Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Fenner proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government undermining Australia’s charities.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Monday, Senator Louise Pratt, Labor colleagues and I met with dozens of charities concerned about the latest salvo in the Liberals' war on charities. They included the Australian Council for International Development, CHOICE, Red Cross, Oxfam, CARE Australia, the Consumer Action Law Centre, Financial Counselling Australia, ACOSS, World Vision, RESULTS Australia and Pew Charitable Trusts. There is bipartisan support for banning foreign political donations. Indeed, it's been a year since the Leader of the Opposition introduced a private member's bill that would do just that. But banning donations to political parties should not entail cutting down free speech.

We have had an extraordinary array of opponents to the government's attempt to include charities in the scope of its draft laws. These laws have been opposed by GetUp! and the Institute of Public Affairs—probably the only time in Australia's history when GetUp! and the IPA have agreed on the same thing. Credit where it's due—they have achieved the impossible. But it's not the first time they have brought together a range of people across the political spectrum. There have been two open letters to the Prime Minister complaining about attacks on charities. The most recent was signed by Volunteering Australia, Carers Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Community Council of Australia, Justice Connect, Philanthropy Australia and the Starlight Children's Foundation. Again, the Liberals are bringing charities together—against them.

The fact is the latest bill conflates political campaigning and issue advocacy. Charities have told us about many concerns they have about how this might affect their operations. One charity told us about a program where they bring Indigenous leaders to Canberra, which might have to cease. Another talked about their anti-tuberculosis work, important not only in the Pacific but also in the Torres Strait, which may have to stop. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation currently funds parliamentarians on both sides to visit aid projects in developing countries. That might have to cease. Take the example of a New Zealand family whose child was helped by a local state based charity. They might be unable to give to that charity. Religious charities have said that the new laws might mean that, before passing around the collection plate on Sundays, they might have to a say, 'If you're a foreigner, don't put money in the plate.' That's Malcolm Turnbull's new Australia—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Fenner will refer to members by their title.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's Prime Minister Turnbull's Australia—an Australia in which immigrants are excluded from putting money in the church collection plate. Consumer protection agencies have told us that they might have to cease their campaigning on product safety. And what international NGO would set up in a country with such draconian laws when it comes to dealing with foreign donations?

A survey by Pro Bono has found that two-thirds of Australian charities are finding it harder to be heard by the federal government than they were five years ago. When you look at how the Liberals have spent the last five years, it's not very surprising. We've had five ministers in five years responsible for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission: Kevin Andrews, Scott Morrison, Christian Porter, Michael McCormack and Michael Sukkar. And we saw a period, from 2011 to 2016, in which the Liberals tried to close down the charities commission, a body supported by four out of five charities. The Liberals have put gag clauses in social services agreements, have attempted to shut down the ability of charities to advocate and are now trying to expand the ban on overseas donations to political parties to also cover charities. To paraphrase the great Malcolm Tucker, those on the other side of the House have a rap sheet longer than a Leonard Cohen song.

After a period in which Susan Pascoe, the well-respected head of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, had not been reappointed, the government decided to appoint well-known charities critic Gary Johns to head the commission. So proud they were of this decision that they announced it at the very same time at which this House was passing its historic vote on same-sex marriage. That's what you do when you're proud of an announcement. Appointing Gary Johns to head the charities commission is like putting Ned Kelly in charge of bank security; it's like putting Bronwyn Bishop in charge of transport for politicians. Let's go through some of the things on Gary Johns's track record. As he appointed Mr Johns, the minister admitted he hadn't read his work, so let's go through a few of the things Gary Johns has said.

Gary Johns has said, 'The Abbott government should deny charity status to the enemies of progress.' Who are the enemies of progress? Well, who's to know which charity is in the firing line. He believes in the scrapping of the Charities Act 2013, which would take charities law back to the 1600s. The head of the charities commission would like to see charities law returned to the Shakespearean era. I love Shakespeare, but I think we can do better than the Shakespearean era when it comes to our charities law. He said, 'There is a great deal of impure altruism in the charity business.' And he has gone after specific charities. How do mental health charities feel about the fact that the new charities commissioner has attacked beyondblue for their work with LBGTI people?

How would Indigenous charities feel about the fact that the charities commissioner has said:

Look, a lot of poor women in this country, a large proportion of whom are Aboriginal, are used as cash cows, right?

How would welfare charities feel about the fact that the charities commissioner said:

If a person's sole source of income is the taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have contraception. No contraception, no benefit.

How would Indigenous charities feel about the statement that the charities commissioner has made that:

… Recognise, is the officially sanctioned propaganda arm of the Australian Government.

How would multicultural charities feel about the fact that the charities commissioner has said:

Australia is sucking in too many of the wrong type of immigrant … There is no doubt many Australians have considerable misgivings about Muslim immigration and the ability of many to fit in.

How would environmental charities feel about the fact that the new charities commissioner has said:

… we know for a fact that renewable energy is a cause of the blackouts.

