David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and seek leave to move amendments (1) to (9) as circulated together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1)   Clause 45-5, page 22 (line 21), omit "give", substitute "promote the objects of this Act by giving".

(2)   Clause 45-5, page 23 (after line 3), at the end of subclause (1), add:

Note:   The objects of this Act include supporting and sustaining a robust, vibrant, independent and innovative Australian not-for-profit sector (see subsection 15-5(1)).

(3)   Page 23 (before line 31), before subclause 45-10(5), insert:

Basic religious charities

(4)   Clause 45-10, page 23 (after line 33), at the end of the clause, add:

Political advocacy

(6)   The regulations must not require a registered entity not to comment on, or advocate support for, a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country, if:

  (a)   the comment or advocacy furthers, or is in aid of, the purpose of the registered entity; and

  (b) the comment or advocacy is lawful.

(5)   Page 23 (after line 33), at the end of Division 45, add:

45-15 Consultation

(1)   Before the Governor-General makes a regulation for the purposes of subsection 45-10(1), the Minister must be satisfied that:

  (a) appropriate consultation has been undertaken with:

     (i) the not-for-profit sector (such as through entities that represent parts of the sector); and

     (ii) entities having expertise in fields relevant to the proposed regulation; and

     (iii) entities likely to be affected by the proposed regulation; and

  (b) relevant input received as part of that consultation has been taken into account adequately.

(2)   Without limiting, by implication, the form that consultation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) might take, such consultation could involve notification, either directly or by advertisement, of the entities mentioned in that paragraph. Such notification could invite submissions to be made by a specified date or might invite participation in public hearings to be held concerning the proposed regulation.

(3)The fact that consultation does not occur, or that input is not taken into account, does not affect the validity or enforceability of the regulation.

(4)   Part 3 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 does not apply to a regulation proposed to be made for the purposes of subsection 45-10(1) of this Act.

(6)   Page 25 (after line 27), at the end of Division 50, add:

50-15 Consultation

(1)   Before the Governor-General makes a regulation for the purposes of subsection 50-10(1), the Minister must be satisfied that:

  (a) appropriate consultation has been undertaken with:

     (i) the not-for-profit sector (such as through entities that represent parts of the sector); and

     (ii) entities having expertise in fields relevant to the proposed regulation; and

     (iii) entities likely to be affected by the proposed regulation; and

  (b) relevant input received as part of that consultation has been taken into account adequately.

(2)   Without limiting, by implication, the form that consultation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) might take, such consultation could involve notification, either directly or by advertisement, of the entities mentioned in that paragraph. Such notification could invite submissions to be made by a specified date or might invite participation in public hearings to be held concerning the proposed regulation.

(3)   The fact that consultation does not occur, or that input is not taken into account, does not affect the validity or enforceability of the regulation.

(4)   Part 3 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 does not apply to a regulation proposed to be made for the purposes of subsection 50-10(1) of this Act.

(7)   Clause 115-55, page 98 (line 22), omit "of the ACNC", substitute "who is a member of the staff assisting the Commissioner as mentioned in subsection 120-5(1)".

(8)   Page 141 (after line 8), at the end of Subdivision 190-B, add:

190-40 Returns etc. given by registered entities that can change the governing rules of other registered entities

     For the purposes of section 190-35, and without limiting that section, treat a registered entity (the lodging entity) that gives a return, notice, statement, application or other document to the Commissioner in the approved form on behalf of another registered entity as doing so as the agent of the other registered entity, if:

  (a)   the lodging entity can amend the governing rules of the other registered entity in relation to a matter; and

  (b)   the return, notice, statement, application or other document relates to that matter.

Sections 190-25 and 190-30 do not apply to the giving of the return, notice, statement, application or other document by the lodging entity.

(9)   Clause 205-35, page 149 (after line 14), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) Subsection (3) does not apply at a time in a financial year if:

  (a)   paragraph 30-227(2)(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 does not apply to the entity at any time in the financial year; and

Note:   Paragraph 30-227(2)(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 applies to funds, authorities or institutions endorsed as deductible gift recipients or mentioned by name in the table in section 30-15 or Subdivision 30-B.

