nickng

COVID-19, charities and misplaced stimulus

News

COVID-19, charities and misplaced stimulus

The news is all about coronavirus. But, what does this mean for charities, asks CCA CEO David Crosbie writing in Pro Bono News.

COVID-19, charities and misplaced stimulus, Pro Bono News, 5 March 2020 

I think it is important to start any discussion about coronavirus with a little perspective.

Each year in Australia, influenza kills on average 3,500 people. The best predictor of who is susceptible is age – 3,000 of these deaths are people aged over 50. Death rates for influenza in Australia are below 0.2 per cent of people who contract the disease. Estimates suggest close to half a million people die each year from influenza worldwide. 

The last global pandemic – the H1N1 or swine flu – resulted in around 19,000 hospitalisations and 200 deaths in Australia. It is estimated that one in five people worldwide contracted swine flu and the death rate was 0.02 per cent (less in Australia). 

Coronavirus (properly known as COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2) has so far resulted in one death in Australia and less than 20 hospitalisations. Reports indicate COVID-19 is more deadly than influenza – early estimates suggest death rates from COVID-19 are close to 1 per cent. This may change over time as it is likely that many people with COVID-19 only experience mild symptoms not requiring any medical intervention and are therefore not counted in the statistics. Many experts believe it is now inevitable that COVID-19 will continue to increase in prevalence. Although many of us may eventually contract COVID-19, most of us will experience relatively minor symptoms. As with influenza, the most susceptible to COVID-19 are the elderly. 

These alarming statistics about influenza (a death rate higher than our road toll) are exactly the reason governments and health experts are so concerned about COVID-19. No-one wants a disease equivalent to influenza spreading widely in our communities, even if most of us will only experience mild symptoms. Clearly, preventative measures are warranted and the likely increase in the disease will place increased pressure on our health services, so we need our health system to be prepared as best it can. This does not mean everyone stocking up on toilet paper.

While health and wellbeing are important for all of us, in practice Australian charities are most likely to experience the effect of COVID-19 more in relation to its impact on our economy than our health. 

“If cuts are made to support a business stimulus package it is the poorest that are likely to face a reduction in government support.”

The cumulative impact of bushfires and COVID-19 means an already brittle economy is now facing the very real possibility of a recession – two quarters in a row with negative GDP growth. The loss of economic activity (tourism, international trade, etc.) will translate into a loss of government revenue at exactly the time when governments need to stimulate investment and job creation to maintain growth.

History suggests governments look to business incentives and tax cuts to drive increases in economic activity, while at the same time seeking to make as many cuts to their expenditure as possible. This approach would not be good news for charities.

In a more evidence-based world, governments might recognise the economic benefits of providing increased spending power to the poorest in our community, significantly raise Newstart, and boost the funding of charities. It should be noted here that charities are more likely to use increased funding to employ people, unlike business where government incentives may well be used to deliver increased dividends for company owners. 

If cuts are made to support a business stimulus package it is the poorest that are likely to face a reduction in government support, and it is charities that will likely face a reduction in the government funding available to support their programs and services.

Many charities are already doing it tough. In some cases, charities have been waiting over a year for promised government funding. Some areas of government funding have already become so competitive and uncertain that charities relying on government support no longer feel confident in offering ongoing employment contracts. Casualisation of the charity workforce is increasing. Charities trade in trust. The casualisation of staff can reduce the opportunities for organisations to develop strong ongoing relationships with their communities.

What governments have repeatedly failed to recognise or accept is that the charities sector is the biggest employer in the country with over 1.3 million people employed across the sector. Any boost in the activity of charities not only provides more employment, it also delivers real community benefit through increased community support and activity. 

Even within the government’s short-term stimulus frame of reference, there are many opportunities to provide leveraged community benefit as well as boosting employment and the economy. If a capital fund could be established to enable charities to upgrade their facilities, improve their work environments, or offer more dignified surroundings to their clients, the benefits to the economy and our communities would be far greater than a similar investment in business infrastructure. There is a huge unmet need in this area as most charities would sooner offer more services to their community than invest money into their capacity in areas like purpose-built facilities, a more efficient computer system, or safer work environments.