Labor has engaged with charities around the country, such as Welcome to Australia, whose founder, Brad Chilcott, characterised the Turnbull government's approach to charities by saying:

The message that charities should not be involved in advocacy is akin to saying 'you can plant a tree but you can't protect a forest'.

The advocacy voice of charities and not-for-profits is not only the voice of the various organisations—it is the voice of every Australian who donates, volunteers or is a member of a charity. When the voice of charities and not-for-profits are threatened, so is our democracy.

The approach that the Turnbull government takes towards charities is that they should be seen but not heard, that they can serve out soup in a soup kitchen but can't talk about the causes of poverty, that they can plant trees but can't talk about deforestation, that they can assist Indigenous people on the ground but they can't possibly talk about the root causes of Indigenous disadvantage.

The government want to put a velvet rope across the entry to the public square. They are hurting not only charities but also the very quality of Australian public debate, which demands a multiplicity of voices. Australian democracy isn't just about the voices of politicians; it's about the choices of charities who—let's be honest—enjoy far higher trust than traditional political parties. They have a right to be heard. Australians want them to be heard in the political conversation.

While the government is continuing its war on charities, prompting open letters and protests from the sector, Labor is engaging with charities. Bill Shorten has created a portfolio of shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits. For the first time this important sector has been recognised by the Labor front bench. Labor is working with states and territories to encourage them to cooperate with the charities commission so our voluntary sector spends less time doing paperwork and more time engaging with the vulnerable. Labor supports Justice Connect's campaign to fix fundraising, moving from a patchwork of state based laws to a uniform national scheme operating within the Australian Consumer Law and giving a week per year back to charities, who no longer have to waste it doing unnecessary paperwork. Labor has conducted nine Reconnected forums across Australia, bringing together more than a thousand charities to explore new approaches to boosting community engagement.

Wouldn't it be great if, the next time heads of charities came to Canberra, they were engaging with the government on constructive reform, not fighting yet another battle in the coalition's war on charities?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a grab bag of character assassinations, complaints and the shadow minister crowing about being the shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits. I looked at the MPI that he put forward earlier. Your title is longer than the entire remainder of this document. We have the Hon. Dr—or Professor, as we like to call him over here—Andrew Leigh, shadow assistant treasurer, shadow minister for competition and productivity, shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits, shadow minister for trade in services, member for Fenner. Was that your pay-off? You went to the Leader of the Opposition and said, 'Throw a couple more titles in there, just to make me feel better.'

Character assassination is not going to cut it here, Member for Fenner. In that diatribe of complaints from the member for Fenner, we didn't hear any thought or concern for the people who fund charities: the donors. You never hear the member for Fenner talking about donors. All the member for Fenner does is enter into character assassination and, quite sadly—as I pointed out during your contribution—why would you attack a former Keating minister? Does this show how far your party has moved to the Left in that you are focusing all of your attention on attacking a former Keating minister—a minister that, quite frankly, will be remembered much more than you ever will be, member for Fenner. Someone said to me when I was first elected that the member for Fenner was the new attack dog. I was sitting here watching you then, and I saw a lot more chihuahua than German shepherd.

Getting down to the range of unsubstantiated claims made by the member for Fenner—I won't go through the multitude of other titles—when we look at foreign donations, the member for Fenner used the most ridiculous examples and he didn't answer the basic question, which is what the Labor Party needs to answer: Do they think we should allow foreign individuals, foreign entities and foreign governments to directly participate in Australian elections or Australian political processes? The Labor Party will not answer this question. Do they fundamentally believe that there's a role for foreign money to enter our political sphere?

We believe political parties, candidates and campaigners should be prohibited from receiving foreign donations. One would think that would be uncontroversial. One would think that the Labor Party would work constructively to try and ensure we could get that outcome. This ban has been carefully designed to prevent loopholes for foreign money. We believe foreign interests shouldn't be funding election advertising or how-to-vote material, regardless of whether that campaigning is undertaken by a political party or somebody else.

I say to the member for Fenner, 'Focus on the objective.' We don't want political interference from anybody associated with a foreign entity, a foreign government or foreign interests, who don't necessarily have our best interests at heart. The member for Fenner should reflect on that and show some leadership. He should, like his very lofty title suggests, show some leadership, and try to pull his leader, who has lurched massively to the Left, into a sensible position on this. That would be leadership people would appreciate.

Turning to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, I will say again that I've had a number of individuals contact me, who are very disappointed with the conduct undertaken by the member for Fenner. The character assassination of somebody appointed through a statutory process—a person serving the government—is quite outrageous. You would expect that a member with a constituency in Canberra would understand that. This process you're undertaking is discrediting you, member for Fenner. It's discrediting you. I think Dr Johns, as he has pointed out, will apply the law and will enforce the law as the ACNC is there to do. The ACNC is not an advocacy body for the sector. The ACNC, like ASIC and like any other regulator, is there to regulate the industry.