  (b)   the entity is endorsed under Subdivision 30-BA of that Act as a deductible gift recipient for the operation of one or more funds, authorities or institutions at any time in the financial year; and

  (c)   the total revenue of the entity for the financial year in relation to the operation of the funds, authorities or institutions is less than $250,000.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Typically, the government has introduced landmark legislation to regulate charities and not-for-profits which has been debated in this House. Then the government has felt the need to come in and amend their own legislation, because they are so incompetent that they were incapable of getting their legislation right in the first place.

One of the amendments the government is moving tonight has to do with the schools portfolio, which is my portfolio. In the so-called consultations they had with the education sector, they discovered very quickly that the changes to the treatment of charities and not-for-profits dramatically increased the red tape requirements of charities and not-for-profits, which meant that every single school—every single non-government school as well as government schools with trusts and foundations and not-for-profit instruments—suddenly found itself overwhelmed with red tape that it would not have otherwise have to comply with. They also found that a bill that was designed to harmonise state and federal regulations in fact introduced an entirely new level of regulation.

The Assistant Treasurer did not even do the House the courtesy of explaining the amendments he was moving in the House tonight. He simply stood up and moved that amendments (1) to (9) as circulated be agreed to. He did not even do the House the courtesy of explaining what these amendments mean to the national charities and not-for-profit sector. So I assume that these are the amendments that affect schools. He did not explain them, because he does not know what he is doing. And I was making the point—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Oh, come on, Rumpole. You have only been here one term; you do not really know what you are doing.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two, actually.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you have been in trouble before for your foolish interjections across the chamber. But let me say this: charities and not-for-profits across Australia realise that these amendments do not repair the holes in this bill. Before the government introduced this new level of regulation, charities and not-for-profits in this country were travelling along perfectly well. The government then decided, in negotiation with the states, that they would implement new rules for charities and not-for-profits. But all that has happened is that the states have kept all their regulations and the Commonwealth has imposed a new raft of regulations across the sector. The Catholic sector and the independent schools have stood up and said: 'We already comply with 50 state bills; we already comply with about 20 Commonwealth bills. All you are doing is introducing a new level of regulation with which you expect us to comply.'

So the government, with their facade consultation, went away and came back with these amendments, which they think will solve the problem. But when is the government going to get one bill right in this House so that it does not require amendment upon amendment, even when it is being introduced? We have already voted on the second reading. In the consideration in detail the government so incompetently introduced its own amendments.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, shut up.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can say shut up, rudely, because of your complete incapacity to understand the basic requirements of this House.

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. I am having difficulties. I do not believe my microphones were working, but now they are. They need to stay on. The member for Sturt has the call and he will not be interjected on. He has the call and he will get another 10 minutes.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very generous, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am so grateful for the opportunity for another five minutes to finish my remarks. I was making the point that this is a very important bill. These are very important changes. The Labor Party think it is tremendously amusing to put every volunteer organisation—whether they are local parishes across Australia, whether they are non-government or government schools—at risk of being unable to continue. They think it is tremendously funny.

The philosophies behind the Labor Party's reforms are that they always assume that someone is doing the wrong thing. They never assume that volunteers could be doing the right thing. The Labor Party's ideological position is that we must regulate it. If it is not regulated we must get government involved. The bureaucracy always advises them: 'There are one or two examples of mistakes that have been made, so let's regulate the whole sector. Let's cover the field.' And Labor always follows. But there are hundreds of thousands of volunteers out there in the community, across Australia, not just in schools but in parishes and local communities, who will now be subject to draconian regulation, draconian legislation that interferes in every aspect of their trust or their charity. This is a big mistake the government is making.

Why aren't we trying to encourage volunteering? Rather than giving out certificates, which we are pleased to do, and rather than giving out more medals, which we are pleased to do, the Labor Party pays lip-service to volunteers. But when it comes to the on-the-ground activities of volunteers they say, 'Let's regulate them; let's bring in the heavy hand of government,' as if they are not already following the rules and as if they are not already following regulations at the state level. The government said, 'We will regulate and the states will give away their rights,' but they have not. So the government has found itself in this terrible bind where it is now introducing a whole new level of regulation for charities and not-for-profits, and it is in the embarrassing situation yet again of coming into this House and amending its own original legislation on the very night when it is being passed by the House of Representatives.