Some in government bemoan what they describe as the inefficiency of charities, but there is rarely any acknowledgement that their own government’s approach to charities often drives increased inefficiency. If you reduce funding in real terms to charities while expecting them to provide the same level of programs and services, the inevitable outcome will be that charities have to cannibalise their organisational infrastructure in order to stay viable and continue to offer services to their communities. Achieving increased organisational efficiency invariably requires some up-front investment in infrastructure and capacity. Where is the investment coming from to support a more efficient charitable sector?

Governments often see the work of charities as discretionary, an area where cuts can be made without significant harm. Support for stimulating business activity on the other hand is seen as a high priority.

We can all look forward to the day when governments think beyond the politics of a short-term crisis, beyond the desires of business to be more profitable, and genuinely focus on broader economic and community investment opportunities. Ensuring adequate social safety nets and enabling charities to be more effective in their work are good starting points.

The real impact of COVID-19 and bushfires is likely to mean more charities go out of business, not because that makes sense for our economy, not because it makes sense for our communities, but because the government myopia prevents them from seeing the huge potential for genuine economic and social stimulus through the charities sector. 

How good would it be if COVID-19 helped remove blind spots?

Read on Pro Bono News: covid-19-charities-and-misplaced-stimulus

 

COVID-19, charities and misplaced stimulus Read More »

Have you been innovated?

News

Have you been innovated?

As Community Council for Australia begins the work of developing a charities sector blueprint, the issue of how innovation is applied within the charities sector is one of the critical considerations, writes CCA CEO David Crosbie.

Have you been innovated?  Pro Bono News, 20 February 2020

As CCA begins the work of developing a charities sector blueprint, the issue of how innovation is applied within the charities sector will be one of the critical considerations. While some philanthropic groups see their role as promoting new approaches and taking more risks, in practice, there is currently very little support for real innovation or sustainable investment models that allow for both failure and the capacity to build on success. Unless charities can change the innovation narrative, sustained investment in genuine innovation will remain the province of business while charities will continue to struggle with inadequate levels of funding that serve as a brake on effectiveness, adoption and innovation.

Innovation can be good; it can generate sustainable improvements in how charities serve their communities. Taking money from existing programs that have demonstrated their effectiveness to support short-term unsustainable “innovation” programs is a false economy. 

How much more effective and sustainable might charities be if they had access to significant new strategic investment enabling charities to explore real innovation with longer-term support and a genuine commitment to delivering better outcomes for our communities? Maybe this is an innovation worth trying for? 

Read on Pro Bono News: have-you-been-innovated

Have you been innovated? Read More »

Rocking the Cradle

News

Rocking the Cradle

Business as usual is no longer going to be enough for governments, neither will it be for charities. If we hope to grow in strength and effectiveness we will need to support collective action for change, writes CCA CEO David Crosbie in Pro Bono News, 6 February 2020.

Rocking the cradle, Pro Bono News, 6 February 2020

We won’t know ’til it’s gone
All the glory we’ve got
But there are more wonders coming
All new kinds of shows
With acid seas rising
To kiss coastal mountains
And big cyclones pounding
And firestones devouring
And we’ll lose track of counting
As the corpses keep mounting
But hey, that’s just the way this old world goes
Sleep, my country, sleep
As we sow so shall we reap
Who’ll rock the cradle and cry?

– Extract from the lyrics of Paul Kelly’s new lullaby for Australia – Sleep, Australia, Sleep.

There is a strange feeling in Canberra. The sunsets glow crimson and most nights the smoke haze turns the moon orange. We stay indoors with windows and doors shut because of poor air quality. These are very small inconveniences in the face of the devastation many families are experiencing, the consequence of our horrific fires combined with ongoing drought, but they matter.

Whenever I talk to the people in my community about how things are, there is a sense of loss that goes beyond the tragedy of more than 30 deaths, billions of hectares and animals all gone. There is a quiet resignation, a loss of spirit, of optimism for the future. 

One of the factors that compounds our concerns is the short-term tribalism and lack of vision from our leaders.

As a country we seem to be stuck in a time-warped mindset where the economic drivers of our nation are still about digging things up and selling them, still seeking the equivalent of episodic gold rush booms that enabled our sandstone histories, still relying on rising iron ore prices to prop up our shallow budget surplus. It is clear this one dimensional way of thinking will not serve us well into the future, but still it dominates our politics, our media, our discourse. 

Alongside our historical approach to governing our country sits what is becoming another outdated way of thinking, the community expectation that government can and should fix things. 