The member for Fenner doesn't talk about donors. He never talks about the people who fund the altruistic activities of charities and not-for-profits. He couldn't care less, because he's captive to a very small group of individuals who have very close links to the Labor Party and very close links to the member for Fenner—quite dubiously close links, in fact. He shouldn't be trading on those.

The Turnbull government's position is very clear. We obviously had a process over many years of seeing the ACNC in action. The member for Fenner referred to the former ACNC Commissioner—whom the government reappointed, I might add. He is someone who was respected. Now we have another highly respected individual, in Dr Johns, who will take carriage of the ACNC. The ACNC's job is to ensure that charities are used for the purposes for which they are on the register, the purposes for which they obtain tax concessions generously provided by taxpayers. The ACNC's job is to ensure that there is no 'set and forget' for charities. Once you are on the register, once you are entitled to generous tax concessions provided by Australian taxpayers, you must continue to act in accordance with what you've promised you're going to do.

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

We are. What are you suggesting?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, we've had 59 knocked off the register. Clearly, there are charities—and that's the whole purpose of the ACNC, I'd remind you—

Opposition members interjecting—

Did you not vote for the ACNC when you were last in government? The whole purpose of the ACNC is to maintain and ensure integrity in the sector. That will clearly mean that, in egregious circumstances, charities will be knocked off the register. Why is that done? Because it maintains integrity in the entire sector. There are 55,000 charities. It doesn't take many charities—including those in the recent AUSTRAC ACNC report—to do the wrong thing to muddy the names of so many others. So I would suggest to you that the sector actually wants integrity because it engenders more trust and more giving from donors.

I would say to the member for Fenner that this government has a very proud record of doing three things. We protect donors and ensure that we are engendering a spirit of giving through integrity in this sector. We also ensure that we are reducing red tape for charities. One of the most significant aspects of what this government has sought to do is to ensure that charities and not-for-profits can spend less time complying with paperwork, less time complying with government regulations and more time undertaking what it is they are there to do.

Of course, with the foreign donations bill, we have to ensure that to obtain a very important public policy outcome—that is, no interference from foreign political interests—we assist our charities to comply with that. And we absolutely will. The test will be for the member for Fenner to see if he can get his party to a sensible outcome and if he can cease this disgraceful character assassination of the ACNC Commissioner, who is doing a wonderful job, who is already winning plaudits in the charities and not-for-profits sector. I'm very confident that, after his term is completed, the ACNC Commissioner will be remembered for the same high standards as the former ACNC Commissioner is remembered.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fenner, Dr Leigh, for his speech just now. I joined with the member for Fenner in meeting with representatives of dozens of charities in Canberra this week. Those representatives of dozens of charities came to Canberra because they are concerned about this government's latest assault on charities. Unfortunately, it is an attack that is being carried out on multiple fronts. The Liberal Party has a long history of attacking charities, going right back to the Howard government when Peter Costello, as Treasurer, tried to prevent charities, through the use of tax laws, from continuing their vital role in advocacy. The Liberal Party has never understood the proper role of charities in advocating for changes in government policy, which is why they attack charities that engage in advocacy and attempt to shut them down.

As we've just heard from the member for Fenner, there are proposed amendments to our electoral donations law which will have a drastic impact on charities and the vitally important work that they do. That vital work that charities do has become even more important in recent years as the Abbott and Turnbull governments have driven up living costs and cut vital services, leaving more and more Australians in need of the help that charities provide. The government claim that they have to cut because there just isn't enough money. But, of course, they have no trouble putting together $65 billion to hand to the big end of town.

The attack on charities in the donations bill was concerning enough, but the government has opened up another front, whether by design or inadvertence, in the form of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017. The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill is one of four national security bills in the package that was brought into the parliament on the last sitting day of 2017. This particular bill was introduced by the Prime Minister himself. Of course, we agree with the government that any attempt by foreign powers to disrupt or influence our democratic processes must be stopped. We accept the comments that are being made by ASIO about the work of foreign powers 'clandestinely seeking to shape the opinions of members of the Australian public, media organisations and government officials in order to advance their country's own political objectives'.

Our commitment is, of course, to bipartisanship on national security matters, but it does not extend to giving the government a blank cheque to do what it wants. We'll engage with the government constructively on the national security laws. It is through the process in the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that we've successfully argued for a very large number of amendments to the various national security laws introduced by the government since 2014. We are adopting that same approach to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill, but it is a bill which introduces an onerous registration scheme for individuals or entities said to be undertaking certain activities on behalf of a foreign principal.

