Andrew Leigh

I moved a motion in parliament today calling on the government to put the Republic back on the agenda.

Private Member's Motion - An Australian Republic, 24 March 2014


Dr Leigh: To move—That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) prior to the 1999 referendum to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, many opponents (including monarchists and direct electionists) fomented the expectation that if the vote were defeated, another referendum would be put within a few years;

(b) 14 years on, public support for Australia becoming a republic remains solid; and

(c) Australian engagement with Asia has strengthened, with the former government’s White Paper on Australia in the Asian Century reminding us that our future lies in our region; and

(2) calls upon the Parliament to make it a priority to hold a referendum to alter the Constitution to establish the Co mmonwealth of Australia as a republic, so that every Australian child can aspire to be our Head of State.

* * * * *

“Breathes there a man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said;
This is my own, my native land.”

These fine words from Walter Scott have never been uttered by any Australian Head of State about Australia. Under our Constitution, they never could be uttered.

That is because - while no British citizen can ever be Australia’s Head of Government - only a British citizen can ever be Australia’s Head of State.

In 1999, Australia held a referendum. It was a three-cornered contest between bipartisan parliamentary appointment Republicans, direct election Republicans and Monarchists.

As the Member for Wentworth has pointed out, the monarchists ‘delightedly, if cynically, exploited the division by promising the direct electionists that if the parliamentary model was defeated at a referendum they could have another referendum on a direct election model within a few years’.

We have waited half a generation since then.

Some counsel patience. They argue that the push for an Australian as Head of State should wait until King Charles III ascends the throne.

This fundamentally misunderstands the argument for an Australian Republic. Our quibble is not with Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles and their heirs and successors. Each of these individuals has done their jobs diligently.

Indeed, a belief in the Republic does not lessen our respect for them as individuals. In 2012, when Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall visited Canberra, I was pleased to welcome them on the tarmac of Canberra airport, wearing my Australian Republican Movement cufflinks. Respect and politeness for the royal family sits alongside my passionate belief that Australia should have one of our own as head of state.

Last year, Prince William and Kate Middleton welcomed their baby George into the world, and today, at least 800 babies will be born in Australia. I congratulate William, Kate and all their parents. To be a parent is one of the greatest blessings we can receive.

But I cannot for the life of me see why Baby George is better suited than every Australian baby to grow up to be an Australian head of state. The 800 children born in Australia will grow up around gumtrees and sandy beaches. They will call their friends ‘mate’ and barrack for the Baggy Greens, the Wallabies and the Socceroos. Their success in life will not be decided by their surname. If they say they live in a castle, it’ll be because they’re quoting Darryl Kerrigan.

In short, those 800 babies born today will be Australians.  And every one of them should be able to aspire to be our head of state.

Those who disagree with this view sometimes claim that the Governor-General is the head of state.  At best, a contentious, strained protestation. As members of the Parliament of the Australian Commonwealth of States, we all swore or affirmed our allegiance to the Queen, not to the Governor-General.

At state dinners visiting Heads of State toast the Queen of Australia. Her image is on our currency. Australian Government websites say: ‘Australia’s Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II.’

The slogan ‘Don’t know? Vote no’ has never been more powerful in Australian public life. The Prime Minister used it when he was campaigning for the monarchy in 1999, and has deployed it relentlessly in recent years, including against a market-based solution to climate change, fibre to the home broadband, and fiscal stimulus to save jobs.

It is a seductively simple line, but one that is more dangerous than ever as Australia grapples with complex challenges.

In the Asian Century, how do we think it looks to our Indonesian, Chinese, Korean and Japanese friends that we cannot shrug off the anachronism of having a member of the house of Windsor as our head of state? How does it sit with our claimed belief in the ‘fair go’ when the qualification to be our head of state is that one must be British, white and preferably male? Is this really the image we want to project?

Through this motion, I call upon the parliament to make it a priority to hold a referendum to make Australia a Republic.

In so doing, we’ll make it clear to ourselves and the world that instead of a foreign child in a foreign land, Australians trust an Australian child to grow up and be an Australian Head of State. Such a child will be more appropriate for us, more representative of us and more worthy of us ­– a child who knows their own, native land in their living, Australian soul.