As the shadow minister for education I will stand up on behalf of the coalition for all the schools across Australia, both government and non-government schools, that have trusts, charities and foundations and use all of those resources to improve infrastructure, to pay scholarships, to hire extra teachers, to support disabled children. They are already overcome and overburdened with regulation and they have lobbied me and counselled me about how they would like to see this legislation not proceeded with.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Name them.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You asked me to name them. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference made very strongly worded submissions to the draft round of consultations. They are still not happy, even with the amendments the government has made, because they take exception to the assumption that somehow they are trying to do someone in, to do someone down, just because they are charities, parishes, school foundations or school trusts.

The coalition will campaign on this issue right through to election day, whenever that might be, whether it is in October or November, whether it is in February or March next year or whether the government is even prepared to hand down one more budget.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

Hand down one more budget, Rumpole, and we will see that you have a $25 billion deficit and no surplus at all. I will take money on the government not handing down another budget in this place and having to face the wrath of the people for the things they have told the Australian public that they know are not true.

Behind me there is a plethora of speakers who want to stand up on this issue and stand up for their charities, their parishes, their trusts and their foundations in government and non-government schools and to support parents who put money into these organisations from their after-tax income. They do not want to see that money being spent on more regulation, more government control, more form filling, more red tape and more green tape. They want their hard earned after-tax dollars to be spent on looking after the children, the disadvantaged and the underprivileged who are served by all of these charities and parishes. I urge the House to reject these amendments and reject this legislation. (Time expired)

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to address the question of the amendments that are being brought forward. But first and foremost I would like to set out in some detail the process of consultation that occurred in the lead-up to the introduction of this bill and indeed the introduction of these amendments tonight.

I begin by saying that in the first instance an exposure draft of this legislation was released and there was widespread public consultation in relation to that exposure draft. I also indicate that since coming into the role of Assistant Treasurer in March of this year I have personally consulted extensively with the sector. I say this because I hear various quotes being brought forward and parroted by speaker after speaker in the chamber tonight.

Being close to the action, I know that these particular quotes are quotes that were provided in earlier contributions and submissions that were made through this process. In fact these amendments in part respond to some of those concerns. The bill as it stands at the moment takes into account the product of those consultations. The second exposure draft was sent off to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, and in responding to the issues raised by that committee we made some substantial changes to the bill, and they are reflected in the bill that has been introduced in the House.

Can I also advise the House that in addition to those two exposure drafts, including one that was considered by the House economics committee, there has also been an inquiry into this bill by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Indeed, there were recommendations made by that committee and we have acted and responded to those concerns with the amendments that are before the House tonight. I also advise the House that in addition to that second parliamentary inquiry there was a third parliamentary inquiry, and that was by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. There are some suggestions that were made by that committee that are also dealt with in part by the amendments that are before the House tonight.

I heard the Manager of Opposition Business talk about his concern about the regulatory burden on parishes and not-for-profit organisations. I draw the House's attention to the specific exemption that is provided for basic religious charities. This is an exemption that has been inserted into the bill. It is very much targeted towards ensuring that those entities operating basic religious charities at the parish level that are not currently subject to regulatory oversight in the way in which this bill provides for uniform national regulation there will be an exemption. Some of the amendments that are now before the House seek to clarify and extend that exemption to ensure that some of the concerns that were raised by the various church groups and parish communities have been responded to. I advise the House that in the discussions I have had with the representative bodies of those religious organisations it has been indicated to me that these amendments have addressed their concerns to their satisfaction. I think it is important that I bring that to the attention of the House.

We believe that these are significant reforms. There will come a time when those opposite—who I know are committed to opposing this bill today and to repealing this legislation if it is brought into effect—will recognise that this is one of the most significant reforms of the charitable sector. The logic of a national regulator of charities is something that will overwhelm them in time. They will appreciate that and they will also come to appreciate—

Mr Tehan interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wannon is warned!

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will also come to appreciate that this is something that is overwhelmingly supported by the charitable sector, and that is because at the moment there is a de facto regulator of our charities at the national level. It is the Australian Taxation Office. Our charitable organisations have been saying for decades, 'We need a national regulator that understands our needs, that is not solely focused on the question of tax concessions.' Inquiry after inquiry has recommended that. This government has acted on those recommendations. This will be a lasting reform that the charitable sector will look back on as a turning point in strengthening their sector. (Time expired)

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are in the extraordinary position tonight in this parliament that we are debating some amendments that have been moved by the minister opposite, Minister Bradbury, who has not actually outlined what those amendments are.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He doesn't know.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He may not know, but let me not presume he does not know. We are in the extraordinary position where a minister at the table has moved amendments (1) to (9) and has not spoken about the amendments before the House. One wonders why a minister would move amendments in this place and not have the seriousness to outline to the chamber what—

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did brief you.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He interjects and I take the interjection. He says that he did brief me. Yes, he did. But did he do the courtesy tonight of outlining to the parliament, outlining to the House of Representatives, outlining to the people of Australia why amendments (1) to (9) were needed? I could ask members on either side of the chamber what they are and I suspect not one person in this House apart from the minister and me could actually tell you what those amendments are.

