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

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The parliamentary amendments address additional issues that were raised by the Senate Community Affairs Committee in relation to its inquiries into the ACNC bills. These parliamentary amendments to the ACNC Bill will allow the ACNC Commissioner to decline to include or remove the details of warnings from the register, where the release of the information may cause detriment, where the entity has acted in good faith and where the matter has been resolved. The amendments also add clarification that the governance standards will be focused on outcomes and will specify principles as to how the registered entity must achieve those outcomes, including proportional standards that recognise the size and nature of the registered entity.

The amendments also provide clarification that consultation on the governance and external conduct standards should involve public consultation and emphasise the role of the ACNC Commissioner in facilitating such consultation. The amendments also provide mechanisms for additional parliamentary scrutiny in relation to the development of the governance and external conduct standards.

The amendments also add an objects clause to the reporting framework which sets out the intent and the purpose of the reporting framework—namely, to introduce a proportional framework that reduces unnecessary regulatory obligations, alleviates the need for information to be provided to multiple government agencies, and promotes transparency and accountability of registered entities.

The amendments also add a requirement that the commissioner include in the written notification to suspended or removed responsible entities an explanation of the strict liability offences which apply to entities that breach the prohibition on managing registered entities and the obligations in relation to providing books and property to new responsible entities. The amendments also provide for the maximum annual revenue for a deductible gift recipient fund, or DGR fund, operated by a basic religious charity to be increased from $250,000 in line with changes to the thresholds for small registered entities.

A number of additions have also been made to the explanatory memorandum to the ACNC bill to provide additional clarity to some of the terms used in the bill and expand on some other relevant matters, including clarification that the annual report of the ACNC Commissioner will include an assessment of how the commissioner has promoted the objects of the act, including the reduction of unnecessary regulatory obligations.

These amendments, we believe, add to the integrity of the framework that we are establishing for the new Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. This is a significant reform. This will introduce for the first time in our history a single national regulator that will oversee the charitable sector.

This is something that has been called for by so many in the charitable sector for so long. It has been through considerable scrutiny. There was an exposure draft and a subsequent exposure draft which had been considered by the House Economics Committee. A bill was introduced and was then considered by the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. It was then considered by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Each stage of the consultative process has produced constructive suggestions as to how the framework could be improved. We have embraced those suggestions along the way and we are very pleased now to recommend that these further amendments be passed to bring this new regime into effect.

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

This bill and the amendments that the minister has just spoken about are the latest examples of the Labor government introducing grandiose schemes sounding fine with great rhetoric but in fact delivering a worse outcome than what was in place before. The minister said in his remarks that this will introduce a single national regulator. The only people who believe that are in fantasy land, because this is not going to replace other regulators. It is not even going to replace the duplication which occurs at the Commonwealth level, where various departments and authorities regulate various aspects of the not-for-profit sector. It will not do that at the Commonwealth level and it will not do it in terms of replacing the regulatory structures at agencies that exist at the state and territory level.

No state or territory has signed up to this proposal. So what started as a fine-sounding objective—to have a national regulator—ends with a completely new layer of regulatory burden and red tape placed upon the charities in Australia. Having spent a good 18 months or two years talking to people in the charitable sector right across Australia has reinforced the coalition's view that this is another unnecessary piece of regulation, bureaucracy and red tape from the Labor Party. To repeat the promise that we have made: when elected to government we will repeal this.

We have a situation here where the government is not even waiting for these bills to pass the parliament before establishing the commission. There are reports that this commission has already employed over 90 people—and this is meant to be reducing red tape and regulation. There is a whole new building in Melbourne, I believe, and people employed running around the country. Does anybody think for a moment that this is going to lead to a reduction in red tape and bureaucracy? Of course it will not. And gradually the charitable and not-for-profit sectors in Australia are coming to the realisation that what had been promised to them in terms of a reduction in their regulatory requirements is actually ending up being an increase in their burden of regulatory requirements.

We are not going to oppose these amendments because they are things which are sensible. They make a bad piece of legislation less bad than it is at the present time. But the fact that the government has to have in these amendments a provision that says that it should consult about the establishment of external conduct standards is an indication of just how ridiculous the first proposition was that came from the government. Surely a government which is concerned about the charitable sector in Australia would be consulting with that sector in the way in which it establishes standards. Why is it that we need an amendment here amongst these amendments to actually spell out that we need to have consultation with the charitable sector? That in itself gives lie to the proposition from the minister and from the government that this is establishing a single national regulator and the sun is going to shine forever upon the charitable sector in Australia. People in the charitable sector do not believe that. They come to me every day asking: what have we got? How come something that started out two or three ministers ago as a great idea to reduce red tape and regulation now ends up with another burden for them?

