Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The report-once, use-often framework will allow charities to report once to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and for authorised government agencies to then access this information, therefore eliminating the need for charities to report the same information to different government agencies. While the initial focus of the commission is to reduce reporting duplication at the Commonwealth level, it is also discussing the role it can play with states and territories. The commission is already proving to be an invaluable resource for charities and not-for-profits and demonstrates that this government's reforms are transforming the sector.

The bills we are debating today, the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, are a part of this government's reform agenda. These bills introduce a statutory definition of 'charity' that applies to all Commonwealth legislation. The meaning of 'charity' and 'charitable purpose' has not been previously comprehensively defined for the purposes of Commonwealth law, but, rather, it has been administered on the basis of principles derived from common law. This has resulted in a charity law that is sometimes inconsistent and does not necessarily reflect the contemporary Australian charity sector.

The development of a statutory definition of charity and charitable purpose was first recommended in the report of the 2001 inquiry into the definition of charities and related organisations. It was reiterated in the recommendations of the Australia's Future Tax System Review in 2010. The Productivity Commission, in its 2010 report Contribution of the not-for-profit sector, also recommended the introduction of a statutory definition. A single statutory definition of a charity will provide greater clarity and certainty for charities, the public and regulators in determining whether an entity is charitable. In keeping with the government's broader reform agenda, it will also cut down on compliance costs for those wishing to establish charities and make the definition more accessible and easier to understand for the community. Importantly, the statutory definition will not be absolute; rather, it will retain the flexibility inherent in the common law that will enable the courts and parliament to continue to develop the definition within the statutory framework, maintaining its relevance to this evolving sector.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the public consultation that has been undertaken in the development of these bills. In my electorate of Canberra, we are home to a great many charities and not-for-profit organisations, as well as those that service the Canberra community, and we are home to many national and international organisations who choose to be based in our nation's capital. I know that these organisations were actively involved in the development and consultation on the statutory definition and I thank them for their contribution.

Finally, on Saturday I visited a wonderful charity in my electorate, the St Vincent de Paul Society—or 'Vinnies', as we know it—op shop at Narrabundah. I am sure many of my parliamentary colleagues all have a Vinnies op shop operating in some capacity in their electorates and know of the important work they do to help those less fortunate in our communities. Last Friday, Vinnies at Narrabundah celebrated its 50th anniversary of serving the Canberra community. It is an incredible milestone. Vinnies is an example of a charity that works tirelessly to support the community, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the countless volunteers who have given up their time and effort and energy to work at Vinnies over the past 50 years, particularly Maureen Johnston, the store's current manager. It has remained in the same location in Narrabundah for 50 years. While there have been a few revamps to the shop and the shopfront, it is essentially in the same location, serving the same strong community for 50 years. It is an extraordinary achievement.

This government is dedicated to supporting a strong, vibrant, diverse and independent charity and not-for-profit sector. These bills enable that and I know that they will be welcomed by the charities and not-for-profits in my electorate. I commend these bills to the House.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These bills seek to introduce a definition of 'charity' and 'charitable purpose' that would apply across all government legislation from 1 January 2014 and constitute yet another example of Labor's regulatory overreach. The definition of charity and charitable purpose has not previously been comprehensively legislated in this country. Since Federation, the definition of charity has remained clear and consistent. It has remained a cornerstone underpinning what constitutes a charitable endeavour and what constitutes a charitable activity. The definition is based on a legal concept from 1601. It is widely understood and it is unilaterally accepted, having evolved over a 400-year evolutionary period in a manner that properly reflects changing community and societal standards.

But now that definition that has served us so well is in this government's firing line. The government wants to abandon what works, what has been proven and what has been broadly accepted by society and replace it with the government's own definition. Not even charities are safe from this government's obsession with regulatory overreach and the ever-present need for it to create more and more red tape, and so it goes. Now it has charities in its sights.

Australian charities law has closely followed the definition of charity based on the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth. English common law is the principal basis for charities law in Australia in both state and federal courts, and each of the state jurisdictions has retained almost identical interpretations of the common-law definition of charity. The government is now seeking to pretend that there is some desperate need to legislate in this area, acting as if it is charting new waters.

The great reality of all this is that the former, Howard government looked at the issue of creating a common-law definition of charity. Former Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the definition of charity on 18 September 2000. The inquiry reported in 2001 and it made 27 recommendations. Former Treasurer Peter Costello released draft legislation in 2003 which took the traditional four heads of charity and divided them into seven heads of charity, in line with the inquiry's finding—namely, the advancement of health, education, social or community welfare, religion, culture, natural environment and any other purpose that is beneficial to the community. The Board of Taxation reported on the workability of the draft legislation in 2004 and the then government, through the then Treasurer, announced that the common-law meaning of charity would continue to apply but that the definition would be extended to include certain childcare and self-help groups, as well as closed or contemplative religious orders. The government decided not to proceed with the draft charities bill. The former coalition government enacted the Extension of Charitable Purposes Act, which confined itself to enlarging the legal definition of charity for federal purposes to include childcare and self-help groups and closed religious orders. The Commonwealth's definitional extension has not been adopted by any state jurisdiction.

This bill would be the first time that legislation has sought to so comprehensively define it in statute for the purposes of Commonwealth law. Our concern is clear: why create statute where the common law has served and does serve us so well? Why depart from 400 years of clarity and consistency? There is a fundamental philosophical divide between the approach of the coalition and that of the government. The coalition's approach to charities is somewhat different to that of the government. Labor prefers unwanted, unwarranted intervention, and approaches the sector with distrust, demanding huge amounts of information and draconian reporting requirements, making it so tough for the volunteers and charities the government claims to support. They go along every day doing countless hours of volunteer work out there in the community.

The coalition's approach is all about empowering people, not exercising power over them. It is an approach that the Leader of the Opposition utilised when he referred to Abraham Lincoln's famous description of democracy as 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. It is not a new approach, but it is one which both the Rudd and the Gillard government have trashed beyond recognition. The coalition has confidence in civil society, and we believe that the political community should be of service to civil society.

Australian not-for-profits lend a hand to those in need and they make our country so much a better place through education, volunteers, sports, arts and welfare organisations. Every day Australia's charity and not-for-profit sector repeats countless hundreds and thousands of acts of kindness, and their generosity makes our country a much better place to live in. That is why the coalition is standing up for not-for-profits and charities in opposing Labor's proposed Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, which will result in the kind of regulatory overreach that has become so typical of the Gillard government—more red tape and more costs on a sector that is already under great pressure. Labor's proposed Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, the ACNC, is predicated on the belief that Australia's charities and not-for-profits are doing something inherently wrong and need greater government oversight. The coalition rejects this belief. The ACNC will make life harder for volunteers and it will discourage involvement in the voluntary and community sector. By failing to work with the states and territories to create a single national framework, the Gillard government will increase the costs of running a charity or not-for-profit organisation and give the government more say in how charities and not-for-profits are administered. Instead of reducing red tape and unnecessary costs, the ACNC will add more red tape for charities and for not-for-profits.