Let me say something about the amendments which have been moved, because they are so concerning to the minister that he cannot outline them to the chamber tonight. These amendments reinforce the very reasons why we on this side of the parliament believe that this legislation should be absolutely rejected. The amendments fall into three categories. The first amendment is to say to congregations, to parishes and to church and faith groups around Australia: 'If your building fund'—to put it in lay language—'does not exceed $250,000, we are not going to force you, as the legislation currently does, to establish a separate DGR status, a tax deductable status.' That is what the first amendment does, but what it does not do is index that $250,000. So the minimum reporting requirement under this legislation does not move from $250,000 to $300,000 or $350,000 over time, as one would expect. It will be kept at the same level. This amendment does not deal with the future, so far as this is concerned. This is an attempt by the government to placate the churches, who have said, 'This is an absolutely unacceptable contribution so far as we are concerned, on what we normally do, that nobody has ever complained about.'

The second measure here—the minister has not outlined it to the parliament, so I might as well—deals with non-government schools. The government has a plethora of reporting obligations for the education departments, and those reporting requirements for the Charities and Not-for-profits Commission will be for three years only. That just reinforces our objection to this, because after three years what happens? You have the duplication of reporting to the education authorities and also the charities commission. It reinforces our objection to this legislation.

Then, finally, there is something which is common sense which should have been part of the legislation in the first place, but this is to placate the Greens and the objection of the member for Melbourne. In terms of the actual regulatory requirements for government standards, they now say, essentially, that the minister has to sign off that the government standards have been agreed to by the sector. That should have been part of the legislation from the outset.

These are essentially minor transitory changes that are not going to change our fundamental objection to this legislation. This is flawed legislation. We will not oppose these amendments. Why will we not oppose them? Because they are sensible amendments that should have been there in the first place. The minister should have explained them. Our objection to this legislation is that it makes the charitable sector in Australia an instrument, an agency, of the government. That is unacceptable and we will vote against it. (Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is almost without precedent that a minister at the table should present amendments to a bill of the complexity of the ACNC bill without explaining what the amendments are about. There are 2½ pages of amendments and a supplementary explanatory memorandum of 15 pages, so we know why the has not explained what they do—simply, I do not think he comprehends what they do. The supplementary explanatory memorandum says this about amendments (1) to (4):

To ensure the ongoing independence of the sector in any future governance standards, amendments 1 and 2 make a minor change to the objects clause of the Division on governance standards to ensure that the standards are to be developed in accordance with the object of this ACNC Bill, which include, amongst other things, to support and sustain a robust, vibrant, independent and innovative Australian not-for-profit sector.

The only thing is, the whole tenor of the bill does not support those words. It is designed in essence to turn those charitable and not-for-profit institutions—some 400,000 of them across Australia—from non-taxpaying entities doing things that are good for society into taxpaying entities. At the end of the day, this government will do anything to prevent what happens with regard to those people who are of good conscience and good heart who develop a voluntary culture and want to assist their fellow human beings in their community. The government wants to turn them into taxpaying entities. Hence regulation after regulation after regulation.

Even the Scrutiny of Bills Committee points out, as I said in my speech on the second reading, that this legislation provides for the power to make regulations that should properly be in the primary legislation. Again we see in these amendments that the government is trying to fetter the power of the regulation making framework to make it look more palatable. The fact of the matter is it has not yet been worked out, and it is punishment at every turn for volunteers.

As I pointed out in my second reading speech, 1.3 million people over the age of 50—this is relevant to my shadow portfolio of seniors—were volunteers in charities, according to the 2011 census. These are people of good heart who do not want to be fillers-out of forms, who do not want to be made subject to the penalties that are entailed in this form of legislation. People who are skilled at administrative levels, who are directors of corporations, under this legislation will be subject to harsher penalties than they would as a director of a simple business which is incorporated under the Corporations Act.