Thanks to Taimus Werner-Gibbings for his assistance in drafting my speech.

On Sky AM Agenda, I joined Liberal MP Steve Ciobo and host Kieran Gilbert to discuss Labor's win in the South Australian election, the Abbott Government's attempt to fiddle the jobs forecasts and Paul Howes' rumoured resignation as AWU head.http://www.youtube.com/v/z9mvIIYlzhw?version=3&hl=en_US

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION

MEMBER FOR FRASER

MEDIA RELEASE

KEVIN ANDREWS KNOWS WHAT HE’S AGAINST, BUT NOT WHAT HE’S FOR

The Social Services Minister - determined to reject the views of the charities sector and trash the Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission (ACNC) - has no plan for the sector.

Minister Kevin Andrews’ Bill reads like a media alert more than a serious piece of legislation.

The ACNC Repeal Bill (Part 1) offers no transitional arrangements for a sector that employs a million people. There are no details of a successor agency.

This is a purely symbolic gesture, added to by the fact that debate on the Bill won’t take place this coming week as expected.

The Explanatory Memorandum states this Bill “will not take effect until the enactment of a later Bill, which will provide the details of the arrangements replacing the Commission".

Alarmingly, the Minister gives himself the power to determine the successor agency without parliamentary approval. If the Minister won’t trust the public with his plans, why should parliament entrust him with the power to do as he wishes?

The Bill does nothing but create greater uncertainty for a pivotal sector at the heart of our communities.

The Minister appears without vision or heart for the charities that work for Australia’s vulnerable. There are nearly 60,000 charities registered with the ACNC.

Four of out five charities surveyed want to keep the ACNC. These include Save the Children, St John Ambulance Australia, the Ted Noffs Foundation, RSPCA, The Sidney Myer Fund & the Myer Foundation, Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Volunteering Australia, Lifeline, ACOSS, SANE Australia, Musica Viva Australia, Hillsong Church, Social Ventures Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, the YMCA, the Wesley Mission and the Queensland Theatre Company.

The explanatory memorandum says the ACNC was established to be a single reporting point for charities and claims that this “has not eventuated”.  But in just over a year, the agency has won strong support in the sector, and its red tape reduction directorate is working on reducing unnecessary reporting by charities.

The Government claims to be reducing red tape. But abolishing the ACNC will increase the red tape burden on charities.

SUNDAY, 23 MARCH 2014

On ABC NewsRadio, I spoke about the impact of Coalition cuts on the Treasury, as highlighted by Martin Parkinson's recent speech. Here's a podcast.

I led off today in the Matter of Public Importance debate, speaking about the value of keeping the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission.

Matter of Public Importance - Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, 20 March 2014

Yesterday, in this House, the Leader of the House said as follows:

‘There will be a single national database for university reporting, so government departments will coordinate with each other rather than putting that burden of coordination on the university sector.’

A single national database to allow coordination. But remove the word 'university' and insert the word 'charity 'and you have exactly what the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission does.

It is a one-stop shop. This is a government that approves of one-stop shops when it comes to environmental approvals but when it comes to a one-stop shop for charities they are suddenly against it. When it comes to one-stop shops this government is all over the shop. The charities commission is a body that could not enjoy wider support from across the charity sector. A wide range of charities, more than 40, have signed an open letter to save the charity commission. They include: Save the Children, St John Ambulance Australia, the Ted Noffs Foundation, RSPCA, The Sidney Myer Fund & the Myer Foundation, Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Volunteering Australia, Lifeline, ACOSS, SANE Australia, Musica Viva Australia, Hillsong Church, Social Ventures Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, the YMCA, the Wesley Mission and the Queensland Theatre Company. What else could bring all of these organisations together from across the political spectrum but the Abbott government?

The Abbott government said it would bring Australians together—and it has. They are united in opposition to what this government is doing. This government wants to get rid of a charities commission, about which Tim Costello said:

‘The commission is actually working for us, and it gives the public confidence. It underpins the consumer benefit to charities.’

Myles McGregor Lowndes, of the Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies said:

‘During its short history, the ACNC has played a positive role in the overall regulatory environment of charities.’