Whenever there is a problem in Australia, people generally expect the government to provide an answer. Often they cannot. Many people are only now realising that governments tend to be self serving, looking after the people and interests that look after them. 

The real business of government has become to stay in government, even if that means acting without integrity, acting as if the ends justifies the means. The notion that the government is there to serve the people has been significantly dented by multiple failures, hail storms of self-serving denials (“we did everything right / nothing wrong”), diminishing credibility and trust to a point where many people just do not know what to believe anymore. 

In these unprecedented times, it has never been more important for us to celebrate that so many Australians have the opportunity to be part of a charity, part of making a difference, part of the solutions. 

I often visit and talk with charities that are driven by grounded practical thinking, innovation and creativity in addressing their issues, responsiveness and adaptability. These are the strengths that will not only build our sector, but also change Australia for the better.

But just as business as usual is not going to be enough for governments, neither will it be for charities. Times will get tough and if we hope to grow in strength and effectiveness we will need to support collective action for change. 

Many charities engage in their own form of collective action, bringing together people who are experiencing hardships, providing safe places, offering support and belonging, building trust within communities, especially those communities feeling lost or let down. I can only encourage and applaud our sector in the way it has been doing this especially over the past few months. The more we talk about these efforts and how they are harvesting hope, the stronger our communities will be.

We can build on these charity based networks recognising that many small groups aligned to a common purpose can be more effective than a big centralised campaign. 

We also need to engage in a collective way as a sector. This is something we have not done very well in the past. Charities generally tend to quietly go about their purpose.

This year we already know of two really significant dates for collective action that more of us need to plan around and become involved in. 

The first is International Day of Charity – on the 5 September 2020, the United Nations invites all member states, international and regional organisations, non-governmental organisations and individuals alike to commemorate the International Day of Charity by encouraging charitable acts in their respective communities to raise public awareness of this event. 

Imagine if Australia had 500,000 acts of charity on that day? How good would it feel being part of something global to celebrate doing good in our communities? What might we all be able to contribute on that day? How might we validate our communities, our staff, our supporters?

Giving Tuesday is on the 1 December. This is still 10 months away, but this year it would be great if thousands of charities could run open days and other events to encourage more giving and engagement with charities across all our communities.

I know that throughout 2020 there will be times when CCA and other groups will highlight issues charities can become involved in as part of their own change agenda. 

Charities may not be able to immediately clear the air, lift the gloom, recreate lost environments, make governments suddenly become accountable and responsive, but we can help build the kind of forward-looking Australia we want to live in. We cannot let Australia sleep walk into a disastrous future.

When Paul Kelly asks who will rock the cradle, I think charities already have the answer. 

Read on Pro Bono News: rocking-the-cradle

Sing along with Paul Kelly and Pub Choir, Sleep Australia, Sleep

Rocking the Cradle Read More »

CCA Submission to inform the Federal Budget 2020/21

Submissions-post

CCA Submission to inform the Federal Budget 2020/21

This submission outlines nine measures the Community Council for Australia (CCA) believes will significantly strengthen Australia’s not-for-profit (NFP) sector and drive real economic savings for government over the coming financial year and beyond.  These measures have been informed by consultation with CCA members and key organisations in the NFP sector.  

It is important to note that this submission does not override the policy positions outlined in any individual Federal Budget submissions from CCA members.  

The content of this submission includes: a brief background to CCA; a listing of proposed measures; an overview of the current issues for the NFP sector; further details about the costing of proposals; and a conclusion.  

CCA acknowledges both the need for fiscal restraint and the growing demand for government services.  CCA proposes a major government revenue boosting measure (estate duty) as well as incentives to promote philanthropy and strengthen our communities (such as the French 90/10 superannuation rule).  

If Australia is to be a just and fair society where we increase collective ownership of local issues and build flourishing communities, there needs to be a genuine commitment to supporting reforms across the charities and not-for-profit sector (NFPs) from government and other key stakeholders.  This is not about providing more funding to the sector, but about encouraging and supporting more effective and efficient organisations delivering better outcomes for our communities.  

CCA welcomes this opportunity to provide input into the Federal Budget process and to engage in detailed discussion about any issues this submission raises. 
 