We have someone at the table who is purporting to be responsible for these amendments but he cannot even tell us why they have chosen to bring in these amendments and what they mean. There are 2½ pages of amendments and 15 pages of explanatory memorandum. Again and again we see incompetent drafting—bad instructions for the drafters, bad understanding by the government of what it is trying to impose on the Australian people. So here we are, after the regular time for the adjournment, starting to look at amendments which should properly have been explained by the person at the table who was responsible for so doing. The supplementary explanatory memorandum says:

This will protect the independence of registered entities …

Would they need protection if this bill were not passed? No. Should we be successful in being elected, this legislation will be for the scrap heap and a good system will be brought in by the shadow minister, who outlined that earlier.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must set the record straight. What we just heard was a grievous misrepresentation of what this bill and these amendments propose. The member for Mackellar indicated that somehow this was a part of the government's plan to bring non-taxpaying entities into the tax net. What a load of rubbish. The only way someone could say that was the conclusion to be drawn is if they were deliberately misleading people or if they had not read the bill or any of the amendments. I repeat: this does not in any way seek to change the taxation status of any entity. Let me be clear about that. Any entity that is currently entitled to a tax concession, whether they have deductible gift recipient status, tax-exempt status, GST concessions or any of the other concessions under PBI status, will not be affected by virtue of this bill or these amendments. So let us put that scare campaign to one side.

For the benefit of members, if this is a matter that is of such great interest to those opposite, I will advise the House of what the amendments do address. As opposed to what has been suggested, these amendments are not about correcting the results of poor drafting instructions. They are about responding to the product of genuine consultation. I make no apologies for that, because I am sick and tired of coming into this place and hearing those opposite say that the consultation that occurs is simply lip-service. It is not lip-service. We have had genuine consultation, legitimate issues have been raised by a number of groups, and we are responding to the product of that consultation.

To correct, once again, what the member for Sturt had to say in relation to basic religious charities, the fact is that parishes will be exempt from this regime. Basic religious charities will be exempt. These amendments seek to extend that exemption so that, where a basic religious charity is also engaged in running other funds that might have deductible gift recipient status and have an annual turnover of less than $250,000, those entities will not lose the value of that exemption under the basic religious charity exemption. That is something that was put to us by, amongst others, the Catholic Bishops Conference. It was an issue that was the subject of ongoing consultation with stakeholders, and we have responded. As far as I am aware, from the discussions I have had with representatives of the Catholic Church and other churches, we have addressed that issue to their satisfaction.

In relation to other changes, we are moving an amendment that seeks to provide greater independence for the charitable sector. This is a matter of great interest to people at the moment, because they have seen what the Newman government is doing in Queensland, particularly with gag clauses. It is bad enough that they come in and rip the guts out of vital front-line services, but they then want to try to shut people up by imposing gag clauses. We believe that a strong not-for-profit sector is an independent one. People should not be bullied or intimidated into silence and into accepting the harsh realities of what Liberal governments do to front-line services. So we think it is important that there be some independence. That is why we are moving one of the amendments that are before the House at the moment.

In relation to the consultation requirements—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a joke!

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard from the member for Menzies that—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mackellar was heard in silence. The Assistant Treasurer has the call.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I address that point, I will put something on the record. The member for Menzies made what I thought was an outrageous slur when he said that the amendment we are making is to placate the Catholic Church. It is not about placating anyone; it is about listening to the concerns that have been raised—

Mr Andrews interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Menzies!

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and responding to them. Frankly, I found that to be rather insulting. With regard to consultation, we have set out an even stronger consultation process for the making of governance standards. We think that that is appropriate and that is something that came through in the consultations. We are confident that these amendments respond to genuine concerns raised by stakeholders within the sector. They have asked for these things, but let's not forget they have also asked us to implement these reforms. The opposition should remember that. (Time expired)

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, I formally withdraw what I said.

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

If there is one word that describes this government in putting forward these amendments, it is this: incompetence. I cannot remember the last bill they brought into this place that was complete, that had been done properly—where the government had gone through a proper consultation process, discussed it with the relevant sectors and stakeholders, actually got a finished product that they could be happy with, that everybody could be happy with, and presented it to the parliament for consideration. I cannot remember the last time they did that.