Laughably, the member for Deakin has just had the gall to suggest that the government wanted to reduce red tape for the charities sector. This bill increases red tape for the charities sector. The effect of extraordinarily expansive definitions in the scheme means that the bill will capture Australian charities whose conduct, activities and purposes are entirely benign and completely benefit our nation. This will be imposed on charities despite the fact that these charities are all already closely regulated by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. These charities contribute in an overwhelmingly positive manner to our society, but the effect of this bill, as it stands, will be to strangle many of them in wasteful and unnecessary regulation. I hope that that effect is only the unintended consequence of this bill—a consequence of sloppy drafting; the origin of which was made clear by the former Attorney-General's claim that he was closely involved in the formulation of the bill. But, if on the other hand, this is the intended effect of the bill—to silence charities—it is truly shameful. The proposed exemptions in the bill are exceptionally narrow and, with respect to charities, relate solely to an activity the person or entity undertakes in relation to humanitarian aid or humanitarian assistance.

We in the Labor Party think that giving in to an assault by the government on Australian civil society is an abdication of our responsibility to protect and nurture the crucial role that Australian civil society plays in creating a fair and equal nation. I will finish with a letter I got from the Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, who said to me in that letter last week: 'The bill is drafted with significant breadth and will likely capture any charity— (Time expired)

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always welcome the interjections of those opposite in arguing that I live up to the title of 'Freedom Boy'. It is a title I wear with pride—so I encourage you to keep doing so. But let's not get distracted from the substance of this MPI put forward by the member for Fenner, which is of course that we all support the purpose and mission of charities. Everybody in this place—on this side of the House and on that side of the House—does. I imagine even the crossbenchers and even the Marxist member for Melbourne may see some room for the private sector that private citizens or organisations can do charitable works.

We all agree that, when donations are made in this country, they should, of course, go to the people to which they are served, to try to minimise overheads and to make sure that people can get the support and assistance they need and that, even if the money is given in pursuit of helping people overseas, it will see its same destination. Of course, we want people to participate in charities and be constructive and be part of it. But there are some things I would hope we also agree on. I would hope that we agree on the idea that, when people give money to charities, it's used, as I said, for people, and not for some people to get elected to parliament. We also believe that charities should not become siphons to fund political campaigns to distort our democracy. Those things are exactly what many of the bills that have been put before this parliament by this government seek to do.

I am hearing a lot of complaining from the other side. There have been some very entertaining and somewhat hysterical over-reactions, but what I haven't heard is any solutions. What I've heard is a lot of complaints but no solutions. The offer is always there to those opposite to put constructive ideas on the table, but we're not actually hearing that one little bit. In the end, this whole MPI is setting up for one purpose, which is that the member for Fenner was given the task by his whip: 'Can you come up with a matter of public importance today?' He looked around and would have said: 'I've said so many things. I've talked about how you should cut taxes, so I won't do it on that, because that would embarrass me and make a fool of me. I looked around and realised that there was all this research which said I believe in free markets, so I can't attack the government on its economic policy, because that would make me look a fool. So often I've written about why I believe in cutting back red tape'—and he still couldn't find anything! So he thought, 'I know—I'm going to put forward an MPI that says the government is undermining Australia's charities and then come up with a long, purposeless list of confected outrage against a former Labor minister.'

It's not normally my practice to support and defend Labor ministers. You normally would leave that up to those people on the other side, on the opposition benches. But the reality is they're now eating their own young. This is how it works in the modern Labor Party. Once you turn your back on them and accept an appointment from a coalition government to do work, to actually improve the future of this nation, to stand up and support the charities which will enable Australians to continue to donate with confidence, their response is to mock, to ridicule and to undermine. And they have the temerity to talk about the idea that they believe in free speech, while consistently demanding, saying he isn't up to the job, on the basis that he has opinions and has expressed them. This is the reality of the modern Labor Party. It is completely disconnected from reality and isn't focused on what actually needs to be done.

There are laws that need to be introduced in this country to make sure we can have confidence in the charitable sector. We all agree with that. It is important that those laws are targeted and specific to make sure that the money that people donate to charities for pursuit of a cause actually gets delivered and helps the people that they care about. What there is concern about across the general community—and, yes, inside the parliament—is that that is not happening. In some cases, what we're seeing is charities engaging in activity that goes beyond their remit, that goes beyond the purpose of influencing and having a discussion around public debate and to improve the delivery of public services, which improves the lives of Australians, toward a process where you can see the risk where charities can become agents—as it's just been acknowledged by the shadow Attorney-General—for the pursuit of foreign interests. We have to stand up for our country and its interests.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Deakin, in an interesting contribution to this debate, said that there were three things that the government had approached with consistency in this area. I probably shouldn't say, but I'd better get the record straight—he only actually got to two. The fact remains that there is only one element that can be said to be a consistent attitude of the government to the charities sector and indeed to civil society generally—that is, to shut it down. This government has been determined, under the member for Warringah and now under the member for Wentworth, to shut down any dissenting voices. Unfortunately, Member for Goldstein, this is a government that does not have the courage of its convictions. Those who were warriors for the cause of individual freedom before they came here seem to think that authoritarianism is the new black.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And now they're fleeing the chamber.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes! It's unfortunate that there isn't more time for us to explore the confusion in government ranks on every aspect to do with charities regulation, bar their insistence of preventing any meaningful scrutiny or advocacy on issues that may affect Australian politics. But there are a few aspects of the member for Deakin's contribution that deserve examination, given his responsibilities. Firstly, and this is really troubling—I know he's a former lawyer and we should stick together in this club—he described the legislation as 'carefully drafted'. I cannot wait for Senator Cormann to find out about that, because he has said, quite rightly, that the legislation will need very significant amendment, which, of course, it does. So, bad luck, member for Deakin. Back to the drawing board.