We will not oppose these amendments because at least they make the situation a little more bearable for the charities in Australia. But I repeat: we do not need this system. If the object is to deal with some particular problems, the government ought to be dealing with those problems. But the instinctive reaction from Labor is to create a new bureaucracy, to go to new legislation to create a whole new layer of bureaucrats to regulate this sector rather than actually deal with the issues that arise. These amendments will go through. They will improve what is a bad piece of legislation but, at the appropriate time, this legislation will be scaled back to what it should be and that is not a regulatory body; it is one that should assist the sector.

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

Talk about demonstrations of hubris—people coming into this place talking about what they are going to do when they get into government. For the sake and interests of those hardworking people in the charitable sector, I hope the hubris that underlines that assertion never becomes a reality.

I find the member for Menzies, by and large, to be an honourable person but in this particular debate he has been misleading people at every opportunity. He has come into this place on repeated occasions and quoted from submissions that were made by stakeholders at earlier stages of the process. Some of the submissions he quoted from were submissions made to the very first exposure draft. There has been a subsequent exposure draft and then, in addition to that, the bill was the subject of consideration by three parliamentary committees. We have responded to the issues that were raised in many of the submissions he quotes from.

The member for Menzies comes into this place and says there is a queue of people in the charitable sector lining up to come and see him about these matters. I can only ask the question: why are they not also queuing up to come and see me? My door is open. To demonstrate that we have been listening, we responded at every step of the process to accommodate further amendments. This would have to be one of the most scrutinised bills in the history of this place and we have brought forward additional amendments to attend to those concerns.

The member for Menzies might want to reflect upon the complete lack of attention that the charity sector received during the time that he was a part of government. In fact, it is wrong to suggest that there was a lack of attention because it did come in for some attention, some rough treatment. There were gag clauses. The coalition government threatened the sector that they would withdraw funding if people did not play ball. This is the sort of regime you get when you get a coalition government. Instead of going down that path, we are effectively prohibiting gag clauses from being in place. In addition to that, we are working to alleviate many of the regulatory burdens the sector faces.

The member for Menzies said that none of the states are going to get on board. He should subscribe to my press releases. It is easy to do. You go into the Treasury Ministers portal, type in your email address—if he has got one; if he is up to speed with these matters—and every time I put out a press release it will be delivered to your inbox. If he had done that he would have realised that I put out a joint press release with the Deputy Premier of South Australia, Mr Rau, and also Minister Butler to indicate that South Australia has already come on board and will make amendments to its incorporated associations and charitable collections legislation to harmonise reporting requirements. South Australia will authorise charities to collect charitable donations in South Australia once the organisation has formally registered with the new national regulator, the ACNC.

Once more there has been misleading commentary in these debates from the member for Menzies. South Australia are leading the way. They are sending a very strong signal to the other states that the piecemeal, ad hoc regulation that has governed this sector in the past will be a thing of the past but it does require some leadership not just from the Commonwealth but from the states. I know many people in the sector will be knocking on the doors of state premiers, treasurers and other ministers to try and ensure that we are able to get some genuine regulatory reform at the state level. When that occurs, that will be a positive thing for the sector. Frankly, there are not many people out there in the sector suggesting that this regime should be repealed if it goes through. The member for Menzies, unfortunately, seems to be of the mistaken belief that this would be a proposition that some support.

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

I say to the gentlemen at the dispatch box that condescension is not becoming of a minister of the crown. If you have an argument, make it. These sorts of petty remarks that you have just put forward are beneath a minister of the crown. The member for Lindsay made some remarks about the previous government not having done anything for the charitable sector. I remind him that the establishment under the chairmanship of the previous Prime Minister of the charitable Community Business Partnership actually led to a huge increase in the philanthropic activities of charities and businesses in Australia.

That has led to lasting results which are still benefiting many charities in Australia through the increased philanthropic activity of many individuals and businesses. The reality is that, so far as the government is concerned, it is embarked on a path in relation to this legislation which, over time, it has found that the sector has increasingly objected to. Nonetheless, it continues to blunder along this path as it does in so many other areas.

Question agreed to.