If this were an urgent measure, you could possibly forgive the government for rushing this bill through and maybe making a couple of minor mistakes which they needed to fix up on the floor of the parliament. But there is no urgency for this bill. There is no immediate crisis confronting the charitable and non-profit sector in Australia. There is no disgraceful situation that has occurred within one of the community organisations which the public is demanding the parliament fix immediately and, therefore, which we are rushing a bill through to address.

If this were a bill that addressed some of the disgraces occurring within the union movement—within the HSU, the AWU and others—then maybe we could understand the need to rush it through to address some of the things that are going on and that, consequently, we might need to correct one or two measures through amendments on the floor of this parliament. But there is no such thing here. This should have been a deliberative process that the government went through over a period of weeks, if not months. They should have sat down with the charitable and non-profit sector, described what they were planning to do, got feedback, put forward their revised proposal and, once they had some sort of agreement, taken that proposal to the parliament. Then we would have been able to consider this bill. But, no, they did not do that—of course they did not do that. Instead, there are nine individual amendments to this bill because of the incompetence of the government.

As the member for Menzies pointed out, we will agree to these amendments. In many ways, they are an improvement on the bill. One such improvement is that the school sector will no longer—at least, not for the next three years—have to report to another entity on top of their reporting to state government agencies, My School and various federal agencies. Of course, their ultimate accountability is to the parents themselves, who are paying the fees and sending their children to the school in the first place. So that amendment which has been put forward is a positive step, and we are happy with it. Of course, the three-year limit is still there, so in three years time the schools will still have to report to this commission, adding an additional layer of red tape.

But, at their heart, these amendments do not fix the fundamental problem with this bill. The problems are threefold. Firstly, they add an additional layer of red tape to a sector which is already overburdened with regulations, paperwork and red tape. Indeed, the Baptist Church of Australia said that, just to satisfy this bill, they will have to spend an additional $1 million per annum. From this day forward, when every Baptist Church across the country passes around the offertory bowl on a Sunday morning, part of their money will be going towards paying for the red tape which this bill imposes. That is a disgrace. They give that money to pay for the good work that the Baptist Church does in the community. And it is not just the Baptist Church; this applies to every church across the community. The second problem is that the detail is not provided in the bill; rather, the detail is going to be provided in the regulation. And, finally, the bill gives too much power to this commission in part to remove ministers of the church, which is a disgrace. This bill should be rejected. (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the consideration in detail stage of the bill to ask the minister to explain a number of aspects of the amendments which he has put before the House at this late stage. I am particularly interested in amendment (5), which would add clause 45(15) in relation to consultation, and amendment (6), which would add clause 50(15), also in relation to consultation. The first question I would like the minister to answer is: why was it that the idea of requiring that there be consultation with the affected sector should only have occurred to the government and the bill's draftspersons in the last 24 hours? Had they not thought of the idea of consultation before that? What was the particular revelation that occurred to the government that made them say at this late stage: 'We've got a tremendous idea. Let's add in a provision which allows for consultation before we make governance standards or external conduct standards'? And why is it that the idea of consultation did not occur at an earlier stage?

I would like to ask the minister to address a question in relation to the wording of the proposed amendment. In proposed clause 45(15) there is a requirement that the minister must be satisfied that appropriate consultation has been undertaken. I would be interested to hear from the minister exactly what it is that would constitute appropriate consultation.

I am also interested to note that proposed clause 45(15)(ii) would require that the relevant input to that consultation process must have been taken into account adequately. Again, I am interested to know from the minister what would satisfy the standard of being an adequate taking into account of consultation. I am interested to know how those two provisions under clause 45(15)(i) are to be reconciled with the wording of clause 45(15)(iii), which reads as follows: 'The fact that consultation does not occur or that input is not taken into account does not affect the validity or enforceability of the regulation'. So I would ask the minister, as he goes through this very comprehensive and impressive process of demonstrating his detailed knowledge of these amendments and how they operate, to continue his process of impressing all of us in the House by explaining how we are to reconcile proposed clause 45(15)(iii) with the requirement for appropriate consultation. Is it not the case that the requirement is a mere sham when the clause goes on to say the fact that consultation does not occur or that input is not taken into account does not affect the validity or enforceability of the regulation?