While the ACNC will initially only cover those charities with exemptions, Labor's framework will allow an eventual expansion. Under these bills, the ACNC will require more information from yet another agency of government: a new national charities and not-for-profits register will be created to include information regarding contact details, governing rules, financial and information statements of NFPs, and the information will be made available on the internet. It will increase reporting requirements. A new reporting framework will be established and all registered entities will be required to provide an annual information statement. Medium and large entities will also be required to provide annual financial reports.

What the government is calling the 'charities passport' is really a new 'red tape passport'; that is what they should call it. It will provide government with more powers to deregister charities. The ACNC will have the power to register and deregister not-for-profit entities. Registration would be required for organisations to access Commonwealth exemptions, concessions and benefits, including tax concessions. It will provide the ACNC with more powers than the regulators of Australian businesses. The ACNC will be able to demand information, search premises and inspect items on premises, and seize documents or electronic equipment found on premises. Enforcement of a range of laws will be the responsibility of the ACNC. The ACNC will have powers 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. The ACNC will also be able to remove responsible officers. It will give government a bigger say in the operations of registered entities. The ACNC sets up a framework for a set of governance standards which will apply to registered entities and have a set of external conduct standards which apply to all registered entities, regardless of entity type. These standards can cover such things as the content of a registered entity's governing rules, the conduct of the registered entity and the processes that the registered entity must have in place.

Nowhere are these unwelcome and unwarranted intrusions resulting from these bills more apparent than for schools and charities based in my electorate of Brisbane. Charities like the Red Cross, which is headquartered in Brisbane, Rosie's Friends on the Street, who work with homeless people, the 139 Club, and Communify in the suburb of Paddington, who work with refugees and the homeless, will all be impacted by these changes. In addition, the electorate of Brisbane is also home to many independent schools who have raised significant concerns with me about the impact of these bills.

In terms of the compliance and reporting regime prescribed by these bills, independent schools already report through the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations on their full financial status, and they are already required to submit audited financial statements to DEEWR annually. Independent schools in Australia already have extensive information available to the public on ACARA's My School, and this applies to all independent schools regardless of which ACNC registered entity category they are in. Requiring independent schools to report similar but different data to ACNC is another addition to Labor's smorgasbord of red tape.

In addition, independent schools provide financial reports to the state government. These bills will result in independent schools requiring more administrative positions to fulfil all of the reporting requirements, taking away funds from much-needed educational positions. The proposed compliance prescribed by these bills rivals that of public companies, and we have to remember here that these are charitable organisations we are talking about.

Independent schools are also concerned about the reporting requirements when they receive donations. For instance, will there be an additional level of reporting when they fundraise? In terms of the proposed statutory definition of 'charity', the independent schools sector is concerned at the time and financial costs of having to prove public benefit, when it has been long established. It is important for these schools to remain charitable in order to be able to reduce compliance costs and instead be able to concentrate and focus on education and reduce fees to parents. As to governance of entities, the regulations are yet to be defined. So we do not know what they will be and how they will impact on schools.

Taxation of 'unrelated income' and its definition is another area of concern for independent schools when there is already legislation in place to tax unrelated income, and especially when no definition has been established and there has been no consultation whatsoever with the school community. I want the minister to answer whether or not P&C shops selling uniforms and books will be taxed if they are separately incorporated. Will tuckshops selling goods be taxed? And what happens when these schools hire out their facilities for extra income to reduce fees or improve facilities?

The bills also provide no clarity as to the meaning of the phrases 'likely to contravene' and 'likely to not comply', as set out in proposed section 35-10(1)(c). Quite reasonably, a number of independent schools have raised with me their concerns as to what those words likely mean and how they will impact on schools. Section 35(10)(c) refers to an apparently discretionary power of the commissioner whereby the commissioner may revoke registration where the registered entity has contravened, or is likely to contravene or not comply with, a provision or governance or external conduct standard. No guidance or assistance is provided in the bill as to how the commissioner is to determine the intent or the mind of the entity being 'likely to contravene or not comply' with the act and the consequences of revocation of registration are significant to the entity. This is an example of particularly poor drafting and constitutes further evidence showing how little the minister and the government actually understand about the impacts of this proposed legislation on the sector. The phrases 'likely to contravene' and 'likely to not comply with' should be removed from this section entirely.

The independent schools in my electorate of Brisbane, like the rest of Australia, do not mind being transparent. It is just very hard for them when they need to redo their numbers in four different formats depending on which level of government they are reporting to.

As I have said, these bills are a classic example of regulatory overreach by a government with a history of legislative and public policy failures—yet another case of the Gillard government in action, with their reverse Midas touch at work. They are bad and unnecessary bills. (Time expired)

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. Hundreds of thousands of Australians each year participate in volunteering across Australia through local sports clubs, Scout groups, surf-lifesaving clubs, religious groups and many other community organisations. The most recent census showed that more than three million Australians participated in voluntary work for an organisation or group. Of course, this figure does not include the many millions of Australians who conduct selfless voluntary work for others in the normal course of their lives without even considering it to be volunteering their time. This disparity is reflected in the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010 general social survey, which indicated that more than six million Australians volunteer every year, including many from different cultural backgrounds who are frequently not even aware that some of their work in the community is actually volunteering. Their work is funnelled through the charities and not-for-profit sector, with thousands of Australians managing and handling the many hours of administration, financial accounting and reporting, and compliance with federal, state and territory regulations.

These bills seek to replace the common-law definition of charity and charitable purpose with a statutory definition which would apply from 1 January 2014 and would apply across all Commonwealth legislation. The coalition oppose this legislation because we believe that it is not a response to a genuine need or a solution to challenges within the current framework in which the Commonwealth treats charities. It instead imposes further prescriptive regulations on charities already struggling to keep up with administrative and compliance burdens.

The Labor government first announced in the 2011-12 budget that it would introduce a statutory definition of 'charity' based on the 2001 Report of the inquiry into the definition of charity and related organisations, also taking into account subsequent judicial decisions. Key features of the new definition include: an entity must have charitable purposes and must not have an independent, non-charitable purpose; an entity may have incidental or ancillary purposes that may be non-charitable when viewed in isolation but which must aid or further the charitable purpose. Furthermore, the following are presumed as being for the public benefit, unless there is evidence to the contrary: the purpose of preventing and relieving sickness, disease or human suffering; the purpose of advancing education or relieving poverty, distress or disadvantage of individuals or families; the purpose of caring for and supporting the aged or people with disabilities; and the purpose of advancing religion.

The public benefit test does not apply to open and non-discriminatory self-help groups, to closed or contemplative religious orders or where the purpose is directed to one or more individuals in necessitous circumstances as described in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. A purpose of engaging in, or promoting, activities which are unlawful or contrary to public policy is disqualifying, which refers specifically to such matters as the rule of law and system of government, as opposed to government policies. A purpose of promoting or opposing a political party or candidate is a disqualifying purpose. Categories of charitable purposes include: advancing health, education, social or public welfare; religion; culture; promoting reconciliation, mutual respect and tolerance between groups of individuals that are in Australia; promoting or protecting human rights; advancing the natural environment et cetera.