The Community Council for Australia

The Community Council for Australia is an independent non-political member based organisation dedicated to building flourishing communities by enhancing the extraordinary work undertaken by the charities and not-for-profit sector in Australia.  CCA seeks to change the way governments, communities and not-for-profits relate to one another.  It does so by providing a national voice and facilitation for sector leaders to act on common and shared issues affecting the contribution, performance and viability of NFPs in Australia.  This includes:

  • promoting the values of the sector and the need for reform 
  • influencing and shaping relevant policy agendas
  • improving the way people invest in the sector
  • measuring and reporting success in a way that clearly articulates value
  • building collaboration and sector efficiency
  • informing, educating, and assisting organisations in the sector to deal with change and build sustainable futures
  • providing a catalyst and mechanism for the sector to work in partnership with government, business and the broader Australian community to achieve positive change.

Our success will drive a more sustainable and effective charities and not-for-profit sector in Australia making an increased contribution to the well-being and resilience of all our communities.

Summary of proposed budget measures

The following proposals have been developed through extensive discussions and feedback from CCA members and other key stakeholders.  Each measure would deliver real benefits to government over the longer-term and strengthen communities (proposed measures are outlined in more detail on page four).

  1. Provide Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status to all registered charities with an initial exemption of organisations for the advancement of religion, childcare, primary and secondary education. 
  2. Introduce a targeted ‘estate duty’ for people with estates valued at over $10 million with appropriate incentives for donations to charities, safeguards relating to family businesses and farms; and mitigation of any potential adverse impacts.
  3. Implement the French 90/10 rule providing an option for all Australian employees to invest 5-10% of their superannuation into a not-for-profit social enterprise that benefits the community.
  4. Fix fundraising regulations.
  5. Boost sector investment and productivity by increasing certainty in government funding, concessions, incentives and regulations. 
  6. Develop and impose an additional ‘capacity levy’ on all Commonwealth funding of NFPs set at a minimum of 3% to support sector capacity development through; staff training and development, research and evaluation, and technical infrastructure improvements. 
  7. Increase philanthropy by enabling employers to establish more effective ‘opt out’ systems of workplace giving. 
  8. Work with the CCA and key stakeholders to promote uptake and investment in the future blueprint for the sector currently being developed by CCA and other partners.
  9. Review the generous tax concessions provided to gaming, catering, entertainment and hospitality income for mutual organisations, especially licensed clubs. 

CCA believes these measures could be delivered within the next two years and produce a much stronger government budget position as well as building capacity and resilience in our communities.  Australia cannot afford to ignore growing levels of debt, increased inequality and the need to support flourishing communities as a basis for improved productivity and well-being. 

An economy that does not support real growth in opportunity is not serving the interests of our community.  CCA believes every budget statement needs to be framed by what is going to deliver stronger, fairer, more creative, sustainable and connected communities.

Context: not-for-profit reform

The NFP sector encompasses over 600,000 organisations – from large to very small, and employs well over one million staff (around 10% of all employees in Australia).  Australia’s 55,000+ charities collectively turn over more than $147 billion each year and hold close to $300 billion in assets.  

These facts tell only a small part of the story. The real value of the NFP sector is often in the unmeasured contribution to Australian quality of life.  NFPs are at the heart of our communities; building connection, nurturing spiritual and cultural expression, and enhancing the productivity of all Australians. Collectively, they make us a more resilient society.  

The importance of the NFP sector is now being internationally recognised with many governments putting in place measures to increase NFP investment and productivity.  Smaller government and bigger community is a common theme, driven in part by savings, but also by a commitment to strengthening democracy through greater civic engagement, providing incentives for social entrepreneurship and boosting productivity within the NFP sector.

In Australia there have been various initiatives seeking to: promote social enterprise; reduce compliance costs for NFPs; encourage a diversification of financing options to build a more sustainable funding base; streamline and refine the regulation of NFPs and charities; establish less bureaucratic reporting requirements while building community transparency; increase philanthropy; promote impact investing; and increase sector performance measurement.  CCA supports all these activities. 

The establishment of the ACNC is the first time the NFP sector has had an independent regulator dedicated to serving their needs and enhancing their capacity.  It has proved to be a positive step towards red tape reductions, increased transparency, and trust in the community by prospective volunteers and donors.  The national charities register has until recently also provided invaluable information.

While the immediate history of the NFP sector is framed by growth and reform, new issues are emerging.  The level of individual philanthropic giving as a percentage of income has still not recovered to the highs of 2009.  At the same time, revenue available to governments is effectively falling in real terms against a backdrop of increasing demands and higher community expectations.   Competition for fundraising and services has increased. 