Indeed, he describes:

‘Its stellar improvement in terms of timeliness, consistency of decision making and responsiveness…’

Carolyn Kitto of Stop the Traffik said:

‘The ACNC is a dream come true for small charities…The ACNC has cut red tape dramatically. The staff are helpful and navigate complexities so we can be sure we are compliant and efficient.’

David Crosbie, CEO of the Community Council of Australia said:

‘The ACNC is more efficient than the government regulators it replaced, is doing good work and deserves a chance to achieve its three goals of reducing red tape, increasing public trust and strengthening the charity sector.’

Louise Walsh from Philanthropy Australia says:

‘Since the ACNC’s establishment as an independent charities regulator, Philanthropy Australia has consistently supported the ACNC’s important role in our community.’

We also heard strong support yesterday from Anglicare Australia, which said:

‘The repeal of the ACNC will simply recreate more bureaucracy, lessen protection for the public and add unnecessarily to the workload of community service providers. It will also create uncertainty as there is no clear replacement. Uncertainty is the biggest enemy of efficiency, as big business tells us.’

The matter of public importance before the House goes in particular to the impact on Western Australia. Professor David Gilchrist, the Director of the Not-for-profit Initiative at Western Australia's Curtin University, spoke to my office today and said:

‘A silent majority in Western Australia think the ACNC is the way forward. Regulation is only part of what it offers.

‘Its best practice governance principles have been very well accepted. It has provided the sector with a good set of financial principles that allow for differences between charities. It recognises that the WA sector is every bit as complex as any other sector.

‘Removing the ACNC without a fair trial and without leveraging the hard work of the commission in recent months would be a mistake.’

That is what David Gilchrist of the Not-for-profit Initiative at Curtin University said.

A pro bono survey in August 2013 of 1,500 charities found that 81 per cent supported the ACNC. What share supported the government's preferred solution of returning charities regulation to the ATO? Just six per cent. The National Party gets more votes than that! There is more support for the Australian Greens and the National Party than there is for this government's approach of returning charitable regulation to the Australian Taxation Office.

This is a serious sector. The not-for-profit sector employs one million Australians, turns over $100 billion and involves five million volunteers. It is at the heart of our community and many of us in this place take pride in the work of the not-for-profit sector. But if we want a strong not-for-profit sector we have to listen to what expert reviews have said. No less than five reviews, including the Productivity Commission review and the Henry tax review, have said we need a national charities commission. That is because without a charities commission there is a hodgepodge of regulation which puts donors at risk and does not allow charities their own bespoke regulator.

This government is driven not by expert advice, not by listening to five inquiries and not by listening to the four in five charities that want to keep the ACNC; instead, it is driven by blind ideology. There is no better evidence of that than the attempt by the minister in charge of abolishing the charities commission to hang onto a 400-year-old common-law definition of charities rather than a new statutory definition. John Howard back in 2000 said that this statutory definition would be a good idea. Mr Howard said:

‘Yet the common law definition of a charity, which is based on a legal concept dating back to 1601, has resulted in a number of legal definitions and often gives rise to legal disputes.’

This government is a pre-Howard era government in its approach to charities. It wants to take us back to 1601. In fact, not only it is pre-Howard but it is pre-Protestant, pre-Enlightenment, pre-electric lights and pre-steam engines. When it comes to charities, this government would take us back to the time of leeches and witch burning. That is its view of charities. Its view of charities is that they should be seen and not heard. It wants the Australian charity sector to be simply a service delivery arm of government. That is why the Minister for Social Services is taking carriage of this and not the Assistant Treasurer—that was at the time when we had an Assistant Treasurer!

Labor's view is that charities play an important role in the Australian community sector and they should be free to speak their minds. Brave charities have spoken their minds. You have to be a pretty bold charity to put your head above the parapet with this government, knowing their willingness to play favourites and to have a go at charities that are of a mind to speak in the public interest rather than simply look at where their next dollar is coming from. We have seen charities, from ACOSS to the age sector, saying that this is a bad idea and that, if this change goes through, it will be utterly retrograde. Charitable donors will be at risk. They will be placed at risk from scam artists. If you are opening your door to a charity, you want to know that there is a charities commission standing ready to take complaints against the thankfully small number of dodgy charities. If we do not have that then we are not going to have the backstop that the sector requires. This approach would be like the coalition saying to financial investors: 'Let's get rid of ASIC. We'll be okay without the Securities and Investments Commission. Let's just let the market rip.'

