress of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012 and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012. Whilst respecting all members in this chamber, there are some arguments that have been presented that I just cannot accept as valid. One of those is an argument that we heard from the previous speaker, that the legislation is rushed. I would suggest to the House that six reviews into the regulation and taxation of the not-for-profit sector in Australia over the last 16 years is anything but rushed. The time has come for greater coordination and to have some consistency built into the charities and not-for-profit sector. Likewise, an argument I have heard in this debate is that this legislation is somehow tokenistic. In my view, again, coordinating the not-for-profit and charity sector and building consistency into what is a fragmented regulatory framework is hardly a tokenistic policy.

Likewise, the third argument I have heard presented by several speakers is that this is somehow an incursion on states' rights. Listening to the arguments presented when we hear those claims in this chamber, I feel we have drifted back to the days of George Reid and Edmund Barton and to the point of the very existence of this chamber. Everything we do could be built as a case of an incursion into states' rights. The question, though, is: are we nation building by doing what we are doing and are we contributing to the common wealth by having a Commonwealth that builds harmonised and coordinated approaches to issues of importance on the national agenda? While any claim can be made on any piece of legislation in this chamber that it is some sort of incursion on states' rights, let us put to bed the arguments of George Reid and why we even have a Commonwealth and let us get on with the job of nation building.

In my view, the historic legislation being presented to the chamber today is nation building. The not-for-profit regulatory framework has for many years failed to meet the needs of the sector itself and the community of Australia. It has not met the needs of government or the needs of the Australian public. In my view, the regulatory framework is inconsistent and fragmented, it is uncoordinated with regulatory responsibilities spread across a range of government agencies, it produces complex reporting requirements which sometimes overlap—and that is a waste of time for everyone involved—and it provides inadequate public information. The engagement from community as to what is a charity in Australia, what is the not-for-profit sector and how does someone participate in that sector is really difficult to establish. So there are problems in the existing regime.

Worse, the regulatory burden faced by not-for-profit entities diverts the very scarce resources of those entities away from the intended targets towards administration and compliance. Anyone who is arguing against this piece of legislation, therefore, is arguing a case for administration and compliance burden on the not-for-profit sector in Australia. In my view, the existing regime has elements that are a waste of public money, a waste of private donations and a waste of time for the many people involved. Fragmented and inconsistent information, coupled with a lack of publicly available information, deters the culture of philanthropy in Australia.

As I said before, there have been six reviews into the regulation and taxation of the not-for-profit sector in Australia over the past 16 years. The time has come for this legislation. A consistent theme of these reviews has been that the regulation of the sector could be improved by establishing a national regulator and harmonising regulatory taxation arrangements.

In as late as 2010, the Productivity Commission said that sound regulation of not-for-profit entities is important to build and maintain trust in the sector. The Productivity Commission said a number of previous inquiries and reviews had identified concerns with the regulation of not-for-profit entities but few recommendations to date had been implemented. The Productivity Commission said the not-for-profit sector would benefit from the same attention that has been paid to simplifying and improving business regulation. Again I say to those opposed, if it is good enough for business regulation to be nationalised and harmonised, why is it not good enough for the not-for-profit sector to be nationalised and harmonised?

The Productivity Commission said the current regulatory framework for not-for-profit sector entities is characterised by uncoordinated regimes at the Commonwealth level and at state and territory levels. That is not an argument for the Commonwealth to back out; that is an argument for the Commonwealth to step up, to harmonise and coordinate what is a fragmented market that goes back to the days of state and territory levels running the show. The Productivity Commission also said that disparate reporting and other requirements add complexity and cost, especially for organisations operating in more than one jurisdiction. So the Productivity Commission recommended a national registrar acting as a one-stop shop to bring together current Commonwealth regulatory functions, including tax endorsement, in the incorporation of not-for-profit entities. A national registrar would provide a national registry for cross-jurisdictional fundraising organisations and activities, easing the burden on the entities themselves.

The Productivity Commission said that the states and territories remain well placed to regulate smaller and state based not-for-profit entities. Many have been moving to reduce compliance burdens. These could be further reduced by harmonisation of legal and reporting obligations, including for fundraising, but substantially there is a national benefit in providing for an overall coordinated approach through a national commission, as presented in these bills.

