50th Anniversary of St Margaret's Uniting Church, Hackett
St Margaret's Uniting Church, 24 March 2014
On 7 December 1963 there appeared in the Canberra Times a notice of a new Presbyterian church and Sunday school to be meeting in Watson, Hackett and Woden. The first meeting of St Margaret's church occurred on 2 February 1964, and it was my great pleasure on 2 February 2014 with my son, Sebastian, to attend the 50th anniversary service for St Margaret's Uniting Church in Hackett. I acknowledge Reverends Kerry Bartlett and Brian Brown, John Goss and St Margaret's community for making us so welcome.
I commend to the House the publication reflecting on 50 years of St Margaret's Church, which tells the story of the church's evolution including the episode in the 1970s where is it notes:
'The appointment of a Methodist minister placed considerable stress on the understanding of cooperation between Presbyterians and Methodists.'
The church has done a great deal to build the local community through its Stepping Stones program, and through Ross Walker Lodge which received a grant through the nation building programs in the global financial crisis to provide housing for Canberrans with disabilities. I commend the St Margaret's community for a great 50 years achievement and the many more decades of achievement to come.
Putting Refugee Policy on a Bedrock of Decency
Let's put refugee policy on a bedrock of decency, The Drum, 24 March 2014
If there’s one point that unites people across the political spectrum, it is that the issue of refugees has not been well managed over recent years.
Refugees comprise just one-tenth of permanent migrants to Australia in the past decade. So refugees are not clogging our roads. But the asylum seeker conversation is clogging our migration policy debate, because it’s both controversial and complicated.
Australia takes 13,750 refugees a year, down from 20,000 under Labor. Globally, there are 11 million refugees. Add those who are internally displaced or stateless, and the United Nations High Commission on Refugees counts 39 million people on their list of ‘persons of concern’.
Among developed nations, there are two ways of taking refugees: the ‘knock on our door’ approach, and the ‘go to the UNHCR’ approach. Most developed countries follow the former principle. A few – notably Canada, the United States and Australia – work with the UNHCR. These three nations take nine in ten of those from UNHCR camps.
And then there are the drownings at sea. We will never be quite sure how many people died in the past decade coming to Australia by boat – but the figure probably exceeds 1000. About one in twenty asylum seekers who set out on the sea journey to Australia die on the way. Under Labor, the Refugee Resettlement Agreement with Papua New Guinea – and the previously unsuccessful agreement with Malaysia – were an attempt to close off the channel of refugees coming by sea.
The purpose was compassionate – to prevent events like the SIEV X disaster and the Christmas Island tragedy from ever happening again. But it is undeniable that the approach is harsh even when implemented well. And as recent events at the Manus Island detention centre illustrate, the policy has not been implemented well.
After participating in this debate closely for four years, I’ve come to the view that which approach you prefer depends on whether you think in categorical or utilitarian terms. Categorical reasoning, as you’ll recall, judges the morality of an individual act. Utilitarian reasoning looks at the greatest good for the greatest number. A categorical rule might say ‘never set fire to the Australian bush’. A utilitarian might judge it to be appropriate in a backburning operation.
In the asylum-seeker debate, many people of goodwill simply cannot get past the fact that a person who claims a well-founded fear of persecution comes to Australia and is turned away. This is the categorical approach.
Others of equal goodwill could not abide the approach that prevailed after the High Court struck down the Malaysia agreement – which led to refugees having a strong incentive to travel by boat to Christmas Island, rather than attempt to be processed by the UNHCR. Utilitarians argued that taking more onshore arrivals didn’t make us more generous. Unless you think we should have no cap on refugee arrivals, then for every additional person who arrives by boat, we end up taking one less person from a refugee camp. The utilitarian approach is to meet our refugee quota in the way that jeopardises the fewest lives.
In the asylum seeker debate, we can probably get further if we admit the truth in each other’s positions. Utilitarians should recognise that the Refugee Resettlement Agreement effectively sends away people who have come knocking at our door. Those who prefer the categorical approach should admit that their preferred policy would not achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.