He also said, 'It doesn't take many charities doing the wrong thing to muddy all of their names,' or words to that effect. That's probably true. But he should reflect on what this means. What we have seen in opinion polling is that Australians have a very high, and increasing, level of trust in charities. The same cannot be said of this place, or indeed of political parties. The contrast is striking. I think this explains why this rudderless, 'agendaless' government is so determined to continue its crackdown on charities and any dissenting voices in civil society. Governments members know in their heart of hearts that not only is their agenda unpopular but any discussion of the issues it is prosecuting in the community through this place—when it can get its agenda through this place—is only going to drag it down further. It is a shameful, cowardly response to not having an agenda that resonates with Australians, because, frankly, this government's agenda says very little to the concerns of Australians.

The member for Fenner has gone through the litany of attacks on the charities sector the government has engaged in from day one. They've also made a couple of comments in this debate that, I think, require examination. They talked about our unwillingness to offer solutions. Well, I say this to government members: since 2008 the Labor Party, as part of a wide-ranging reform to clean up our politics, has put forward proposals to ban foreign donations to political parties—10 years! Unlike this crazy bit of legislation that landed almost literally at one minute to midnight at the end of last year, without a proper regulatory impact statement and without any public consultation, the Labor proposals were generated through a proper green paper, white paper process. That's why they have stood the test of time and that's why this parliament should bring on the private member's bill in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and get to work on it. If they were serious about it, that's what they would do. If government members have concerns with particular elements of our proposal, let's have the debate. Let's bring that on and get on with removing foreign influence from our politics.

In doing so, let's recognise a fundamental truth: that there is a big difference between those of us who seek to hold public office in the legislature and the executive and those who seek to hold us to account. Government members don't recognise that. They refuse to recognise that. But this side of politics welcomes a strong civil society. I know that the Shorten Labor government will welcome our engagement with critical voices not only in building an agenda to change Australia but in strengthening Australian democracy. It is such a pity government members have no faith in their cause.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this MPI. I would like to start by saying it's regrettable that the member for Fenner has characterised this debate as 'charities struggling to be heard'. Three evenings ago, members of all parties gathered in Parliament House, under the leadership of Ovarian Cancer Australia, to listen to the plight of those with ovarian cancer. We heard about one of the deadliest cancers affecting so many women across this country, and the incredible inspiring story of Jill Emberson. Nearly every sitting day, a charity will come to this place or hold an event and talk to politicians about their needs, their hopes and their aspirations.

Charities across Australia have and will continue to have a very important voice in this place. I can assure members opposite—for those who were there, joined by the women members of the press gallery—that Ovarian Cancer Australia was not concerned about this politicking. Ovarian Cancer Australia was concerned about the women dying from ovarian cancer across this country.

The problem with this debate and Labor's conduct in this debate is that it's all about saying no. Nearly everything that this government does, Labor opposes. Company tax cuts to grow jobs, Labor opposes—it previously supported them. Our attack on multinational tax avoidance, Labor opposes. On our trade agreements, Labor cannot decide whether it's Arthur or Martha. There is our national energy guarantee. There is our cashless welfare card, which certain Labor members said they were going to support, but then, in a mad swing to the Left, led by the Leader of the Opposition, Labor is now opposing a policy which is changing the lives of kids in Indigenous communities.

The government has announced a review of the legislation governing the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, and that is required by legislation. It is right and proper to do so. The review will provide a chance for the public, the not-for-profit sector and other stakeholders to contribute their ideas and experience to help improve how this sector is regulated. Why is this review important? Because charities must be held to account, like every other organisation. Most of the 55,000 charities across Australia do an incredible job, but we have seen many examples of those who don't. Why would Labor not fully support a process which drives integrity in the system? If they are going to be the recipient of generous tax deductions courtesy of the Australian taxpayer, it is right and proper that charities be held to account.

The ACNC has the responsibility of maintaining, protecting and enhancing public trust and confidence in the charities and not-for-profit sector. That's what we are interested in—supporting the accountability and transparency of the sector. Frankly, it is extraordinary that members opposite, this shabby Labor Party, of which Paul Keating and Bob Hawke are now so ashamed, have stooped so low as to attack a former very fine Labor minister, Dr Gary Johns, who has been appointed as the full-time Commissioner of the ACNC for a five-year period.