Given the size of the sector and its critical role in our community, the Federal Government can achieve real economic and social benefits if it chooses to strategically invest in strengthening our communities and our NFPs.  There have been numerous reports and recommendations relating to the NFP sector over the last decade, but relatively few have been acted upon.  Governments seem reluctant to change established practices that promote competition between charities, increase compliance costs and contribute to growing uncertainty.  These practices are all counter-productive for government and our communities. 

Supporting the proposals outlined in this submission will make Australia stronger. Achieving a better return on existing government investments should also be a high priority.  In the interests of all Australian communities, government should avoid inflicting any long-term damage on a sector that not only holds a vital place in our economy, but also strengthens communities, builds connectedness and increases productivity for all Australians.
 

Description of proposed budget measures

  1. Provide Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status to all registered charities with an initial exemption of organisations for the advancement of religion, childcare, primary and secondary education.  

The present system of determining Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status largely through the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and Departmental listing favors larger charities that can afford lawyers and lobbyists to assist the progression of their applications.  Many smaller NFP and charities do not have the capacity to apply for DGR status, and hence they cannot access the community support that comes when donations are tax deductible.  There are up to six government agencies involved in determining DGR status.  While reforms have been proposed, they have not been acted upon.  DGR is currently a complex, costly and inequitable system – with less than half of all charities having DGR status.  The proposed reforms to DGR are a step in the right direction, but it is still difficult to justify the distribution of DGR eligibility given the arbitrary and ad hoc manner in which it has developed.  It makes good policy sense that all donations made to registered, complying charities should be tax deductible.  This is the practice in comparable countries like the UK and Canada.  

The ACNC determining charitable status and DGR will deliver a fairer system and reduce red tape. This policy is economically feasible with the initial exemption of organisations for the advancement of religion and education reducing the likely implementation costs to approximately $130 million per annum.  Excluding all schools and all churches for automatic DGR eligibility makes this measure affordable.  At the same time the intent is not to deny DGR, so existing DGR exemptions for ministers of religion and other concessions based on religious and educational purposes would continue to apply.

Funding to support this measure could come from savings through the recent capping of FBT entitlements for meals and entertainment expenses.

This measure is estimated to be revenue neutral in the first instance.  Initial projected expenditure of approximately $130 million is offset by recent savings in ending uncapped FBT entitlements.

 

  1. Introduce a targeted ‘estate duty’ for people with estates valued at over $10 million with appropriate incentives for donations to charities, safeguards relating to family businesses and farms, and mitigation of any potential adverse impacts.

National estate duties exist in many countries including: the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Republic of Ireland, France, the Czech Republic, Canada and the USA.  Not only do these duties provide substantial government revenue, they also increase philanthropy by offering relief from estate duties for any money left to charity.  The Henry Review drew on this international experience in supporting estate duties as a taxation measure.  Among other benefits, estate duties can apply a small brake on growing levels of inequality in our communities.  

Until 1979, many Australian governments gained substantial income through various forms of death or estate duties.  It is suggested that death duties ended because Premier Joh Bjelke Petersen wanted to attract retirees to Queensland and abolished all death duties.  Other states followed.  Until then the threshold had effectively been lowered over time to a level where many not so rich were also having to pay.  As a consequence of these factors, in the late 1970s an estate duty was no longer seen as fair.  

A better targeted approach to estate duties could address these previous failings and would be consistent with a fair go for all.  Using a revised version of capital gains taxes and only applying it to those with estates above $10 million (excluding family farms and other appropriate asset exemptions) offers a workable option.  

In Belgium estate duties contribute 1.4% of total government revenue which would translate into over $5 billion in revenue per annum for Australia.  

Australia’s growing gap between rich and poor, and the gap between government income and demand for government supported services, can both be partially addressed by applying a form of estate duty on the richest 1% in our communities.  A targeted 35% estate duty on all estates over $10 million (with appropriate exemptions) would raise substantial new government revenue and stimulate philanthropy. 

ATO figures suggest over 25,000 people have assets above $10 million.  If 4% of these families paid 35% in estate duties, it would equate to a minimum revenue of $3.5 billion.

 

  1. Implement the French 90/10 rule providing an option for all Australian employees to invest 5-10% of their superannuation into a not-for-profit social enterprise that benefits the community.