The list of categories and the definitions of charitable purposes go on—and on and on. With so much complexity in this bill, no doubt there will be many unintended consequences which could negatively affect the charitable sector. In fact, despite these extensive categories and definitions, the government has somehow managed to leave out 'housing' as a defined charitable purpose. I understand that stakeholders in the housing sector are therefore concerned about whether there is the potential to jeopardise future investment in public-private partnerships in that area.

The coalition believes that there is no significant reason that the government has outlined as to how the common-law definition of charity and charitable purpose is deficient. Therefore, Australia should maintain the definition of charity and charitable purpose which has been determined based on over 400 years of common law. This reflects the general conception developed over time of charitable purposes, rather than draconian definitions, categories and public interest tests of charity and charitable purposes, as proposed by this government.

There are over 600,000 not-for-profit entities in Australia, including approximately 56,000 charities. The government should be supporting the volunteering, charity and not-for-profit sector in this country as best it can. Instead, for years this Labor government has failed to provide certainty with regard to the obligations and responsibilities of organisations and of those governing these organisations. In 2011, the Labor government changed occupational health and safety laws, which effectively turned volunteers into workers, leaving community groups burdened with strict regulations accompanied by harsh punishments for noncompliance. Last year—in 2012—the government created the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, or ACNC, which, as I noted at the time, would increase red tape and increase compliance costs for the sector.

A fundamental value is the independence of the charities. Their ability to organise their structure and governance to suit their own activities should not be compromised by prescriptive and unnecessary standards. The coalition believes a one-size-fits-all approach to every charity and not-for-profit, which this Labor government continues to advocate, will decrease versatility within the sector. Once the ACNC comes into effect on 1 January 2014, these bills today may result in further transitional costs for some entities. I understand that there are concerns in the community about the conduct of some organisations to which they donate their money, but the government has not addressed those concerns in continuing to apply burdensome regulation to each and every charitable and not-for-profit organisation.

The coalition does have a plan to assist Australians effectively in this area. The shadow minister for families, housing and human services, the member for Menzies, has reaffirmed the coalition's commitment to reduce red tape for the charities and not-for-profit sector. A coalition government will shift the focus of the new Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission away from endless compliance and regulation to a smaller body that encourages innovation, education and best practice in the sector. This could entail a small, independent charities commission, which would serve as an educative and training body for the sector. Such a commission would indeed support the sector by providing information about the process of registration for new organisations, it would advocate for the rights of these organisations and, further, it would help facilitate the interaction between government and the charitable and not-for-profit sector. This type of coordination is what the coalition supports: real on-the-ground support for community organisations rather than a centralised government legislating the definition of charity and charitable purposes and introducing burdensome reporting and conduct requirements for charities.

Members should resist any push that proposes a 'government knows best' view and, indeed, any push that centralises functions of government to the Commonwealth where there is no rational basis to do so. Indeed, in this case, the government has not outlined why there is an urgent reason for implementing a statutory definition of charity and charitable purposes at this time. We must respect personal and community responsibility, which we see so often in the charity and not-for-profit sector. We know that by fostering community spirit we reduce reliance on government. I do not believe that implementing a statutory definition of charity and charitable purposes enhances these values. If elected, the coalition will repeal this bill.

Louise Markus (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. The Charities Bill seeks to introduce a definition of charity and charitable purpose. The new definition would apply from 1 January 2014 across all Commonwealth legislation. This bill serves no purpose and is unnecessary. The definition of the word 'charities' is ingrained into our history and our culture, and it is a definition that is universally understood. The definition of charity has stood the test of time and is some 400 years old. British Commonwealth law has served us well. Since Federation, the definition of charity has remained clear and consistent. It has remained a cornerstone of what constitutes charitable endeavour and charitable activity across this nation.

The government are seeking once again to rush through legislation that has not been properly considered, with a lack of public consultation. The public consultation phase on the draft definition was open for less than four weeks. It is astounding to me that this government would think that they know better and, without extensive consultation, would seek to change 400 years of history that has served civil society well.

Let me remind the House what happened in September 2000, when the then Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the definition of charity. The inquiry reported in 2001, making some 27 recommendations. Former Treasurer Peter Costello released draft legislation in 2003 which took the traditional four heads of charity and divided them into seven heads of charity in line with the inquiry's findings—namely, the advancement of health; education; social and community welfare; religion; culture, natural environment; and any other purpose that is beneficial to the community. The Board of Taxation reported on the workability of the draft legislation in 2004 and the then government, through the then Treasurer, announced:

The common law meaning of a charity will continue to apply, but the definition will be extended to include certain child care and self-help groups, and closed or contemplative religious orders. The Government has decided not to proceed with the draft Charities Bill.

It perplexes me then why, after an extensive inquiry has already been completed into this issue and found that the common-law meaning of charity is still relevant and the most appropriate to use, this government is tracking down an alternative path. Why depart from 400 years of clarity and consistency that is relevant today and has worked and continues to work? Let me be clear in this House that we will seek to repeal this bill if elected. The coalition's approach to the charitable sector is based on the belief that Australian charities and not-for-profit organisations strengthen our nation through their contribution to communities right across Australia. We believe in empowering this sector. We understand that the charitable sector plays a role and fills a gap that government never could.

Before entering parliament I worked as a social work across Greater Western Sydney for 20-odd years. In my work I saw many charitable organisations on the ground doing incredible work in their local communities—some at a local level, some at a national or more regional level. These organisations are made up of mostly volunteers. Volunteers are on management committees. Volunteers develop and share a vision and a dream to make a difference in the communities, whether it is helping those who are disabled, empowering young people to have a better future or the continuing work done over the years by St Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army and so on. The many organisations that make up the charitable sector are trusted pillars in our community and our nation. The Red Cross, St Vinnie's, Wesley Mission—the list goes on. They continue to have a significant impact on our society and our communities. Families, single parents, the elderly and troubled youth rely on the helping hand of these organisations to bring support and hope during the tough times.

The community trusts civil society, and the coalition trusts civil society. It is Labor that assumes that we should look over their shoulder and force them to comply with overburdensome regulations. This is why we have announced that, if elected, we will abolish the ACNC. The purpose of the ACNC is to create more red tape and more costs for a sector that is already under great pressure. The ACNC is predicated on the belief that Australia's charities and not-for-profits are doing something inherently wrong and need greater government oversight. I reject this belief. The ACNC has made life harder for volunteers and will discourage involvement in voluntary and community endeavour. By failing to work with the states and territories to create a single national framework, the Gillard government will increase the cost of running charities and not-for-profit organisations and give the government more say in how they are administered. While the ACNC will initially only cover those charities with exemptions, Labor's framework will allow an eventual expansion.