Contrary to a misleading and misinformed scare campaign, the foreign donations bill has no impact on the vast majority of charities. We've put protections in place to ensure the bill has no effect on foreign funding for charities' non-political activity or charities' political campaigning where it is funded by Australians. We are taking action to ensure that election advertising, including how-to-vote material and campaign robo-calls, is not funded by foreign interests. This should be the case regardless of whether campaigning is done by a political party, a campaign group, a business or a charity. It's long been a requirement for any individual or entity that incurs a significant amount of political expenditure to disclose this to the Australian Electoral Commission. I want to make this very important point: just seven of the 55,500 registered charities in Australia reported political expenditure in 2016-17, which is 0.1 per cent of Australian charities. So, far from targeting charities, the bill ensures the Electoral Act continues to apply to all participants in Australian elections. We are incredibly proud of the work we are doing to stand up and support the wonderful work that thousands of charities are doing across Australia.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a lie!

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that the member withdraw that heinous comment that he just made.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Oxley will withdraw that interjection.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak—

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I regret to say this but, when the member for Oxley sat down, he again repeated it and said I was a liar. That is disgusting. He just repeated it.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not say that.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Ms Rowland interjecting—

Order, Member for Greenway! I did hear the member for Oxley—

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He just repeated the same slur, which just goes to show the integrity that we are seeing from those opposite.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I did hear the member for Oxley—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! I did hear the member for Oxley withdraw. I didn't hear anything else. If there was, I didn't hear it.

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue because, in my electorate, local charities are the fabric of the local communities and, in every town, those charities are supported almost always by volunteers. They are there to support the disadvantaged and the vulnerable people in my communities who are doing it tough. But it is very clear that this government is continuing to undermine the very work of these very decent, hardworking volunteers as they go about doing this work in these communities. They already undermine these people to such an extent that local charities are too afraid to speak out on issues of importance.

I know from conversations with many local groups that they are too afraid to speak out because they are worried that their funding will be cut. This is the climate of fear that they currently operate in thanks to the government sitting opposite. But now this government wants to go even further and stifle their voice and tie them up in bureaucratic knots. It is some sort of warped priority that this government could claim to be the advocates for free speech when at the same time they make it harder for charitable groups to express a public view. How is it that this government says it's alright for someone to be a bigot but it's not alright for a charity to call for increased funding to tackle homelessness?

Once again, we see evidence that this Prime Minister continues to lurch to the far Right and become captive of the ideologues in the coalition. But, then again, when it comes to supporting our charities, this government has a track record that, by any reasonable measure, it could not be proud of. For six years the coalition had a policy to abolish the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The government already forces social services charities to sign gag clauses to prevent them from speaking out on policy issues. Since being elected, there have been multiple ministers responsible for charities, with one minister refusing to meet with the charities commission head. To top it off, before the end of last year, this government appointed as the head of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission a person who is opposed to the work of charities. Gary Johns might be a nice man—I have never met him—but, from what he has said about charities, he could not possibly be the right person for the job. Any person who attacks the work of beyondblue, supporting vulnerable young LGBTQI people, is clearly unfit for the role.

It is clear that those opposite have not spoken to or engaged in any positive way with charities. Just seven days ago, Pro Bono released a survey and found that that many charities are unclear and uncertain about how they stand to be affected by the government's electoral funding and disclosure reform bill. In fact, 96 per cent of the respondents had not been consulted by the government on this bill.

Last year I had the great pleasure to participate in the Vinnies CEO Sleepout. It is a national program, and I hope everyone has the same opportunity to participate. This campaign is to raise awareness of homelessness and the reasons that people themselves in this situation. Can someone from the other side please explain why this charity should be stifled and tied up in knots through a political disclosure regime? Why should they feel threatened to speak for the need for extra funding to address homelessness?

I do agree that front groups for political parties should have a higher degree of scrutiny. In my state of Tasmania, in the middle of a state election, big, vested interstate interests groups are openly funding a third-party campaign against the opposition party. These types of activities certainly need proper scrutiny and a more timely reporting mechanism. The community should also be given the opportunity to know who is behind the campaigns and how much is being contributed. The community should have the right to know who the puppetmaster is who is pulling the Tasmanian Liberal Premier's strings. But that does not mean that charities such as beyondblue, Anglicare, St Vincent de Paul and many others should be caught up. The government needs to go back to the drawing board and redraft its legislation and maybe even talk to these charities. You could actually learn something for a change. Maybe then we could have a sensible conversation with those on the other side of this House.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a somewhat unclean debate today, given that both sides of this chamber are so strongly in support of the not-for-profit sector and many of us receive support from the not-for-profit sector ourselves. Given the almost 'political heritage' of having an MPI at the end of the week where the opposition screams that the government is bringing the world to an end, it is difficult to tease out exactly what the concern is. Obviously, to be traducing Gary Johns is disappointing. In a simplistic sense, I don't have a dog in this fight if Labor wants to tear apart a former Labor minister; but to tear down someone once he has taken up the position as ACNC Commissioner is I think one of the more disappointing positions these Labor MPs have taken. Sure, we can all dig through the comments someone has previously made; but, honestly, in a world of political poodles it is time someone spoke straight and said what they think. I admire Gary Johns for that, though I might not always agree with him; but he is now doing a very important job and all evidence points to him doing it with assiduous attention to detail. Indeed, that is precisely what he is commissioned to do. His job is to identify not-for-profits that have drifted away from their commission. It is an incredibly tiny number. There are 54,000 charities and only a dozen or two have drifted so far that, for reasons of misconduct or mismanagement, they have had to lose their status.