Mr Bowen interjecting—

Dr LEIGH:  The shadow Treasurer said perhaps I should not suggest that. You never know what this government will do. This is, after all, a government that is going further in the area of removing protections on consumers than the Financial Planning Association would want. This government should listen to donors, should listen to charities, should listen to philanthropists and should keep the ACNC.

With legislation going before the House of Representatives yesterday to repeal the charities commission, this morning I spoke to reporters in the Press Gallery to defend the important work of the ACNC.  Here's the transcript:

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
DOORSTOP INTERVIEW

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

THURSDAY, 20 MARCH 2013



SUBJECT/S: Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission; FOFA and Arthur Sinodinos; Qantas sale.

ANDREW LEIGH, SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER: Amidst their so-called 'Repeal Day' the Coalition brought forward the repeal of the Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission. I say brought forward because the Coalition promised consultation: a consultation paper in February and extensive discussions with the sector. We haven't seen any of that and that's why more than 40 charities signed an open letter to the Government calling on them to rethink the scrapping of the charities commission.

The charities commission is important for donors who are vulnerable to door-to-door scams, if there isn't an agency to report them to. It's vital to the sector which appreciates the work the charities commission does. That's why organisations as diverse as Save the Children, Lifeline, Hillsong Church, the RSPCA, and the Myer Foundation are calling on the Government to trash their laws to get rid of the charities commission and to hang on an organisation that's supported by the sector.

I've heard people say the sector is split on this. It’s true. The sector is split on this. Four out of five charities support the charities commission. 94 per cent want the responsibilities to stay with the charities commission. Six per cent want them to go back to the tax office. So if the Government didn't have a tin ear for consultation and if this process wasn't being led by a Minister who's much more driven by ideology than good public policy then they wouldn't be pursuing this at all. They ought to put it aside and if they're serious about scrapping red tape, hang on to a one-stop shop that's working to reduce red tape for charities.

I'm happy to take questions.

JOURNALIST: Why shouldn't that be the responsibility of the ATO?

LEIGH: Well, it was the responsibility of the ATO for some time and then a Productivity Commission inquiry and the Henry Tax Review recommended that having a one-stop shop for charities was a smarter approach. I haven't heard anyone say a bad word about Susan Pascoe who runs the ACNC.

Many charities have spoken to me about how much they appreciate an agency that gets their sector, that understand their complexities. Let's face it, if you're in danger of being ripped off by one of the thankfully, very few scammers going door to door, posing as charities, then you want an ACNC, just as corporate investors want an organisation like ASIC looking after their interests.

JOURNALIST: Unions are in town today. They concede that if Qantas can make a guarantee about Australian jobs they might be supportive of the Qantas Sale Act. Is Labor of a similar frame of mind?

LEIGH: Labor hasn't changed our view. We don't believe the Flying Kangaroo should be sold off.

JOURNALIST: There's no wriggle room, no room for negotiations in this?

LEIGH: We're certainly open to conversations around the Government providing a debt guarantee. But our view is that the Flying Kangaroo should not be sold off to overseas interests and I think that's a view that broadly shared in the Australian community. Certainly in my street stalls and conversations in the community, I don't have many people come out to me saying the real public policy problem in Australia is that Labor won't agree to sell off Qantas to foreign interests.

JOURNALIST: Dr Leigh, is the Labor Party taking the same approach that Tony Abbott did in Opposition? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

LEIGH: Well in this case, we're saying yes to positive reforms. The charities commission is a reform which is broadly supported by the Australian community and the naysaying approach, the back-to-the-future approach is to say let's throw it to one side and go back to the hodgepodge of regulation that we had. We're taking a positive approach.

We believe that the charities commission is the right thing. On the Future of Financial Advice. We're again taking a positive approach and we're standing on the side of consumers rather than on the sides of a couple of vested interests in the planning industry who are saying they want to get rid of the best interest test.

JOURNALIST: This case of a $200,000 donation to Kevin Rudd, this seems pretty curious. What's going on there?

LEIGH: I don't know any more about that than you. I'm sure the Queensland branch of the Labor Party will do the right thing.