The bills before the House are a welcome attempt to address these issues. I commend the amendments to the bills. The amendments reflect matters raised during the consultation period by affected organisations such as various churches. I particularly mention the Australian Catholic Bishops Forum, which identified some anomalies—not, as far as I can see, to their benefit ultimately but to the national benefit in improving some of those minor amendments and including them in the bills before the House. I have received similar direct representations from them at a local level and, as I say, as far as I can see, they are sensible amendments for all.

So these amendments improve the bill by protecting the independence of registered entities, by ensuring that the governance standards cannot prevent or constrain a registered charity from undertaking important advocacy functions. They make the government's commitment to consultation on the governance standards an express requirement. They allow basic religious charities to operate deductible gift recipient funds, authorities or institutions that generate annual revenue of less than $250,000 without the need to obtain a separate Australian Business Number. They also simplify the process for providing notifications about changes to governance standards for multiple registered entities.

The not-for-profit sector plays a vital role in our communities, and if we as legislators can provide the sector with a more seamless framework and one which enhances their public standing then their work can only go from strength to strength. I want to acknowledge all the very many charities and not-for-profit organisations whose work is very often the glue that holds societies together. They provide hope when hope is thin on the ground.

Overseas experience demonstrates that setting up a charity regulator requires time, expertise and sector input. I ask the not-for-profit sector to stay engaged with this reform process and keep providing feedback and ideas about how we can keep improving the regulatory environment they inhabit. An independent one-stop shop regulator has been sought for many years by the sector and recommended in several recent reports and inquiries to reduce regulatory overlap and increase transparency.

To fully realise this ambition will require the support of the Commonwealth and each of the states and territories. To stay competitive and productive we do need reform, and we do need this parliament to drive the reform. We need to start thinking and acting like a nation, not a rag-tag bunch of colonies as per the George Reid arguments of over 100 years ago. We need to be more responsive and move quickly through the use of this chamber to build a national agenda. As in so many other areas, we need to overcome the roadblock of a fragmented federation with its various rules and regulations. This is, in this area, the chance to deliver on that goal.

Finally, given that in many jurisdictions here the scope of government is shrinking, the work of the not-for-profit sector is more important than ever. Our churches, our social and sporting clubs and our science and research foundations are meeting needs and bringing about positive change across so many aspects of our lives. That is why I think this is historic reform and a fine example of what we can achieve as a parliament when we think and act as a nation.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to talk about the two bills before us tonight, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012 and a related bill. In Australia, we have 600,000 entities carrying out various forms of charitable and not-for-profit work, and 400,000 of those have access to Commonwealth tax concessions. It is a very significant sector. On top of that we have 11,000 not-for-profit entities that are registered under the Corporations Act 2001. So there is already a fair field of people and organisations that operate in the charitable community.

I want to put a slightly different argument here tonight and I want to illustrate this by two examples of things that have happened in my electorate. It would still be happening to one organisation and would have happened to another. They would be caught up in this. I just want to illustrate how the lack of sensitivity from government—I am not talking about any particular party but government in the past—has led to a diminution of volunteerism and charitable enterprise.

The first one I want to talk about is the Rotary Hospital House at Hervey Bay. This is a marvellous organisation. It is a motel like structure with six units and a common lounge area. It took 12 years to raise the funding for this—and then, in more recent years, a lot of voluntary work, a lot of donations of material and a lot of purchase of materials by the Rotary Club of Hervey Bay. It was a huge effort. As they carried out their work, they were assisted by the Rotary clubs, Lions clubs, Zonta, the Hervey Bay Boat Club and the Hervey Bay RSL. All of these made significant contributions to Rotary Hospital House. It has given the Hervey Bay hospital a $700,000 facility. To build that today would cost anything from $700,000 to $800,000. But it cost those clubs, because of the cash donations, the volunteer work, the donations in kind, about—

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Mr Simpkins interjecting—

Could I have a go, please?

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I draw members' attention to the fact that a member is on his feet speaking.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It cost $520,000 to build that facility. In that $520,000 there was about $250,000 worth of purchases of steel, materials, plumbing, fittings—all sorts of things. In the normal course of events, if that building had been sold to the state government, the Rotary Club could have claimed GST of $22½ thousand. But there was no facility. As that particular Rotary Club was not registered for GST, there was no way they could get that money back.

I thought that was a terrible thing. I thought a voluntary organisation providing this huge facility for the parents of dying children, for sick relatives and for people who needed to be at the hospital, so that people reaching their last stages of life could be surrounded by their family, was a very worthy thing. It is something that governments should provide as part of a palliative care agenda. But they had not. So the volunteers at Hervey Bay, led by Neil Canning from the Rotary Club of Hervey Bay, went to all this trouble for Rotary Hospital House and were not acknowledged by government—a slap in the face for volunteerism.