Let no-one on either side forget that this gift of deductibility is from the Australian people, not from government. The gift of being able to raise money and not pay tax allows these entities to devote and invest more in what they're commissioned to do. Everyone supports that. All the people listening around Australia just want not-for-profits to get on with doing what their bread and butter business is. There is no disagreement there.

Where there is this frisson of disagreement coming from the other side is the suggestion that stopping foreign money coming in and being involved in party politics is actually tying the hand of not-for-profits or stifling them. The government can't agree with that at all. I thought the contribution from the Labor MP who spoke just before me was a reasonably balanced assessment of that. She conceded that some of these third party entities are actually fighting the Labor Party. I know traditionally we have seen the very large developed ones fighting the right of centre, but she conceded that we do need a higher level of scrutiny for these entities. Let's go through it step by step. They take the gift of tax deductibility from the Australian government, and they take that money and engage not in their core business but in party-political activity. First of all, that activates the electoral laws on domestic donations, which rightly it should. But if it's coming from overseas—I seem to recall it was the Labor Party that was most vocal about stopping this foreign money from 'pouring in'. Labor were very concerned about fat cats coming in and influencing local elections. So here we have a simple manifestation of stopping it but, all of a sudden, Labor have just seen a spark of political opportunism where they can, firstly, take down Gary Johns and then, secondly, scare all 54,000 charities that can't bear to say a word in case they get shut down!

This is such a distortion of the truth. Let's go right back to the simple facts. Nothing stops not-for-profits from advocating for their stated causes, the things for which they were commissioned to do. The bill allows them to continue to take foreign donations even, so long as they are not involved in political activity. There is no better party-political example than GetUp!. I love the word 'temerity'. They had the temerity to turn up to the Queensland election and fight against Adani. Did they turn up to fight against the Labor government that approved Adani? No, they didn't. They turned up in Queensland and they held out a piece of paper that said, 'Malcolm Turnbull, through the NAIF, is considering funding a rail line that runs to Adani, so please vote for the Labor Party'—please vote for the Labor Party, which approved Adani, because we hate so much a Prime Minister who was contemplating giving a loan, paid back with interest, to build rail infrastructure for this great nation! It would have been a concessional loan with interest. The interest rate on a concessional loan is slightly lower than the market interest rate, so it is every dollar, and interest, paid back to the Australian people for the first time ever to build rail infrastructure in this country using private money. And they fought to the death to stop it. GetUp! was at every polling booth I could see, telling everyone, 'Please, hate Malcolm Turnbull and vote for the party that approved Adani.' It is this completely distorted thinking, this political involvement with overseas funding, that will stop this legislation. That it is why we support it.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we just heard the reason why the member for Bowman, a member of the government, wants this bill introduced. We just heard about the last state election. What happened in the Bowman electorate when this activism happened? The seat of Bowman returned Labor members of parliament; in fact, the LNP lost seats in the electorate of Bowman. We got the fantastic new member for Redlands, Kim Richards.

So what does the LNP do? I'll put it like this. It is as if, in the PM's office, the Young Liberal apparatchiks who were sitting around, dreaming that when they got the brief they would do something in a constructive way about political donations to stop overseas donations, said: 'I know what we're going to do. We're going to get charities at the same time. We're going to roll that in. We're sick and tired of those Knitting Nannas. We're sick and tired of those people protesting outside the foreign minister's office demanding that foreign aid be increased and making demands on all those issues. We're sick and tired of walking around in the community and being criticised for our policies. You know what we're going to try and do? We're going to try and shut down the dissent. We're going to shut down the dissent!' And that's exactly what this bill and this government want to do.

You would think they were the party of freedom of speech, the party that demand that we enable freedom of speech, but what do they do when this legislation comes in? They shut down freedom of speech. But we know that those opposite—and we saw it today in this debate, talking about everything, talking about tax giveaways, talking about multinationals handouts—are not interested in the charity sector. If they were, they would not be introducing this sort of legislation, and they would be supporting the over 50,000 charities to have a voice and to speak out on behalf of the tens of thousands of members that they represent. But not the modern Liberal Party. Not the party of Menzies. This is an extreme right-wing, conservative agenda that we're seeing time in and time out, and this is the latest attack, through the charitable sector in Australia.