France has required all employees to be given the option of investing 5-10%of their superannuation into ‘solidarity organisations’ (the equivalent of our charities) since 2001. In 2008 the government regulated that all super funds needed to provide this option to employees and since that time the amount invested has grown from $700 million to over $5.5 billion.  This has stimulated social entrepreneurship, created opportunities to achieve social impact, improved the capital base and capacity of solidarity organisations.

The success of the French 90/10 rule shows what can be achieved if Australia chose to provide employees with some choice about how their superannuation contributions are invested.  If just 2% of the MySuper funds were invested this way it would generate around $8.5 billion, or enough to significantly reduce homelessness by providing housing to over 50,000 Australians struggling to maintain secure and appropriate housing.

CCA believes this measure could be transformative in encouraging the charities sector to find ways of establishing social enterprises that strengthen our communities.  It would also link into the work of the Social Impact Investing Taskforce recently established by the government and provide a boost to impact investing into the sector.

This measure has very little government impact as costs are almost non-existent – it is simply about enabling a different use of a very small part of Australia’s $2 trillion superannuation investment pool.

 

  1. Fix fundraising regulations.

This measure would save millions of dollars a year in red tape, duplication and dysfunctional compliance activities that provide no benefit to the community. Simply ensuring fundraising activities are covered by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) would ensure any deceptive or misleading conduct associated with charitable fundraising, whatever the platform, could be closed down and perpetrators prosecuted.  CCA and many other groups have repeatedly called for the fix fundraising solution to be implemented, but still charities languish in a bygone era of accountability that has little relevance or effectiveness, but costs charities millions in wasted effort.

There is no cost to government in ensuring appropriate application of Australian Consumer Law.

 

  1. Boost sector investment and productivity by increasing certainty in government funding, concessions, incentives and regulations. 

This measure is focused on achieving a more stable financial and regulatory framework for all not-for-profits, particularly in relation to government funding and interaction with the sector.  CEO Forums across the country run by CCA with the support of key organisations clearly showed that uncertainty of government funding is a critical barrier to investment in the future sustainability of organisations.  This applies to not just recurrent government funding, but also tax including the losses associated with changes to FBT concessions and incentive programs.  The government needs to actively consider initiatives such as: 

  • an agreed notice period of six months prior to the ending of any major government contract, incentive or concession, with limited exemptions for cases of fraud, other criminal actions, etc.
  • increasing the length of government contracts where possible to at least five years
  • more transparent and accessible processes for reviewing the performance of NFPs
  • more transparent and accountable processes for government funding decisions relating to NFPs. 

These measures would all boost investment in organisational capacity across the NFP sector.

Experience in other sectors has also shown that where an independent feedback process can be established that does not focus on public blame and retribution, system change in relationships can be driven through active feedback and better information exchange.  CCA supports a national feedback exchange program where all NFPs could provide honest feedback on their dealings with government agencies.  Providing avenues to pursue positive improvements in the relationship between governments and the NFP sector is important. 

At the centre of many concerns across the NFP sector is the ability of small and large community organisations to deal with an increasingly uncertain future.  While governments are not responsible for all disruptions and challenges to the NFP sector, increasing certainty in government funding is a critical measure that would build capacity and effectiveness.

CCA anticipates these measures would produce savings with very limited (mostly internal) outlays. 
 

  1. Develop and implement an additional ‘capacity levy’ on all Commonwealth funding of NFPs set at a minimum of 3% to support sector capacity development through; staff training and development, research and evaluation, and technical infrastructure improvements. 

The Australian government invests billions of dollars in charities and not-for profits to provide critical services and supports to communities across Australia. Unfortunately, there is often little allocation of funding to enable funded organisations to improve their services through capacity development in critical areas like staff training and development, research and evaluation, and infrastructure including technological systems.  While the government should not be solely responsible for sector capacity, it is important to acknowledge that increased productivity will only come if there is increased capacity to improve organisations and the way they operate. While many NFPs invest in their capacity, providing an additional 3% allocation on top of government funding to invest in appropriate and effective capacity building will ensure increased productivity and a better return on government investment into the sector.