In answering most problems, I tend to use utilitarian reasoning. That leads me to believe that we have to deter a sea journey with a one-in-twenty chance of death. At the same time, I think we should at the very least restore the annual intake of 20,00 refugees – taken almost exclusively out of UNHCR camps – and encourage other developed nations to join in this process. (It’s a mark of the prevalence of categorical reasoning in the asylum seeker debate that a one-third cut to Australia’s refugee intake has passed largely without comment.)
I also hope that the coming decade sees asylum seekers becoming less of a partisan issue. Over the past twenty years, Australia has seen Indigenous policy go from being used as a wedge issue in racially-charged elections to commanding bipartisan support. In the early-1990s, conservatives argued that native title would ‘destroy our society’, ‘break the economy and break up Australia’. Today, all politicians support Closing the Gap. I would like to see the same outbreak of bipartisan decency occur with asylum seeker policy.
A bipartisan approach to respecting the dignity of asylum seekers would mean never playing politics with the funerals of asylum seekers. No longer talking about ‘illegals’ engaged in a ‘peaceful invasion’. Not deploying the language of human rights in the service of a partisan agenda. Not making tear-choked over-my-dead-body declarations, and then dropping the issue after your side wins power.
Putting the dignity of refugees at the heart of the policy would also make it feasible for Australia to play a leadership role on the issue of asylum seekers. This means better regional cooperation, and exploring innovative solutions, such as the developed world financially supporting developing nations to take more refugees. To eschew creative thinking is to doom the silent millions in refugee camps worldwide to lives of hopelessness and unfulfilled potential.
Andrew Leigh is the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, and the federal member for Fraser. His website is www.andrewleigh.com. This is an edited extract from a speech delivered to the Lowy Institute.
TRANSCRIPT - Breaking Politics - Monday, 24 March 2014
ANDREW LEIGH MP
SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER
SHADOW MINISTER FOR COMPETITION
MEMBER FOR FRASER
E&OE TRANSCRIPTTELEVISION INTERVIEW
BREAKING POLITICS - FAIRFAX MEDIA
MONDAY, 24 MARCH 2014SUBJECT/S: Manus Island detention centre riot inquiries and Regional Resettlement Program; Labor minority government in South Australia; Paul Howes’ career; Australia becoming a Republic.
CHRIS HAMMER: The Papua New Guinean Government is looking to stymie a human rights into conditions at the Manus Island detention centre. This follows a tour of the centre last Friday by journalists led by the head of the inquiry. The Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, has defended the decision, saying it is a matter for the PNG Government. Well joining me to discuss this and other issues is Andrew Laming, Liberal Member for Bowman in Queensland and Andrew Leigh, the Labor Member for Fraser in the ACT, also Shadow Assistant Treasurer.
Andrew Leigh, to you first, Scott Morrison is right isn't he, this is purely a matter for the PNG Government?
ANDREW LEIGH, SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER: It's important that the Australian Government works constructively with the PNG Government and part of the refugee resettlement agreement was always that resettlement would occur as speedily as possible. What I'm concerned about is Minister Morrison's slowness to engage with Papua New Guinea; the fact that we know that he only spoke face to face with his PNG counterpart less than a month ago and the Government hasn't put resettlement at the top of its agenda. The events in the detention centre with the tragic death of an asylum seeker have led Labor to call for an independent inquiry and for a senate inquiry, both of which are now underway and it's really incumbent on the Government to begin that resettlement process as quickly as possible.
HAMMER: Andrew Laming, surely an investigation into the events of Manus Island are required?
ANDREW LAMING: There will definitely be investigations there occurring but I also respect Papua New Guinea's right to determine the kind of investigation that it holds. I've said before that Australia, by virtue of setting up this arrangement owes some sort of informal interest and responsibility here, even though we acknowledge it's completely within the borders and completely run by PNG itself. That is a rule of support that they seek but what they do within their own geography, their jurisdictional boundaries and their constitution is completely up to PNG.