But I want to get to my other interest. We're seeing a collapse: the red tape that this government wants to introduce around charities. For those government members who are here, when you go back to your electorates, do a poll in your electorate for those people who donate to World Vision. Do a poll of those hardworking men and women who donate $4.80 a week to the charity of their choice—they may be sponsoring a child overseas. Your legislation, your changes that you're demanding that the Australian people support, will mean that the very people who donate $4.80 a week to World Vision will have to do paperwork of a declaration and have a JP or police officer sign that form each year. That's just for those people who want to donate to World Vision. That's what your legislation will deliver: an attack on free speech by those charities speaking out and criticising your government, and an increase in red tape.

The extreme Right has been speaking today in this debate. I want to ask them: what's changed that you're delivering this to the Australian charities sector and delivering the new commissioner, Gary Johns? There's only one answer to that. You want to stop freedom of speech and the attacks on your government. We see it time and time again. This is the quote from the new Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commissioner, Gary Johns. He said: 'There is a great deal of impure altruism in the charity business. On the donor side, there is some self-regard and some agenda chasing. On the charity side, there is agenda pushing and organisation enhancement. No set of rules could hope to create a clean market of pure motives and perfect outcomes.' That is the person that you want overseeing the charity sector. That quote says it all.

Well, I'm here to defend the charities in my electorate, those hardworking men and women who give up their time, selflessly delivering for the communities and for those right across the country. I know that, for the thousands of hours that people give up to volunteer their hard-earned time and money, they deserve much better than an attack on their organisations.

Gary Johns's appointment signals a major escalation in this government's war on charities. It shows that this government is beholden to the far Right of its party. There's absolutely no denying it. I thank the member for Fenner for putting this in the public arena, because the public deserve to know what the government wants to do to the charity sector. You can hide behind your words all you want; the charity sector and the thousands of people are on to you, and we will keep supporting them.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the opposition for raising this important issue. I don't get enough time to talk about charities in this chamber. They fulfil a vital role in our society and in our communities, helping everyone when they need a hand. I work very closely with a large number of charities, both local and national, and I consider many of their staff and volunteers to be friends. I'd like to think that, if any of them were feeling undermined, they would tell me. I have nothing but praise for those who work or volunteer with charities. They are the most selfless, kind and caring members of our communities.

I am very proud to have some excellent local charities in Bennelong, and I'm privileged to work very closely with them. Helen Crouch and her team at North Ryde Community Aid & Information Centre are wonderful contributors to the Ryde area. Every year my office and I take part in packing and delivering their Christmas hampers; it's a highlight of the year. I'm very proud to say that this is an immovable fixture in my calendar—hell, high water and even a by-election won't keep me away! This year my sisters Annette and Susan joined me, and we had a great time.

Heather Pinto and her dedicated people at Christian Community Aid are just as vital to the residents of Eastwood and Epping. CCA helps with services ranging from transport to child care. Particularly impressive are the language-assistance classes and support they offer, helping the many people from Eastwood with English as a second language to access the vital services they need. There are many more local groups like these in our community, providing essential support for many locals. Sadly, I do not have time to mention them all; there are just too many generous people in the electorate.

But Bennelong is also home to many other charities that don't just focus on helping locals, but extend their services more widely across the state or country. Our Stronger Communities Program grants have provided thousands of dollars across our communities, and much of it has been directed towards charities. We're aiming to give $43,000 to local charities in our latest batch of grants. In the last three weeks, I've had the pleasure of informing Jo-Anne Reeves of Parkinson's NSW that the government will be providing $20,000 to refurbish their community meeting rooms. I've also been able to tell Epilepsy Australia that we'll be giving them $10,000 to upgrade their IT so that they can reach more people touched by epilepsy. And Glyn Henman and Llew Morris of Young Life Australia will be getting $3,500 to help them engage with more young people and help them find their way in the world. We're also home to the excellent YouthSafe, run by the inimitable Warren Johnson. This group arranges training for our young people on how to stay safe in their daily lives, especially on and around our roads. Our road toll is too high, especially at this time of the year, so any work done in this area deserves all our support.

I'm also a particular fan of the follically focussed charities. For many years I've sported a moustache for Movember, and just before my recent enforced absence from this place I had my head shaved by the students of North Ryde Public School for the Leukaemia Foundation. Just before the shave, I walked 100 kilometres around my electorate to raise money and awareness for this great cause, while this small school raised more than any other school. I had also previously done a similar walk, and raised nearly $10,000 for Motor Neurone Disease Australia.

My time is almost up, but I'd also like to drop the names of Tanya Hall from hearts4heart, and Christine Nolan from Breast Cancer Network Australia. Both of these groups are dedicated to helping people with heart and cancer conditions, and I have been delighted to welcome both of these charities to this House in the last year, aiming to get more support for these causes.

That's a quick run-down of 10 charities that we're not undermining, and if I had time I would love to go on and mention all of the selfless Bennelongians who are helping others in our community. Thank you everyone in Bennelong and across Australia who give time, money and support to a charity. The work you do is essential, and we can never thank you enough.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has now concluded.