CCA believe some of the funding provided through this measure should be used to ensure better co-ordination and sharing of best practice through centralised databases of available opportunities in critical areas like; staff training, program evaluation, systems development, etc.  This centralised information sharing capacity could be seen as facilitating excellence across the sector and might involve a range of existing organisations creating a virtual Centre of Excellence for the NFP sector.  It could also fund research into the NFP sector and support a cross-government advisory body like the NFP Sector Reform Council to improve government and NFP relationships.  The details of how best to develop and apply this levy would need to be worked through with central agencies and government departments. 

The annual budget for this initiative will depend on government allocations to NFPs, administrative budgets and the degree of existing expenditure, but may not require new additional expenditure.
 

  1. Increase philanthropy by enabling employers to establish more effective ‘opt out’ systems of workplace giving.

CCA strongly believes that increased community engagement and philanthropic contributions to NFPs produce a net benefit to governments as well as to the communities NFPs serve.  It is counter-productive to treat increased philanthropy and social impact investment as a government loss of potential tax income or ‘foregone revenue’.  The whole community benefits when individuals or organisations choose to direct their resources into strengthening communities, increasing economic and social activity, and improving health and well-being.  This is particularly the case if the money involved avoids the significant transfer costs of moving into, through, and out of government.  Philanthropy and social investment are about encouraging greater ownership of local issues by enhancing the role of NFPs and reducing the size of government.

When in place, ‘opt out’ systems have ensured much higher levels of success in workplace giving programs.  The experience with the French 90/10 superannuation rule shows that once all employees are given the option, the amount being contributed to charitable purposes increases significantly.  With the current ‘opt in’ for existing employee systems, less than 3.5% of Australian workers are in a workplace giving program.  If this could increase to 10% of Australian employees donating 0.5% of their pre-tax income, over a quarter of a billion dollars would be raised through workplace giving.  This is a realistic target that would increase philanthropy and the engagement of Australians in the broader NFP sector.

CCA anticipates there would be no additional costs to government in this measure.

 

  1. Work with the CCA and key stakeholders to promote uptake and investment in the future blueprint for the sector currently being developed by CCA and other partners.

The future of Australia’s NFP sector is too important to our economy and our communities to grow in an ad hoc manner with little comprehensive planning or strategic investment.  CCA is working with partners to develop a blueprint for the charities sector.  At present there is no plan, no strategy and no real projection about the future viability or even the sustainability of the current levels of growth across the NFP sector.  The effective development of a blueprint will include developing clear goals and measures of what the NFP sector is seeking to achieve.  Additional government support to market and advance the blueprint once completed, would enable the blueprint to be much more than a list of desirable activities and outcomes.

With the Federal Government as a joint partner and supporter (and not the sole contributor), the completed blueprint could become a touchstone for sector investment from government, philanthropists, business and other stakeholders.

CCA anticipates the cost to government of supporting the national campaign to promote the value of investing in charities would be in the order of $350,000.

 

  1. Review the generous tax concessions provided to gaming, catering, entertainment and hospitality income for mutual organisations, especially licensed clubs. 

The mutuality principle that rightly applied in the late 1800s in Australia is no longer appropriate or consistent with existing taxation arrangements, particularly for organisations involved in gaming.  Large licensed clubs that act as gaming venues should not be able to treat over 75% of their income as tax free, especially when they have not satisfied the basic requirements of being a not-for-profit organisation that exists to provide a public benefit.  As pointed out in the Not-for-profit Tax Concessions Working Group Report (May 2013), concerns with the current application of the mutuality principle include:

– integrity concerns about member and non-member receipts;  

– competitive neutrality concerns where mutual organisations are trading in competition with taxable businesses;  

– social policy concerns about significant gambling and hospitality receipts of some organisations, which are not subject to income tax at the Commonwealth level; and  

– concerns about private member benefit. 

It is recommended, on public benefit grounds, that the tax law should be amended to treat all member and non-member income of mutual organisations as assessable for taxation purposes in line with normal income tax principles.  

If this recommendation is not supported, all income from gaming, catering, entertainment and hospitality trading activities of mutual organisations should be treated as assessable.  

It is difficult to justify the hundreds of millions of dollars of tax concessions provided to large licensed gaming clubs based on the mutuality principle.  It is time to review these concessions taking into account any unintended consequences on mutual organisations that do provide a real benefit to members. 

CCA anticipates this measure could generate significant additional government revenue.