JOURNALIST: Would you agree that Arthur Sinodinos was seen as one of the good guys in this place?

LEIGH: Arthur Sinodinos stepping down is a matter for him. The question, that I think it now highlights is whether or not the Government ought to be rushing through financial planning legislation that is opposed not only by consumer groups but also by the Financial Planning Association. It's a pretty unique configuration, to annoy both consumers and financial planners. Given that Senator Sinodinos is no longer having carriage of that I think it would be appropriate to pull that legislation from the parliament.

JOURNALIST: Wouldn't Labor be happy that it’s claimed its first ministerial scalp from the Abbott Government?

LEIGH: Our focus is on getting good public policy. I think that as a result of Senator Sinodinos stepping down we need to now look to whether it's really appropriate for the Government to be rushing ahead with these anti-consumer changes to the financial planning legislation. Thanks everyone.

JOURNALIST: Thank you.

ENDS

On 19 March, I joined PVO on Sky to discuss the resignation of Senator Arthur Sinodinos, and its implications for the government's anti-consumer financial changes and its anti-charity ACNC changes.

The Daily Telegraph today publishes an extract from my population speech at the Lowy Institute.

Don't be scared, let's populate and prosper, Daily Telegraph, 20 March 2014

If there’s one thing that’s really big in the population size debate, it’s the size of the scare campaigns made by both sides. One side tells us that a big Australia is a ‘catastrophe’, while the other says that slow population growth will hurt share prices and drive up debt.

Australians comprise just one in 300 of the world’s population. We have the third-lowest population density of any country. Only Mongolia and Namibia have fewer people per hectare than Australia. Yet we also have one of the highest urbanisation rates. Nearly nine in ten Australians live in urban areas.

An unusual feature of the Australia’s population debate is how much it is sparked by population projections. This is especially odd given the record of past projections. In 1888, the Daily Telegraph predicted that the population in 1988 would be 60 million. The Australian Treasury recently updated its population forecast for the 2040s from 26 million to 35 million.

And while you might think that the government has two population levers: one marked ‘more babies’ and one marked ‘more migrants’, only one of them really works. Government can control migration, but its policies have little impact on whether or not people have babies. So the population debate is really a migration debate.

In the debate over a larger Australia, there are dud arguments on both sides.

Advocates of more migration argue that size will reduce the per-person cost of government, and give us much additional heft on the global stage. I don’t think there’s much evidence for either of these.

But it does seem likely it will get us better cultural goods, such as international sporting events and great entertainers. If you want to host a World Cup or attract the world’s best musicians, size helps.

Perhaps the best argument for a larger population is that it means more entrepreneurs. One channel for this is simply scale: if extraordinary people like Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs are one in a million, then it follows that they are also an argument for another million people. Innovators may also be over-represented among migrants. Some evidence suggests that bilingualism raises intelligence, and a global outlook is good for business (half of Australia’s exporters are foreign-born).

How about the claimed costs of migration?

It is often said that a larger population will mean more traffic congestion. Over the past decade, Sydney’s population has grown by 12 percent, while commuting times have grown by 4 percent. And yet while gridlock is one of the most serious problems faced by Sydneysiders today, the best way to address it is through good city planning and economically sensible policies, not population control. Even if we stopped all population growth tomorrow, cars would still become cheaper to buy and use. We should tackle congestion efficiently and directly, not via population policies that could harm Australia in other ways.

A similar argument applies to house prices, where the best approach is to focus directly on housing affordability, by removing unnecessary supply constraints, and ensuring that housing policies are as effective as possible. Even if we adopted a zero population growth strategy, rising incomes and higher marriage ages would still drive up the demand for housing, creating a good argument for getting housing policies right. Likewise for the natural environment, where market-based policies can do far more than population control to address the challenges of water supply and climate change.

Population growth has the potential to get us things we cannot obtain in other ways: better cultural goods and a more productive, more entrepreneurial culture. A larger nation has more mouths, but also more minds. Size has potential costs, but economics teaches us that these are best addressed by good policies to reduce congestion, increase housing supply and protect the environment.