Only the coalition understands that a government's role is to support and serve those organisations that are looking after the needs of our community. The last thing that the coalition want to do, especially in these fiscally difficult times, is hamper the activities of civil society in delivering on its aspirations and responding to the needs of individuals, families and communities. The coalition will oppose this bill, and, if we are elected to government later this year, we will repeal it.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the offer from the Assistant Treasurer to hand some notes over to help me make this contribution, but I will not need them. We stand as one in opposition to this bill. It is another step in the Labor Party's dream of regulating every aspect of our society. This is of course an area that has operated in our country at law prior to Australian courts being established. In fact, the definition of charity came under an English statute. This really gets to a difference in view between the Labor Party and our side of politics. The Labor Party seek to put strict black-letter law definitions around these sorts of organisations, whereas we think the common law definition has operated very successfully for a very long period of time. I know we should not breach the standing orders and discuss these matters across the chamber, but during one of the contributions it was mentioned that the former Treasurer, Peter Costello—Australia's greatest ever Treasurer—had looked at this issue when he was Treasurer of our country for 11½ years and he decided that it was not worth defining in legislation what charities are.

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

He said it was too hard.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Assistant Treasurer is right. He said it was too hard to define what charities are because they have varied operations, tasks and, more importantly, purposes. That is why we think that the common law definition, which has operated so successfully, should continue.

This is a government that is obsessed with regulation. The Assistant Treasurer's colleague, I think it was the member for McMahon when he was the Assistant Treasurer, promised in the lead-up to the 2007 election there would be 'one regulation in for one regulation out'. I think the record is 14,000 new regulations in and one regulation out. That has been the record of a Labor government. You cannot trust the Labor Party to make things simpler for business and charities. You can only trust them to make things harder because that suits their political desire to regulate our society to within an inch of its operation.

We saw that with the charities bill that they moved in this parliament some time late last year. We do oppose this bill. We, on our side of parliament, believe in civil society, we believe in community organisations and their ability to deliver services in our society that governments could not possibly ever seek to deliver or deliver well, because, ultimately, volunteers—

Mr Bradbury interjecting—

Assistant Treasurer, that is the belief, on our side of politics, about our civil society. I can defend them from your vicious and ongoing attacks of trying to regulate every moment of their lives. We stand for charities in our society. We stand for our civil society. We stand in defiance of a government that is trying to make it harder for them to get on and do what they do so well. So many of our volunteer organisations, which deliver so many services in our communities, are there for the good of their people. It could not be delivered by government because, ultimately, government is too far detached—whether they have good intentions or not—compared to community organisations, charities and people who are doing it because they genuinely care and desire to do better in our society.

We will abolish this legislation if it does pass. I think it is one of about 40-odd bills still to pass the parliament between now and whenever the parliament rises, although I suspect the current Prime Minister wants the parliament to rise at 5 pm on the dot next Thursday afternoon. I suspect it is the first time in a very, very long time that the final sitting day of parliament before the election will actually be the allocated final sitting day, and I think we all know why that is. I suspect the Prime Minister is in her office making sure that COMCARs are ordered to be at the door for members: 'Is the member for McMahon's COMCAR ready to go at 4.45 next Thursday? Yep? Done—bang. Who's the next on the list? Make sure the member for Reid, from Western Sydney, has his car.' They do not want to be here for a moment longer than they have to be, so this might be one of those bills that do not quite get through, but it does again give us an indication of what the Labor Party's attitude to our civil society is.

Of course, what we suspect might be going on here is that the Labor Party would like to use black-letter definitions of charity to reward some of its preferred charities—can we put it that way?—or organisations it would like to create the scenario to fund. As we have seen in the UK experience, it demonstrates how dangerous it would be to empower public servants to determine whether an organisation is a charity or is not. We do not need more bureaucrats to tell us what charities can do good work in our civil society. We believe in our people and in the way that the law has operated for so long. That is why we have such a great tradition in our country of such a strong civil society and such a strong charity sector. And that is why we are opposed to this bill. The former Treasurer, the greatest Treasurer the country has ever had, looked at this. We should follow in the wise direction that that Treasurer took, because he is a wise man and he understood that it was too hard to define what it is to be a unique organisation in our society that can deliver such important services.

We stand in contrast to those on the other side, who believe in regulation, believe in bigger government and do not believe in our people. We, on the other hand, believe in our people. We believe that they know what is best for them and are able to deliver the services as such. We stand opposed to this bill. We will repeal it if we are elected in September—if we get to September—because we do not believe it has good intent at heart.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. To begin, I would like to pay tribute to all of those people who work, both paid and unpaid, in the charitable and not-for-profit sector. They are a critically important part of the Australian way of life, doing good works, and I commend them for that. All those thousands and thousands of volunteers simply work for the satisfaction that they receive from seeing the positive difference they make to other people's lives. It is only through the work of these very special and dedicated volunteers and the people who work in the charitable and not-for-profit sector that some of society's most important organisations are able to survive and do the work that they do—organisations like St Vincent de Paul, the Red Cross, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Salvation Army, to name just a few. These organisations heal the sick; they feed the hungry; they shelter the homeless. That is why it is so important that we as a parliament must never put in their way barriers or impediments to make it harder for them to do the work they do. Far from that, we should seek to make it easier for them to continue these good works.

One of the ways that we can do this is to ensure that we have the right regulatory framework. We must ensure that the demands on the volunteers and employees who manage these charities and not-for-profits are not unduly onerous and that any changes—any increased burdens—are properly evaluated to see if they are actually necessary. Effectively, we must look at the cost-benefit analysis.

We on this side of the chamber are very concerned that the government has not done this fundamental work. We are very concerned that the increased regulatory burden from the government, in setting up this new bureaucracy, will discourage people and organisations from pursuing the good works they do. The introduction of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission is flawed. It is flawed because the government said in the first instance that the reason it needed to bring about this new regulator is because it did not have confidence in the people who were working in this sector. It did not have confidence that they were doing the right thing. Based on no evidence whatsoever, it thought that a new regulator was required.

Secondly, the government said that the reason this new regulator was so important and why it needed to come out was to simplify the regulation that surrounds charities and not-for-profits. But far from simplifying red tape and regulation we have seen it do the opposite. The concerns that I raised at the time are the concerns that I still have today: that far from decreasing the regulatory burden on the not-for-profit and charitable sector we are going to see a significant amount of duplication. There will be no simplification because predicated on simplification is the view that states and territories come on board. They have not done so, so the government is proceeding on the basis that it will have support which it does not. There is no agreement with the state and territory governments to hand over powers.

I also have significant concerns about the scope of powers of this new regulator, that the regulator will be able to interfere and intervene in not-for-profits and charities without good cause. And I am still incredibly concerned that we are going to put off a number of very good people who would otherwise participate in our local communities by volunteering their time in these charities and not-for-profits by becoming directors and by serving them in other ways—on committees and the like. They will not do that because of the new onerous regulations and burdens that will be imposed upon them. I want to take the time today to touch on a couple of aspects of what I have just raised.

This new centralised statutory authority will add massive regulation and compliance costs that are simply not justified or warranted. In order to receive access to charitable taxation concessions from the Australian Taxation Office, it is going to be mandatory to register with this new regulatory body. The ACNC will have a new reporting framework which will require all registered entities to provide an annual information statement. Both medium-sized and large entities will also be required to provide annual financial reports. This is, obviously, over and above what currently applies. The ACNC will also have significantly increased powers: powers to register and the registered charities, and that power may be extended to all not-for-profit organisations.