HAMMER: Okay. Now, part of the agreement is resettling people who are found to be genuine refugees. Now that seems to be falling to bits to an extent, with PNG saying they won't take all those refugees and now there's a scramble on to find other Pacific countries to take refugees. So, Andrew Leigh, to you first. This was Labor's policy to begin with. It's starting to unravel isn't it?
LEIGH: It's vital that the Government focuses on making this work because we need that resettlement to occur for that resettlement agreement to stay in place and that resettlement agreement is the main factor in reducing the number of boat arrivals and reducing the number of drownings at sea. That was always why Labor put this into place, to stop people drowning at sea. If the Abbott Government doesn't work more effectively with the PNG Government then I've got concerns about the ongoing viability of the resettlement agreement. I'm also worried about the conditions inside the detention centre; the overcrowding, the riots we've seen recently. I don't feel as though the Abbott Government has given it sufficient attention. They've done very well with sloganeering in immigration but this is about the hard work of public policy to make this effective.
HAMMER: Andrew Laming, isn't this evidence that the Government in general, Scott Morrison in particular, hasn't run the relationships with the PNG Government that well so it's saying, hang on, we're only going to resettle some of these people?
LAMING: You can see that the urgent crowding out the important when Kevin Rudd rushed to get that signature on paper, Julia Gillard in fact to set up the camp on Manus. The hardest decisions are always about where to resettle or repatriate -
HAMMER: Hang on, you can't blame Labor for what's happening now?
LAMING: Oh, you certainly can blame them for a lack of agreement on where successfully identified refugees are placed. It's always the hardest decision to make. There is some history of regional players getting together to solve this problems and you can see that it was probably by Labor, left as the great unanswered question.
HAMMER: If they can't be resettled in PNG, where should they be resettled? Where in the Pacific?
LAMING: Clearly as we know there haven't been any determinations at all yet at Manus. I think that's a concern for all Australians. No one would wish long term detention who need to be processed. But when they are resettled PNG will have a key role, we know, because they're actually the domestic nation doing the processing but numbers haven't been decided. They'll be hard discussions between regional neighbours to find solutions. I'm optimistic that in the past, there are good hearted countries in the region and we'll be calling on them again I suspect.
HAMMER: If we can move onto the South Australian election. Now there'll be a Labor Government for another four years. Andrew Leigh, is this a poison chalice given that Labor's primary vote was so low, something like 30.8 per cent? It's in minority government. Isn't it a poisoned chalice?
LEIGH: I congratulate Jay Weatherill on his win. When Labor has the opportunity to form government in a stable manner we should do so and this appears a stable government going into the future. I've been a little disappointed to see the sort of petulance from people like Christopher Pyne who I think ought to be playing a more statesperson-like role rather than just engaging in all of the sledging of the now successful Weatherill Government.
HAMMER: But very difficult for Labor to claim a mandate there surely?
LEIGH: Forming government is about getting a majority of seats on the floor of parliament. Labor has successfully done that. What we need now is the for the Federal Government to step out of being just a bunch of Coalition barrackers to being the national government for all Australians, willing to work with states and territories regardless of the political complexion of their governments.
HAMMER: Andrew Laming, I saw you nodding your head there. Do you agree with that?
LAMING: Oh, they've won it fair and square. Let's be honest. They've won the most seats on the floor of the parliament. They've done a deal with an independent. My point is it will be a very sad four years. There will be no J-curve with Jay Weatherill. It will be all downhill. This a government that got one more term that it deserved and it has a history. This has been a truculent government as far has Indigenous affairs goes. APY Lands should be their number one focus and hasn't been and to be promising more to regional Australia is a little too late.
HAMMER: Does the Liberal Party there in South Australia need a good hard look at itself? I mean by rights, there will be a lot of people in the Liberal Party saying we should have been a shoe-in here.