Over the past decade, three in ten permanent immigrants have been family reunion, six in ten have been skilled migrants, and one in ten have been refugees. Skilled migrants are more likely to compete with high-wage workers, making the Australian immigration system quite different from the US immigration system. Some evidence suggests that the Australian skilled migration system reduces inequality.

The skilled migration system can surely be improved – for example, through harmonising occupational requirements with source countries, or better exchanging data on applicants’ labour market history. But overall, it should be a source of pride.

Skilled migration will remain the largest component of our permanent migration program, and it is vital that we don’t just focus on ‘how many?’, but also on ‘who?’. If we want to have a healthy migration debate, then ensuring that our migrant mix reflects our national values and priorities matters more than fretting about the next set of demographic projections.

Andrew Leigh is the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, and his website is www.andrewleigh.com. This is an edited extract of a speech delivered at the Lowy Institute.

In today's Australian, I have an op-ed arguing that the government should keep the charities commission.

Scrap Charities Register, and Say Goodbye to Giving, The Australian, 20 March 2014

When doorknockers with a children’s education charity Care4Kids rang the doorbell of homes across Melbourne and Sydney, they got a warm reception.

Nearly a million dollars was raised for ‘work helping children with cancer, leukaemia, other illnesses and learning disabilities whose education has been compromised’.

But there have been questions raised about exactly how the money raised by the charity actually benefited children at risk; the people it was intended to help. There is little information to show exactly where the money went.

Alas, this is not an isolated incident. Formed at the end of 2012, the independent Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) received 202 complaints in its first year, including 48 for fraud or criminal activity.

This goes to show just how important a well regulated charitable sector is. In the same way that ASIC provides investors with the confidence they need to buy shares in companies, the ACNC provides donors with the confidence that registered charities are actually performing charitable works.

It is not only the direct victims of fraud who suffer when a charity defrauds donors, it is the charitable sector as a whole. For every story you hear about a dodgy charity, you’ll be just that little bit less likely to donate to the volunteers who rattle tins for the Salvos or Surf Life Savers.

Anything that leads Australians to give less is a tragedy. The inexcusable actions of a few dodgy organisations are being allowed to undermine the fantastic work undertaken every day by the huge majority of Australian charities.

This is one of the key reasons why the former Labor Government established the ACNC in 2012 after an extensive period of consultation. It was recommended by the Productivity Commission and the Henry Tax Review, and supported by the charity sector.

The ACNC helps charities strengthen their transparency and accountability so the public can have confidence in the sector and the good work they do.

It does this by making charities and not-for-profits visible with a national register of charities. The register is a major weapon against scammers taking advantage of your goodwill. If donors are worried about whether a charity is legitimate or not, they can simply carry out a free check of the ACNC’s register: an online database nearly 60,000 charities. The register contains information such as a charity’s tax status and where it is based. In coming months the register will contain more information about charities, including their activities and financials.

The ACNC also helps our charities with governance, legal training and advice. Many charities have told me how much they appreciate the ACNC’s friendly approach and expertise.

The ACNC will reduce the duplication that can arise in a federal system. Thanks to the ACNC, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia have said that they will exempt nationally registered charities from also having to register in their jurisdictions. Other states would do well to follow. Our reforms make it much simpler for charities to run their organisation – so they can spend less time filling out forms, and more time in the community.

The ACNC is administering a Charity Passport underpinned by a ‘report-once, use-often’ reporting framework. Charities that work with different government departments will find it easier to do their reporting thanks to the Charity Passport. Scrap the ACNC, and you lose the Charity Passport.

Every day, we hear the Abbott Government claiming to be cutting red tape. Yet ironically, scrapping the ACNC means abolishing its red tape reduction directorate – the very people in charge of reducing regulatory burdens on the charitable sector.

The Abbott Government is heading up a very small minority of critics of the ACNC. According to a recent survey, four out of five charities support the work the ACNC is doing.

Over 40 charities, including the RSPCA, Lifeline and the Hillsong Church, have signed on to an open letter to keep the ACNC. As World Vision’s Tim Costello notes, the ACNC ‘underpins the consumer benefit to charities.’ Carolyn Kitto of anti-slavery charity Stop the Traffik calls it ‘a dream come true for small charities’, and points out that the ACNC ‘has cut the red tape dramatically’ for her organisation.