What concerns me is that this will make it very easy for the regulator to reach into organisations that have been free from government interference and control up until this point. They have been free to innovate and free to go about doing the work that they do. Instead, they will now have to spend time satisfying the new regulator that they are, in fact, not in breach of any new piece of red tape or regulation.

What concerns me is that in order to enforce these new regulations, the ACNC will have unprecedented powers to demand information, to search premises, to inspect items on premises and to seize documents or electronic equipment found on premises. These are indeed new and uncharted waters. The ACNC will also have the power 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. Finally, they will also have the power to remove responsible officers of charitable organisations. Who would want to work in, let alone run, a charitable organisation when the charity police can knock on your door at any moment and interfere with what it is that you are doing. We are not saying that those who do the wrong thing should not be punished for doing the wrong thing, but there are already existing laws in place for those who do the wrong thing. The circumstances in which that occurs are few and far between.

The government here in setting up this new regulator is finding a solution in search of a problem, which is so typical of this government's approach to everything. Its view is that government should be involved in every facet of people's lives, that government is the solution to every problem. We have a very different view on this side of the chamber. We believe that individuals should be able to shape and control their own destiny and that we should only involve government where it is absolutely necessary to do so. With the ACNC we are going to get a massive new bureaucracy with unfettered powers that will be able to intrude into charities and not-for-profits. We have a different view of the charity and not-for-profit sector. We have faith in Australian charitable and not-for-profit providers, and we know that where there is misconduct those who are found guilty will be punished by the full extent of the law. We will not reverse the onus of proof, which is, in effect, what this government has done, and which will assume guilt until proven otherwise. That is why we have made a very clear commitment that we will abolish the ACNC and we will give people the confidence to remain involved in their charities and not-for-profits with the full knowledge that they can go about their business without increased burdens upon them.

What this particular bill will do is specifically define 'charity' and 'charitable purpose'. It is a new definition that will apply from 1 January 2014 right across Commonwealth legislation. It seems a strange thing that we are defining, in statute, 'charity' and 'charitable purpose' when there has been no misunderstanding as to these terms for more than 400 years of common law. The common law has been very clear on who is included in this definition, and that has been sufficient for legal processes to date. We cannot understand why the government is introducing new laws, new regulation, new regulators and new definitions when no case has been made. Importantly, it seems that no jurisdiction will adopt the new definition, which will lead to increased confusion and inconsistency, far from what the government says it is trying to promote, which is a clear definition. Why on earth would you create confusion where there is clarity? Why on earth would you create a mess for no discernible reason? These are the questions that the government needs to answer. The government needs to answer them in the chamber today.

At the end of the day, this bill really does sharply define and highlight the distinction between this Labor government and the coalition. This Labor government is a government and a party that chooses intervention at every opportunity. This stands in contrast with the coalition and our approach. We can trust our people and we support a strong civil society. We want to make sure that people have faith in our charitable organisations. The only people to undermine the faith that people currently have in charitable organisations are, in fact, those from the Labor Party and this government who have called that into question for no reason whatsoever.

In conclusion today, I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those who work in our charitable and not-for-profit organisations. I want to thank them for the work that they do. They work so hard for so little reward. They work to try to make a better Australia for all of us, and I want to give them our assurance that we will not bother them with more meaningless regulation and red tape. We will restore hope, reward and opportunity for all.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Charities Bill 2013 is a throwback to the lazy philosophy of Labor and the misguided principles of centralisation. Centralised policy is slow, ineffective and expensive. Liberals believe in establishing a minimal charity commission. This body would have the explicit and transparent objective of education and training. Devolution and a competitive marketplace of ideas are the key tenets of the Liberal philosophy.

This bill will enshrine a negative outlook in legislation—a normative framework that sees people as inherently corrupt, failing and in need of protection from one another. But we need protection from the real threat: government overreach. What Labor are proposing with this bill is no great surprise. It is no surprise in the sense that they will introduce yet another layer of bureaucracy and red tape, but it is frightening for small charities and not-for-profits.

There are a number of areas of the bill which trouble both my constituents and me. The stated goal of this bill is to establish 'one-stop, many uses' and to streamline the regulatory process surrounding the operation of charities and not-for-profit organisations in Australia. It is streamlined regulation with a new level of federal red tape. I cannot see how states would give up this right of jurisdiction. Without states jumping out, the new commission is simply jumping in with more regulation and more administrative burden. Constructive engagement was never really a priority—not with the states, not with the charities and not with Australians.

The only certainty is the additional $4.8 million net expense settled on the taxpayer this financial year. Remembering the fiasco of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012, page 5 of the explanatory memorandum states:

Limited talent more like!

There is a $4.8 million net expense to make doing good in our communities more difficult, not less. This is the sentiment of David Gonski, the chair of the government's education review panel. He said that we are the first country in the world to make being a director on an NFP more onerous than being on a for-profit. This tired and troubled government is out of touch with reality. Labor is good at spending other people's money. That $4.8 million of extra red tape would keep many of my constituents' bank accounts out of the red.

In WA, the Water Corporation have thrown an extra $21.6 million on the backs of their customers because of the carbon tax. That $4.8 million would go a long way. The reality is that good and honest people in my electorate like Mr Colin Waddell and managers in local not-for-profit community enterprises are frightened. In a submission to the Catholic Church during the committee hearings, fear was the factor—fear of the unknown.

With so much regulation and so little time, organisations and individuals are afraid. The penalties are real, immediate and consequential. With so much regulation, so much legislation and so much dislocation, mistakes will happen. I support the recommendations and the views taken by the Catholic Church. If the prime objective is simplification—and I am in favour of that—then instead of having categories of 'deductible gift recipient' and 'basic religious charity', why not get them all to register for an ABN? Charity begins at home. President Reagan used to quip that the most important charities are made at the kitchen table. The bill before us today will make those decisions much easier—easier to put off saying: 'I can and I will give back to my country.'

Again, the explanatory memorandum accompanying this bill acknowledges that the total cost of action will increase with the cost of compliance increasing exponentially for small not-for-profits and charities. Small entities that currently have no reporting obligations are a minor exception. These entities would be required to report to the ACNC, increasing compliance burden. The coalition will go big for the little guy. If we do not, there is no doubt the ACNC will only grow in its scope and power to go big.

It is explicitly stated as such in the bill, and page 13 of the explanatory memorandum says that the role of the ACNC will expand. From an economic perspective, having many efficient, competitive regulatory markets is optimal. Having a minimal incidence of regulatory capture is ideal. Common sense, that rarest form, dictates that one should not fix something that is not broken.

What does a small charity or a not-for-profit in Tangney have to gain from the introduction of this bill? The one thing that a small charity is set to gain from the ACNC is an online presence through the web portal infrastructure. And yet the very same experts have an average of 350 views on their own YouTube channel. Paint drying has more channels and, on average, the paint drying clips have more views. This is not value for the trade-off: a new powerful federal body, the ACNC, with oversight and monitoring powers for 350 views.