I would also like the minister to answer a broader question which I think arises when we consider the late addition of these provisions requiring consultation with the affected sectors before governance standards and external conduct standards are made. What was the substance of the complaint that the government received which caused it to come up with the idea, at this late stage, of imposing a requirement for consultation? In other words, the government clearly envisages that, by adding amendments (5) and (6) requiring consultation, it has solved a problem which it perceived to have existed. It would be interesting to know exactly what the nature of that problem is and how that problem is solved by a requirement for consultation when the new clause, if passed into law, will say on its face that the fact that the consultation does not occur or that input is not taken into account does not affect the validity or enforceability of the regulation. It might be thought that this suggests that the consultation requirement is a sham because the provision, on its face, is that if you consult and then ignore the consultation, or in fact if you do not consult, it does not matter—that if you do not consult, even in a clause headed 'Consultation', it does not matter. I would welcome the minister's clarification on those points.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendments to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012, the ACNC Bill, seek to do a number of things. Firstly, they protect the independence of registered entities by ensuring that the governance standards cannot prevent or constrain a registered charity from undertaking important advocacy functions.

We have heard tonight that this government rushed in the bill to begin with. But it also rushed through these amendments, like everything this government does, at the eleventh hour, without proper consultation. The minister at the table says he has consulted. If that is so, why weren't these amendments part of the original bill? Why weren't these amendments part of the original bill so that when we were considering the bill in the first instance we could have read what was being put forward and voted accordingly? But, no, this government does everything in haste. It does things without thinking. It does things without proper consultation. Here we are again tonight, at this late hour, seeing yet another example of this.

The second point is that it makes the government's commitment to consultation on the governance standards an express requirement of the ACNC Bill. Interestingly enough, on the government's not-for-profit website the ACNC, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, is actually seeking people to put forward their resumes for consideration for positions on the ACNC. Without this bill even having passed the lower house of the Australian parliament, already on the government's not-for-profit website they are advertising for positions. That is simply outrageous.

Also, the bill seeks to allow basic religious charities to operate deductible gift recipient funds as authorities or institutions which generate annual revenue of less than $250,000 without the need to obtain a separate Australian business number. We have heard tonight that the Australian Baptist church is going to be paying more than $1 million if this bill goes through. It is simply outrageous. This is a church, a faith based organisation, which provides moral counsel and support for so many people—people in need, people at their most vulnerable—that this government now seeks to bring down, to make sure they have to pay even more tax. This is one of the highest taxing governments this nation has ever had the misfortune of having in place.

The amendments seek to streamline the process of providing notifications about changes to governance standards for multiple registered entities using the approved form. Again, it is just more red tape, more bureaucracy, more absolute mangling of things by this government which just wants to put another layer of bureaucracy over faith based organisations, sporting clubs, cultural organisations and voluntary groups. It might be all well and good for the government to be talking about these things in here, but out there in voter land people are rallying against it. They are railing against what this government is trying to do, the bureaucracy that this government is imposing upon them. People just want to be left alone to get on with their jobs. When they dig deep to pay money to charities, to schools, to private schools, to public schools, they do not want to have another level of bureaucracy placed upon them so that their after-tax income is paying for things that really should not be put into place.

The absolute beauty of it all is the final point here: 'make other technical corrections'. Why is it necessary for these amendments to come into place to make other technical corrections? Surely if the government were that intent on putting legislation to this parliament it would be correct, thought through and have had proper consultation? Why the need at this late hour to be then producing amendments that 'make other technical corrections'? It is all well and good if this is going to improve the legislation. Mind you, I think the legislation is ill-thought-through in the first place, and that is why the coalition is opposing it. But surely the minister at the table would have had proper consultation with all the key stakeholders, with all the necessary people, to ensure that everything was in place before the legislation was brought to the House.

But, as I say, as with everything with this government—and we are seeing it at the moment with late-hour changes to the Water Act, before the Murray-Darling Basin legislation is put—and like every other piece of legislation that comes before this House, it is never properly thought through. This is a government on the run bringing decisions about with haste and total incompetence.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must admit that when I first saw the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012 and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012 the first question I asked was: what is the problem? What evil is occurring that these bills need to address? Where is the problem in our charities sector, our non-profit sector, that needs an explanatory memorandum that is 325 pages long? Where is the problem? What do we need to fix with our charities sector? Maybe we have one or two problems at the edges, but do we really need this verbose piece of legislation, this detailed explanatory memorandum, which every not-for-profit organisation in the country will now have to go through and read?