LAMING: Steven Marshall is a top candidate for a future premier but in reality they lose too many seats by small margins in the cities and win regional seats by huge margins and this isn't good enough in a democracy to win government, and that's the reality.
HAMMER: So, not a problem with political leadership but with political party machine?
LAMING: No, it's just a geographic distribution issue. You've got one massive city of Adelaide and very little else as major centres go. That means we can look like we have more voters voting Coalition when in reality we can't pull those seats. It's a big challenge for South Australia and for the Coalition ahead.
HAMMER: On another subject gentlemen, Paul Howes is reportedly about to announce his resignation from the union movement. Andrew Leigh, is this a big loss to the wider Labor movement?
LEIGH: It's pretty extraordinary to see a 32-year-old hanging up his boots as a senior figure. It speaks to how young Paul was when he got involved in the union. And he's been very successful, not just for the AWU but also in being a spokesperson for the broader union movement. I think his National Press Club speech earlier this year was important calling for consensus: whether it's Andrew and me, or business and the union leaders, we all need to be putting national interest ahead of sectional interest.
HAMMER: Does it suggest he's lost his way or believes that Labor has lost its way, the union movement has lost its way?
LEIGH: I think he's just looking for a new challenge. He's spent quite a while now at the helm of the AWU and what a great position to be in. When I was Paul’s age I was just finishing university.
HAMMER: Andrew Laming?
LAMING: What perfect timing. If timing is everything in politics and public life, it's the perfect time to be walking away from the unions. Paul Howes can see that. We'll see more of him but not in this capacity as defending the past of Australia's union movement.
HAMMER: Why is it the perfect time to walk away?
LAMING: Well now, we're starting to reveal the reality, we're seeing in Victoria the CFMEU's actions making it almost impossible for Boral to lay any concrete in the entire state due to blacklisting. This is not the time to be defending Australia's union past. Well done Paul Howes, great timing. It's a great time to be leaving.
HAMMER: Now, another subject, let me take you back to last Thursday, the Government was under pressure heading into question time over the resignation of Arthur Sinodinos as Assistant Treasurer. The Prime Minister stood up and announced that there was new and incredible evidence regarding the disappearance of the Malaysian plane MH370. Was that appropriate statement that the Prime Minister gave to the House to speculate if you like about this debris in the Southern Ocean, the use of the Prime Ministerial office if you like [to] make a formal statement to parliament? Was that appropriate, Andrew Laming?
LAMING: Completely appropriate for the reasons that major nations are collaborating together and now Australia has firmly made it clear that they are a part of the search process. I would tend to agree with you that if nothing had been found from that incident but the emergence of Chinese satellite images showing wreckage or at least spots in the same locations suggests that a timely and early announcement rather than an isolated one that has let relatives down. I can't see any reason for suggestion that it was premature of inappropriate.
HAMMER: But, what would have happened if the Chinese satellite evidence, didn't emerge two or three days later? Would you be saying something different?
LAMING: We have now been proven that it is the most credible of evidence that is being pursued and that further enforces the Prime Ministers decision being a correct one.
HAMMER: Andrew Leigh, what is your view about the Prime Ministerial statement last Thursday?
LEIGH: I was a little surprised at the time, but I think it's a matter for the Prime Minister to respond to.
HAMMER: Okay, another issue. There is a report in today's Australian newspaper that Employment Minister Eric Abetz, or people from his office have asked bureaucrats, if you like, to massage projections of job creation figures. Andrew Leigh, are you concerned by this?
LEIGH: It's a brave public servant who stands up to a government that's cutting back the public service jobs in such a way and credit to the public servants who were willing to give frank and fearless advice to their minister. Minister Abetz has no right to be asking public servants to do forecasts in a way that suits his political desires. Australians deserve the most accurate forecasts, not the forecasts that best fit Liberal Party policies. The Liberal Party is of course concerned that it is not going to make its target of a million jobs over five years. It's now that 100,000 short. They have gotten into this kerfuffle because of what they did in the employment forecasting in the budget update last year which then has had the effect of making budget numbers look worse, but now also make it look as if they are not going to make their million job target.