Also in Bundaberg we had an organisation called Basic, a school-to-work transition organisation. I will not go into all the gory details. It was set up by a number of the schools, with parents and other interested community bodies, to be the administrative body for a number of schools to get their school-to-work transition in place. It was federal government funded. An early CEO in the organisation believed that as it served an educational function GST was not payable on donations. That went on for some years. A new CEO noticed this and felt that the organisation needed clarification. Despite the fact that Commonwealth auditors who had checked their books and the internal auditors of the organisation who had checked their books had never picked this up, there was $100,000 worth of GST. The Commonwealth, through the tax office, insisted that this money be refunded. It was not used for any nefarious purpose or any illegal purpose; it was simply getting kids into work situations whereby they do three days at school and two days in the workplace—a school-to-work transition.

I saw people in that organisation almost run into the ground trying to repay that money. In the end it was really a transfer from one federal government instrumentality to another. If one had paid the other the $100,000, it could have been wound up and put to one side. But those volunteers were pursued relentlessly, although they had no personal interest in this other than providing a function that, again, the federal government should have provided.

I wanted to give those two illustrations to say how important it is not to kill volunteerism and philanthropy. There are 600,000 organisations in Australia doing charitable work, not-for-profit work, education work, health work and community support work, helping the disabled, the sick and the dying, helping children at sport and recreation—all sorts of things. I think this proposal we have before us tonight is just going to be another layer of bureaucracy. I will not go into all the nooks and crannies that my colleagues spoke about earlier tonight, because a lot of it has been said and repeated endlessly. But it seems to me that what we should be doing is trying to dismantle bureaucracy. This is a very wide-ranging regulatory body. Some critics say it will have similar powers to ASIC—even more so, some say—as well as the tax office and so on. This will be a fairly heavy-handed organisation. It will have the ability to punish organisations, to de-register them.

We are talking about voluntary people. We are talking about people who give their time. We are talking about people who are picking up the burden of government, not some slaves who can be rounded up with a weapon and told to do this, that and the other. I cannot understand why the starting point of this was not to go to the states and the territories to try to harmonise at that level first, and then see how much overlay was needed, see if you needed some other regulations. It seems to me that most of these charities, other than the 11,000 I mentioned that are registered with ASIC, are registered in their states and territories under charities incorporation acts—as they are called in some states, I think—or volunteer incorporation acts or things like that. There are any number of acts in the states. Why not, at a ministerial council of the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers, get a simple set of harmonisation guidelines in place as a start to doing this, rather than use this heavy-handed, highly regulatory approach to a very simple issue?

It is getting harder and harder in the world today, for various reasons, to get donations. Those of us in public life know just how difficult it is. You will also notice that service clubs do not have the same numbers they had before. With the burden on people running their own businesses, and with the other pressures on their lives, they cannot give as much volunteer time as they did perhaps 20 years ago, so service clubs are not as big as they were, and some have closed.

What we need to be doing is reinforcing voluntary organisations, assisting them and encouraging them to do this work, because in the end the things they do not do fall back on government or do not get done at all, which is perhaps even worse. I did not want to politicise this too much tonight, other than to make the comment that the charities commission the coalition is promising will be in essence a simple organisation with a small educative and training role to help organisations build up their volunteer base, their expertise and their not-for-profit systems. It will give them the ability and the skills to deal with the requirements of government rather than having government come after them with a big stick saying, 'You will do this!' and, 'You will do that!' What a monumental presumption it is to tell 600,000 Australian organisations that they will come under the thumb or else the level of bureaucracy will increase and they will be punished and fined and so on.

Others have argued tonight that it is a very big field now and has to come under a national regulatory and registry regime. I heard all of those arguments a few years ago about the medical profession, about how we had to get all of the doctors and all the health professionals such as physios and podiatrists into a national registry. Let me tell you that I have more bureaucracy and more difficulty with that organisation than I ever had with the state body.

I think we should be trying to simplify these things. It was the role of the states, and in the debate from the government side it has not been clearly demonstrated that this measure is necessary. So my view is that we should oppose it and that the government should reconsider it. The fact that there are so many amendments coming is proof positive that the thing has been rushed and is not likely to achieve its ends.

Debate adjourned.