We heard about the estimated additional cost to the Baptist church of $1 million to comply with this legislation. That is $1 million less they will have to spend on assisting people with disabilities. That is $1 million less they will have to assist people with aged care. How can we here in this parliament even suggest legislation that makes groups like the Baptist church have to spend another $1 million on their bureaucracy?

An opposition member: Shame!

Shame, exactly right. This is just an example that shows this government do not know what they are doing. They are simply making things up as they go. But at the end of the day it is all about the Labor way of creating a new bureaucracy. Instead of allowing the citizens of our country to get in and do the good work they do in charities, without the government on their backs, this is all about creating more red tape, tying them up and stopping them from doing the productive work they actually need to do.

I would like to also support the questions asked by the member for Bradfield. I hope the shadow Treasurer might take the opportunity to advise on some of these questions.

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

Assistant Treasurer.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Assistant Treasurer. We look at amendment (5), which was only circulated in the last hour. It talks about appropriate consultation. I hope the Assistant Treasurer could give us a definition of exactly what is meant by 'appropriate consultation'. There is no definition I have been able to see in the explanatory memorandum. So I hope the Assistant Treasurer can take this opportunity.

The other words are in paragraph 1(b), where it says that relevant input received as part of that consultation has been taken into account adequately. What is the definition of 'adequately'? Who decides this? I hope, again, that the Assistant Treasurer will take this opportunity to explain the definition of 'adequately'.

Now I move on to proposed subsection (3) of the fifth amendment. This says that the fact that the consultation does not occur, or that that input is not taken into account, does not affect the validity or enforceability of that regulation. I hope the Assistant Treasurer will explain what the purpose of that clause is, because it simply makes the entire rest of the amendment completely redundant. If the consultation does not occur and input is not taken into account it does not affect the regulation's validity or enforceability—that makes the other sections completely redundant. It is complete gobbledegook language.

Again, this is all about creating more red tape and more bureaucracy. So, instead of the charities—the not-for-profit sector—going out and doing the good work they do in our society and helping people, they will now have to have accountants and lawyers to work their way through 325 pages of this nonsense.

I hope, in the remaining time we have in this debate in the consideration in detail, that the Assistant Treasurer will get up and explain the evil that this bill is trying to fix, he will explain to us the definitions in amendment (5) and he will explain to us why proposed section 3, which simply makes the rest of that amendment completely redundant, should be included.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an interesting debate, because no reason whatsoever has been advanced. We are now past the point where this House would normally have concluded for the night. We are now past the point where the adjournment debate would have been over, and yet no reason has been advanced by the government why this vote needs to be brought on tonight.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the carbon tax.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the honourable member for New England, who made a comment that I did not quite hear, and the member for Denison and the member for O'Connor, that there is no reason why this debate needs to be extended tonight. Firstly, no mischief has been made out in terms of this bill, whatsoever.

The minister suddenly tonight introduced amendments to this House. I have been here for 21 years. It is unprecedented—I say this genuinely—

An honourable member: It's a conspiracy!

No, it is not a conspiracy, my learned friend, but it is unprecedented in over two decades of my being in this place that a minister has come in here and moved amendments and has not stood up at that dispatch box and explained why the government was moving the amendments.

And we have not yet heard tonight why the amendments that are being moved by the government are so important. There are nine amendments. In response to what I said and what other people on this side have said, we have had a cursory, at best, explanation as to why there should be amendments. I say to the people in this chamber, including the honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Denison: if debate in this chamber means anything then surely this chamber should have an explanation as to what these amendments are at the outset, not some hurried explanation after I have spoken now because of the embarrassment of the government. We should have some explanation as to why these amendments are necessary. That is the first point.

The second point is that there has been no mischief made out by this government about this bill. I challenge everybody in this chamber to ask, in terms of their local communities: what is the mischief from their charities and not-for-profits such that this bill is required? What is it? I have not heard it. There is a deafening silence as to why this bill is so important and, even more so, why it is so important that this bill be passed tonight.

Indeed, the lack of consultation with the charitable sector in relation to this bill is quite significant. This is a government that has already employed 90 staff, according to the media reports, in terms of this commission, without any legislative authority from this parliament. Are we, in the House of Representatives, just going to wave all this through without any due consultation and without any due consideration of this matter?

Am I about to be gagged on an important matter? Am I about to be gagged on something that goes to the heart—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Menzies will resume his seat. The member for Menzies does not have the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.