A page on the ACNC website is the benefit they are selling us. Our charities and not-for-profits are more than circumspect about this; their fear is well founded. The government knew this all along, and that is the reason that one group was given just 11 days to make a submission—on a bill where the explanatory memorandum alone is 351 pages long. I ask: how can the bill' principals call this 'constructive engagement with stakeholders'? The machete management mafia will goad the unwilling into the light. It looks like intimidation. It smells like compulsion. In WA we call it Labor.

The Gillard government is saying that it is a voluntary sign-up. But if an organisation does not sign up then tax and concessions are withheld. They have six months to opt out, and it is only reviewed every five years. Never in the course of a government has so much been found so wrong with what is so right by so few.

I will just list a few highlights. The Charities Bill establishes a charity passport. What is it? Why do we need it? The Charities Bill also defines what a charity is. The bill states that receipt of government grants precludes an entity from being a basic religious charity. Why? With the not-for-profit sector being worth $43 billion and employing eight per cent of the labour force, and given the Charities Bill has information-gathering powers, the checks and balances for this commission are more than insufficient. This bill is the epitome of a federal government that takes too much tax from people, takes too much authority from the states and takes too much liberty with the Constitution.

Simple, honest enterprise is the Australian way. The coalition will honour those values and support them in every endeavour. The Charities Bill is typical Labor. Labor finds something that is working and tries to break it. We know from 'red-tape' Rudd to 'go-slow' Gillard that bureaucracy wins over business. The Charities Bill will have real consequences. Most serious will be the impact of unintended consequences. Unintended consequences brought the evil empire of Soviet Russia to its knees. Let it not take down our pride in our communities. Let us not change the current common law definition just for the sake of change. Further clarification is needed with regard to the treatment of housing as a charitable purpose. We are proud of our people and optimistic of their goodness, knowing always that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Charities Bill 2013 and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions Bill) 2013, and much like the member for Tangney, who spoke before me, but with a slightly less eloquent flavour. I come to this from a very pragmatic point of view.

If you are talking about charities and about helping people, it should be about getting the dollars to the pointy end. It should be about how we maximise getting the dollars to the pointy end. I was speaking to Bruce Harmer from the Salvation Army in Townsville. They are very proud of the fact that 81.5 per cent of every dollar—81.5c of every dollar—that goes to the Salvation Army goes to front-line services. That means that only 18½c in the dollar goes to admin and all the costs. That, surely, should be our model. That, surely, should be what we as a parliament and as a society are trying to achieve. They are very proud that nearly 20 per cent of their money does not go to the back end, but goes to everyone.

This bill seems to be more about setting up a system. When you are thinking about systems the first thing that comes out of a system is to find a way around it. By way of explaining my position on that, can I go back to my banking days when I was in the credit card department of the Bank of New South Wales and Westpac. We used to let the branches decide who would get credit cards approved. We had a problem when the credit cards first came out because , if someone had money on term deposit, we automatically sent them a credit card—a Bankcard. But as we went through the eighties and credit card legislation started to come in, we came up with a system where the bank manager would sit there and say: 'What's your job? What are your prospects of making a repayment? How much is this actually going to mean?' And then he would sign off and approve it.

When banks became very aggressive in chasing market share, Westpac came up with a system called 'credit scoring'. With credit scoring the branch could still say yes or no, but if the branch said no we would take the decision out of the branch's hands and hand it to our credit-scoring system. It went on the length of time at your address, the length of your time in employment and all those technical things that would gloss over it. So the branch where the people were actually known could no longer say no. It came down to that.

At that time I was in credit cards. We used to call them 'wild cards', where people would get a credit card and rack up debts. It was before the magnetic strip, before you could get it all done, and they would have to ring up for authorisation, so if you knew what you were doing you could go. We had this bloke from Cooktown who got a new Mastercard. He had had the Mastercard for three days, he had a $2,000 limit and he was up to 6½ thousand dollars by then. So the first thing you do is try the work and home phone numbers. He did not have either. So you go and pull out the application. I rang the branch to complain about who the hell approved that application. They said, 'We didn't approve it, you guys approved it.' For your edification, Mr Deputy Speaker, can I walk you through the application and why this thing went through. Occupation? Unemployed. How long had he held that job? He had held that job for 32 years. Address? Care of the Lions Den Hotel in Cooktown—where every other hobo and desperate in the world gets his mail collected. How long have you been at that address? Twenty-five years. He got a credit score of 29 points. Someone like Kerry Packer would get a credit score of 30 points. So you would have this system where, if the information is put in incorrectly, all common sense goes out the window. That seems to me to be what is going on here.

We first went to common law for our definition of charities in the 1600s. We have had that definition for 400 years and it has worked. Tell me where it hasn't? I think that before we change things it should be demonstrated where the system is going so terribly wrong. That is what we have to get right—what is going wrong in the first place? Don't just see something and say, 'Hey, we can change that,' because as soon as you get a system there will be people who will find a way around it. Yes, there are people in our charities and not-for-profits who abuse the system and abuse their status, but this is not the way around it. The police are the way around that, and that means working with state governments, but this government would know nothing about working with state governments. What we should be doing as a parliament is speaking to our charities and not-for-profits about how they can get more dollars to the pointy end. What we should be doing as a parliament is getting rid of paperwork, not loading people up with it.

I will briefly go to the ACNC legislation, which we have said we will repeal. I am 100 per cent in lockstep on this with Kevin Andrews, the shadow minister, who will be the minister should we be fortunate enough to win the next election. When I had the shadow minister in Townsville we spoke to an aged-care facility. They have a facility in Townsville and there were two failing facilities, one in Ayre and one in Ingham. Ayre is 85 kilometres south of Townsville and Ingham is about 115 kilometres north of Townsville. Administratively, they were just getting killed, it just got too hard. So the Townsville operation said: 'We'll take you over. We'll do your paperwork centrally here, spreading the costs, so that you can provide the information and you can still do the services.' They sent their forms, the reports they have to do, to the government. The government came back and said, 'There are three organisations here.' They said, 'Yes, there are three organisations here, but we are doing the central thing here.' The government said, 'No, you have to do that report three times.' They said the report would be exactly the same. 'It doesn't matter,' was the reply from the Public Service, 'it simply has to be done.'

First and foremost, all this paperwork for these people is just loading them up. They know we are not reading it; they know the Public Service simply cannot get through all these forms. There are spot checks done. Aren't we better off saying to charities and not-for-profits: 'Listen, we are going to come down hard on those people that we think are doing the wrong thing. We are going to use the police and, as a federal parliament, we are going to work hard in cooperation with the states. We are going to have a look at taxation, we are going to do all these things and we are going to come down hard on those people'? That is better than going around and completely vilifying the whole organisation and then going and changing things.

Can I just say for the record that the coalition is committed to retaining the common law definition of charity. We have made this commitment on the basis that the government has not made out the case for the common law definition being deficient and that to change the current definition risks disadvantaging some charities and creating a new wave of legal disputes and test cases at a great cost to the sector. I think that is a fair statement. I think when a government are trying to make their case they should, in fact, make their case. If this was being driven by the charities and not-for-profit sector then I would understand it a little bit more, but it is not. It is not being driven by anyone I am speaking to in the charities and not-for-profit sector. As a matter of fact, they are running as far away from this as they possibly can. The shadow minister has said:

Stakeholders in the housing sector are particularly concerned that housing has not been listed as a defined charitable purpose and believe this has the potential to jeopardise future investment in public-private partnerships. They have stated that they will be more disadvantaged under the statutory definition than the current common law definition and have called for the bill to be amended to provide further clarification with regard to the treatment of housing as a charitable purpose.