As the Community Council of Australia has warned, abolishing the ACNC would be a sign that the government is not interested in the views of the charity sector. It would harm charities, who will lose visibility and governance support. And it would be bad for the public who will be more exposed to fraud and scams.

Published in The Australian

This morning I issued a media release arguing that the axing of the the Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission would be a mistake. The Government's repeal package is now before the parliament with a lot at stake for donors, consumers and charities. Today some of Australia’s best-known charities signed an open letter urging Tony Abbott to abandon plans to scrap the national regulator.

ANDREW LEIGH MP

SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER

SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION

MEMBER FOR FRASER



MEDIA RELEASE

CLUELESS COALITION TO CHOP CHARITIES COMMISSION

Federal Labor will continue to support the charity and not for profit sector and oppose any government attempts to repeal the Australian Charities and Not For Profit Commission (ACNC).

Today, in an open letter to the Prime Minister, 40 organisations say if the ACNC is shut down and the ATO is reinstated to determine who is and isn't a charity, "red tape will continue to grow, the size of bureaucracy will grow. Services to the public will be reduced. Services to the sector will be reduced." Signatories include Save the Children, St. John Ambulance Australia, The Ted Noffs Foundation, RSPCA, the Myer Family Company, Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, Volunteering Australia, Lifeline and many others.

The Abbott Government will sneakily include the ACNC in its so called ''repeal day'' package.

In the week that the Government claims to be cutting red tape, it’s looking to kill an agency that does reduce red tape.

Testimony from sector players and experts speaks volumes:

“The commission is actually working for us and it gives the public confidence, it underpins the consumer benefit to charities.''

-      Tim Costello AO, World Vision Australia CEO, Fairfax Media, 1 September 2013



“During its short history, the ACNC has played a positive role in the overall regulatory environment of charities, and it is well-placed to continue that role. In the short term, it provides the infrastructure for a ‘one stop shop’ for Commonwealth regulatory requirements, and a dedicated force to work with other Commonwealth agencies to streamline their present arrangements. Its stellar improvement in terms of timeliness, consistency of decision making and responsiveness to emerging issues of previous ATO functions, surpasses the sector’s original high expectations.”

-      Professor OAM Myles McGregor-Lowndes, Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, QUT, ACNC Guest Editorial, 25 February, 2014



“The ACNC is a dream come true for small charities. We don’t have the range of expertise needed to manage the ATO and ASIC and we don’t have the time to do compliance for many different groups nor can we easily stay on top of changes in regulations. The ACNC has cut the red tape dramatically. The staff are helpful and navigate complexities so we are sure we are compliant and efficient.”

-      Carolyn Kitto, Australia Coordinator STOP THE TRAFFIK, 6 February, 2014

“The ACNC is more efficient than the government regulators it replaced, is doing good work and deserves a chance to achieve its three goals of reducing red tape, increasing public trust and strengthening the charities sector… Axing the ACNC would be a very clear sign that government is not interested in the considered views of the charities sector.”

-      David Crosbie, chief executive of the Community Council for Australia, Opinion, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 February, 2014

“Since the ACNC’s establishment as an independent charities regulator, Philanthropy Australia has consistently supported the ACNC’s important role in our community. The ACNC has only existed for just over a year – so far the progress is promising and we want it to be given the opportunity to realise its full potential.”

-      Louise Walsh, Philanthropy Australia CEO, Pro Bono News, 6 February 2014

In August 2013, a Pro Bono survey of over 1500 members of the not-for-profit sector found that 81% supported the ACNC.  Only 6% of survey respondents in the charitable sector supported a return to the ATO as the default regulator (which is what the Abbott Government advocates).

The not-for-profit sector employs over 1 million Australians, turns over around $100 billion, involves almost 5 million volunteers, and is at the heart of all our communities.

The Productivity Commission and the Henry Tax Review recommended a national charities commission.

The Productivity Commission declared the previous regulatory framework to be complex, lacking coherence and transparency and costly to charities.

Abolishing the ACNC is an insult to taxpayers who want to see where their donations go. It’s an insult to charities who will lose visibility and governance support. It’s bad for the public who will be more vulnerable to fraud and scams.

ENDS

WEDNESDAY, 19 MARCH 2014