HAMMER: Andrew Laming, this is no way to run a government is it?
LAMING: Well, I really, really love having a government which has a million jobs figure and a target. I mean this is what Australians care about, is just a single focus attention creating more jobs. When it comes to communicating with our public service, everyone knows that they won't be pushed around. Everyone knows that calls from advisors and ministerial officers are always tough and many times can be portrayed as being 'massaged' when they are not. My view is that it is about the jobs and not about the forecasts. Let's see how we go in the next few years.
HAMMER: Well isn't that the point though, that Australian community is not concerned with targets or forecasts. It's concerned about achievements and if cooking the books, if you like, is going to come back and bite you?
LAMING: Well, there'll be real jobs created. You can't cook books around job creation, that's got to be the focus. I accept that there has been some high profile examples of job losses in Australia. But remember every year that we create 650,000 jobs and lose half a million. There will be significant fluctuation. We have got a few years yet and I am looking forward to seeing those jobs numbers improve.
HAMMER: And you are confident of that one million job creation figure?
LAMING: I am very confident of achieving it and if you fall short by five percent I still think it is a fantastic achievement. So setting an ambitious goal is really important for a new government. I'm really glad they have.
HAMMING: Andrew Leigh, you know your way around economics and economic projections, is the a million job creation target a credible one?
LEIGH: Well, we managed it through the Global Financial Crisis, so this is not a high bar for the government to set for itself. A million jobs without a global financial crisis ought to be a walk in the park, if Labor could do it with a Global Financial Crisis. But at the moment they're tracking below projections. They're a hundred thousand jobs short of where they need to be in order to get to a million jobs. Like Andrew, I really hope they get there.
HAMMING: Okay, just finally, later today both of you gentlemen will be speaking on a motion before the parliament on Australia becoming a republic. Why that issue and why now? Andrew Laming, I will pass over to you first.
LAMING: Well I was hoping Andrew would kick this one off because it is his motion.
HAMMER: Oh, okay, sorry. Yes, absolutely.
LEIGH: Very happy to. It has been nearly 15 years now since we had the republican referendum and at the time we were told that if that referendum went down that another model for a republic would come back up. But the 'don't know, vote no' forces have ensured that we haven't had a chance to debate that republic. Now I was delighted when Will and Kate welcomed their new baby into the world. But today about 600 Australians will welcome their own new babies into the world. I actually think that those 600 babies are better deserving to be the Australian head of state than the child of Will and Kate.
HAMMER: Andrew Laming?
LAMING: Well, I don't rate this as a top 10 issue for Australia, I concede that. But I also think that there are times where you have to cross the political divide, be able to debate and discuss what potentially Australia will potentially look like ten or twenty years down the track. I am a strong supporter of the republic and I think it was a good moment for me to support Andrew's motion to re-prosecute some of those ideas, even though they may not be fashionable at the moment. And finally, my sense is that Australia can still be a great nation with minor changes to the constitution that will allow us to have an Australian head of state.
HAMMER: Do you detect any movement on this issue say within the Coalition Government, because that's where the major opponents to a republic reside?
LAMING: No, I see a real focus on delivering on election commitments, so unfortunately not. But it's never a bad time to discuss the issue like a republic versus a monarchy. That's going to happen today.
HAMMER: Okay, gentlemen, many topics covered this morning. Thank you for your time.
LEIGH: And bipartisanship at the end.
HAMMER: Very good.
LEIGH: Thank you.
An Australian Republic
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.
Sky AM Agenda - 24 March 2014
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
They know what they're against, but what are they for?
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
ABC NewsRadio - 21 March 2014
Donors & Charities Say: Keep the ACNC
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.
DOORSTOP Transcript - Thursday, 20 March 2014
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