Using that as an example, does this just become like the Family Law Act or the Child Support Act and we have amendments? You cannot amend it every time for every single thing, so then we will have cracks through which people fall. Aren't we better off concentrating on what we have and fixing the very real things that this government has got broken, fixing the very real things that are in front of this parliament that could be fixed, instead of going around and hunting for things that could be done? The list of stakeholders is just phenomenal. I will also read for the record here from a speech delivered by shadow minister Kevin Andrews where he said:

Former Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the definition of charity on 18 September 2000. The inquiry reported in 2001, making some 27 recommendations.

Former Treasurer Costello released draft legislation in 2003 which took the traditional four heads of charity and divided them into seven heads of charity in line with the inquiry's findings.

So they have gone out and consulted, then he came back and released proposed legislation for discussion in line with the inquiry findings—

namely, the advancement of health, education, social or community welfare, religion, culture, natural environment and any other purpose that is beneficial to the community.

The Board of Taxation reported on the workability of the draft legislation in 2004—

so, again, it has taken some time because you want to get it right. And, as Kevin Andrews went on to say:

The then government through the then Treasurer announced:

… the common law meaning of a charity will continue to apply, but the definition will be extended to include certain child care and self-help groups, and closed or contemplative religious orders. The government has decided not to proceed with the draft Charities Bill. The former coalition enacted the Extension of Charitable Purpose Act which confined itself to enlarging the legal definition of charity for federal purposes to include child care, self-help groups and closed orders. The Commonwealth's definitional extension has not been adopted by any state jurisdiction.

This bill would be the first time that legislation has sought to comprehensively define in statute, for the purposes of Commonwealth law, charity …

and here is the rub—

why create a statute where the common law has and does serve us well?

I think the onus is upon the government to prove that case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Why depart from 400 years of clarity and consistency?

There is no logical reason.

As an aside, every member in this House had the Oaktree Foundation come through to us about increasing our foreign aid to 0.5 per cent of GDP. It is a worthy goal. But when those guys sat down next to me, I said: 'Do you know what you are actually chasing? Are you chasing more money going into the system, or are you chasing a better result?' They are not the same. Some of the money we send overseas has as little as 16c in the dollar getting to the pointy end. So I said, 'Aren't we better off working with the money we have to get a better result on the ground?' Aren't we better off trying to raise that 16c to get to the Salvation Army's 81½c? Isn't that the goal—to make people better off? If someone could tell me how this place and this bill are going to make all the charity sector and all the not-for-profit sector and all the churches better off, I will be available for that meeting.

This just puts another border around which someone must work. This is just giving work to solicitors to come up with those sorts of things. It lets governments of whatever persuasion pick on someone and say, 'You do not quite fit that so out you go.' We are running a real risk with this, because we have a great number of things which must be done by this parliament.

I do not think that this is one of the things that we should be concentrating on. We should be concentrating on the things that make people's lives better. I want to see a bill in this place about homelessness. I want to see a bill in this place about doing all sorts of good things. This sort of mucking around with definitions and regulation for regulation sake does not do anyone in here any good. You are alienating an entire sector of the community. If this does go through, we will repeal it, and I am calling on all the charities and not-for-profits to make sure that their position is known to every Labor member and every Labor candidate and that what this government has done: load up red tape on this sector. We should be getting rid of red tape. Our aspiration should be at least the Salvation Army's 81½c in every dollar going to the front line of services. This bill is absolute rubbish and we should vote against it. I thank the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Charities Bill and the Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, and in doing so emphasise the fact that the coalition—those members on this side of the House and certainly the member for Herbert who has just spoken so eloquently on this bill—support civil society. We in fact trust what civil society has done and the fact that it has taken generations upon generations of hardworking Australians and common-sense approaches to all matters of importance to communities to get to where we are now, and we want to empower civil society with those rights which have been enshrined in law since Federation and before.

The government's approach is, unfortunately, to treat civil society with a degree of distrust and suspicion, to seek to enforce laws which are onerous and uncalled for and certainly unnecessary. This government is all about applying burdensome regulation and creating more and more levels of unnecessary bureaucracy—agencies over the shoulders of organisations which have done a power of good for their communities over generations and a power of good for society over decades. The definition of charity, as we heard the member for Herbert just indicate and as we have heard the shadow minister Kevin Andrews tell us, is 400 years old. Common law has served us well. Why is there any need for this Labor government, which has been there for five years, a blink of an eye—really it is only this particular government in this particular term after the former Prime Minister, the member for Griffith was tapped on the shoulder by the member for Lalor on 24 June back in 2010—to overturn or change something which has served the Western world well for four centuries?

The coalition under the former Treasurer Peter Costello—and he was a great Treasurer—looked at the issue in great detail and put in place appropriate public policy. But that came after careful consideration and after consultation with key stakeholders. That came after doing something that this government has never had a wont to do and that is to talk to the people and the organisations that would be affected by it and to bring about not necessarily change for change sake but something that might improve the situation as it was then.

The United Kingdom experience demonstrates how dangerous it would be to empower public servants to decide what is charity and what is not charity. As the member for Herbert and the shadow minister have indicated in their speeches on this important topic, the coalition, if we are fortunate enough to be elected on 14 September, will seek to repeal this particular bill.

In this place we need to talk about our opposition to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and certainly members on this side are doing just that. We have announced that we will abolish the ACNC and repeal this legislation if we are elected to govern. One thing we do not need is a plethora of new bureaucrats. In my time in this place I have seen how onerous more and more bureaucrats can be. We have enough problems at the moment, with so many crossovers between federal and state departments, federal and state bureaucrats, and federal and state governments without putting another layer of bureaucracy upon those organisations which have long been regarded as pillars of the community—organisations such as St Vincent de Paul, the Red Cross, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Salvation Army. We all know those organisations; they are household names. They are respected organisations within our communities. When we speak of those organisations and others, we know what a power of work and a power of good they do when things go wrong. I refer to some of the natural disasters we have, unfortunately, experienced in recent years—floods, fires and droughts. Those are the organisations to which many people in the community who fall on hard times either through natural disasters or when other things go wrong often turn to first because they know they will be there when they are most needed.

Those sorts of organisations—Vinnies, the Red Cross, the Brotherhood, the Salvos—do not need a layer of bureaucrats looking over their shoulder, telling them what they should or should not be doing. We have seen this Labor government, in so many other ways, enforce and impose upon our society that creeping federalism, those Big Brother tactics that this government seems to think are necessary to enforce upon so many different sections of society which have existed since Federation very well and very nicely, thank you, without this government's intervention but which this government now thinks it needs to impose upon them at this juncture. It is Labor which assumes that we should look over these organisations' shoulders and, as I say, tell them what to do and, more specifically, tell them what not to do with overburdensome regulation.

The government have not demonstrated that the absolute mischief that the ACNC was established to deal with actually exists. They want to enforce and impose these regulations but have not really told us why it is absolutely necessary.

The coalition have announced that they will streamline regulation as it applies to family service agencies. Organisations certainly need to be transparent, something which the government is not. They certainly need to tick the necessary boxes to meet compliance measures, they need to ensure that the money that they are entrusted with is spent wisely and in the way that the community would expect and that it is spent for the good of the people they serve. These organisations are already self-regulated and are already governed by laws of the various states.

We heard the member for Herbert say, 'There's a problem with the way in which some individuals operate in some organisations.' I am certainly not pointing the finger of blame at anyone. But if there are problems, that is why we have the state police forces and it is why we have fraud squads. I am not suggesting in any way that there is a problem. But if ever a problem comes about then that is the correct and proper way for those problems to be dealt with, not through some new layer of bureaucracy or new layer of enforcement imposed upon it by a government which already has its tentacles stretched out far and wide in so many other sectors of society.

That is why this bill needs to be rejected, it is why this bill is totally unnecessary and it is why we should have great suspicion about this government when it wants to impose itself like Big Brother over our charities, which have worked well for many decades without an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy hanging over their heads.

As I said, when we do need our charitable organisations to serve us, they do it superbly, particularly in regional areas. I know you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, in your electorate of Maranoa of just how well charities operate and, as I mentioned before, particularly when they are most needed in times of crisis.

I note that the shadow minister in his speech talked about the history of the coalition and what we have done to improve certain areas involved in charities to ensure that there was greater transparency. This particular bill does not provide that. But we have certainly helped to enhance these organisations and to help them to better do the job that they are expected and required to do—that is, to help in their communities—and, as I have mentioned, they do a wonderful job in regional Australia.

The shadow minister said that this government is now seeking to pretend that there is some desperate need to legislate in this area, acting as though it is charting new waters. These new waters do not need to be charted. The reality is, as the shadow minister indicated in his speech on this particular bill, it was the former Howard government—and I might just add that that was a good government—that looked at the issue of creating a common law definition of 'charity'. Former Prime Minister John Howard announced an inquiry into the definition of 'charity' on 18 September 2000. The inquiry reported in 2001, making some 27 recommendations. Those recommendations were there to enhance the law as it then stood. They were not there to be some great big octopus like this government is, spreading its unnecessary federal tentacles into every way and means of life, as we now know. They were not there to be onerous, burdensome and unnecessary Big Brother tactics.

Former Treasurer Peter Costello released draft legislation in 2003 which took the traditional four heads of charity and divided them into seven heads of charity in line with the inquiry's finding: the advancement of health, education, social or community welfare, religion, culture, natural environment and any other purpose that is beneficial to the community. Certainly, when it comes to health and education there are no two more important aspects of society for most Australians than health and education. The Board of Taxation reported on the workability of the draft legislation in 2004, and the then government through the then Treasurer announced the common law meaning of a charity will continue to apply but the definition will be extended to include certain childcare and self-help groups and closed or contemplative religious orders. The government decided not to proceed with the draft charities bill. There we have a good government of the day—a Liberal-Nationals government of the day—seeing that there possibly needed to be an inquiry done, enacting that inquiry, consulting with stakeholders, taking the views of all concerned whether they were for or opposed to the inquiry, discussing it in a common-sense fashion, letting it sit on the table for some time while other people could have a say and then coming out and deciding that there was no need to proceed with the draft charities bill.

Why then, in 2013, when we have a government wracked with leadership problems and debt, and which is trying to spread its tentacles into lots of matters which used to be the prerogative of the states, do we have this federal Labor government, which thinks it knows better about everything and which the community knows does not, wanting to force this legislation through in the second-last or last week of the 43rd Parliament and expecting it to be of benefit to those charities which have served us so well for so many years? That is why this bill needs to be rejected. That is why this is not supported by the coalition. That is why I hope that the Greens member, whom I heard chattering behind me a moment ago—no doubt he was supporting what I am saying—does not support it. I know the member for Dobell is behind me, and he calls himself an Independent, but his voting record suggests otherwise.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

I am watching my back, but I am sure the cameras are there to watch my back for me. But I hope they support the coalition's rejection of this particular piece of legislation. I hope they do it for the benefit of the charities, which, as I say, have supported us so well for so many years and do not need another layer of bureaucracy placed over them by this debt ridden government in a leadership crisis.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you wanted a better example of the philosophical divide between that side of the chamber and this side of the chamber, I think it is best encapsulated in the legislation that is before the House today. The Charities Bill 2013 and Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 really go to the core of that philosophical divide between the approach of the social democrats on that side and those of us who believe in the supremacy of the individual and the fact that the individual reigns supreme over the state, which is very much on this side of the chamber with perhaps a couple of exclusions—in particular the Greens, of course, who sit up in the crossbenches there.

The reality is that this bill is not a good bill. The coalition do not support it. We will repeal this legislation should we be fortunate enough to get elected on 14 September. At its core this bill represents another very large step in the ever-growing demand by the Labor Party to see more bureaucrats, more bureaucracy and a greater reach for state power. It is the coalition that virtually has a monopoly in this place on defending the opportunity for individuals and charities to stand up against the state. It is the Labor Party that hold at its core the view that the very best way any government can go about assisting the community sector or an individual is for the government to ensure that there are new regulations in place and a whole new mechanism which rolls out bureaucracy that will apply in this particular instance to the charitable sector.

This is nothing new. We have looked at this before. The previous coalition, when we were in government under John Howard, looked at this sector in great detail and took a number of decisions about what needed to happen. But it goes back even further than that. The definition of 'charities' dates back to 1601. It has been a common law definition that has applied since 1601—over 400 years—and that has well and truly stood the test of time. Yet, despite the fact that there are 400 years of precedent, the reality is that the Labor Party gets elected and, lo and behold, we have a new minister who says: 'We know better than the last 400 years of common law. We know better about what is good for the charitable sector.' The simple fact is that, in attempting to codify common law definitions of charities and put in place a whole new bureaucracy that applies to charities, the Labor Party will succeed in doing nothing more than applying a whole raft of regulation and bureaucracy to a sector that, frankly, does not need it.

If there is one part of Australian society that does not need extra red tape, it has to be the volunteers who work hard in the charitable sector. On this side of the House we understand the demands for the charitable sector. We know the volunteers who roll up their sleeves and go about undertaking the work they do to make Australia a better society. We know they have been working harder in the last six years than they had to for a great deal of time. The reality is that those people do so because of their passion for the cause. They do not do so because they have got a bureaucrat in Canberra who says to them what they must do.

The last thing they need is to divert their attention away from worthy recipients of charitable sectors towards other activities like red-tape compliance. That is precisely what this bill does. The simple fact is that there are some great charities out there. I think about one, for example, called beyondblue. Beyondblue, as we know, is chaired by a high-profile former Liberal, and I do not think that there is any demand for them to suddenly go about changing their name since the comments from the Prime Minister last week.

Debate interrupted.