 

Budget implications (costings)

CCA acknowledges the need to ensure an effective economic framework for all Australian governments that serves the needs of our various communities.  This budget submission has taken into account the need to increase government revenue through sustainable measures that have minimal impact on productivity, to reconsider inappropriate taxation concessions, and promote measures that will diversify the income of charities and not-for-profits enabling a rebuilding of capital, and an expansion in their capacity, without increasing government expenditure. 

In considering the specific budget implications of the nine key measures outlined in this submission, CCA has taken a relatively conservative approach to the projection of new income and expenditure for government.  Given the complexity of some of the proposed measures and the lack of data about others, the initial costs and benefits outlined in this submission represent a starting point for further discussion and more detailed economic modelling.  

CCA believes the measures proposed in this budget submission will generate significant revenue as well as long-term savings for governments, NFPs and the communities they serve.

 

Conclusion

This submission promotes Federal Government measures to strengthen the NFP sector and deliver real economic and social benefits for governments and our communities. 

Many individual not-for-profit organisations (including CCA members) will be seeking to have the Federal Government fund specific measures for the benefit of their own causes and communities.  Most of these budget proposals from the not-for-profit sector are important and have real merit.

There is a strong case for reform in the charities and not-for-profit sector to build more resilient communities through greater engagement in our society and our economy. Over the past two decades, the NFP sector has had limited support to improve capacity and effectiveness.  This is despite the very considerable contribution the broader NFP sector makes in terms of employment, productivity, individual and community well-being.

The harsh reality for most governments is that government income levels are stalling while demand for services continues to increase.  Part of the solution to this tension is achieving real productivity within government and the NFP sector.  Delivering positive change for NFPs requires an initial investment in time and resources to boost capacity and offer the certainty required for organisational investment.

Inequality continues to rise in Australia.  We need fairer ways of generating income for government and more impact investment to strengthen our communities.  Estate duties and the French 90/10 rule are two examples of sustainable policies that have the potential to be transformative.

The NFP sector is too large and too important to be left on the margins of economic debates and major policy reforms within Australia.  Government investment in enabling NFPs to be more efficient and effective will ultimately deliver stronger, more resilient and productive communities across Australia. 

The Federal Budget is the most important policy document a Federal Government produces.  Recognising the role of the NFP sector through implementation of the measures outlined in this submission will translate into a fairer budget that will increase sector productivity and growth, benefitting all Australians.

CCA Submission to inform the Federal Budget 2020/21 Read More »

Good Grief

News

Good Grief

With recent events shaking our faith in the way we live our lives, charities across Australia must rise to the challenge of rebuilding our communities and use what has happened to fuel our determination not to accept the unacceptable, writes CCA CEO, David Crosbie in Pro Bono News, 23 January 2020.

Good Grief, Pro Bono News, 23 January 2020

Grief and determination are woven into the DNA of charities.

There has been a lot of grief in Australia over the past few months, so much loss, pain, suffering, anger, frustration. Australia is forever scarred. Some scars will heal. While we can rebuild some of what is lost, things will never be the same. Economists talk of economic costs, but the human and environmental costs cannot be measured in dollars. 

At a broader level, there seems to be a gnawing sense that we are not as safe, the way we live our lives is no longer as secure. What we thought was solid has been revealed as a thin veneer. The ripples of this revelation will wash over many lives in unexpected ways. 

The long-term costs of recent disasters in Australia are incalculable.

Determination is a sometimes-maligned factor in human endeavour. The transition from failure to success is invariably a product of determination. 

What I have been most proud of in recent months has been the determination from so many Australians to not accept that the way it is, is the way it should be. From the smallest acts of compassion to the bravery of volunteers facing fire storms beyond our imagination, the determination to do good has been an inspiration. And it is this determination that will become most important to Australia over the coming weeks, months, years.

The leadership of our state premiers has been steadfast and authentic, with them doing their best to not only provide information and offer support, but recognising the real impact of the growing sense of insecurity. They have appropriately been on the front line of information provision and grief sharing, while providing a broad platform for our impressive emergency service leaders. Not one state leader has felt the need to develop a political advertisement during our disaster.

And herein lies the challenge for all of us in the charities sector. With our federal government floundering, we need to lead, to provide ready vehicles for the determination to do better, to change for the good. 

This challenge is not just about promoting and accepting donations, or even spending them well. It is about making the effort to communicate the value of our work, the strength we see in our communities, the amazing compassion and acts of personal giving.

Through sharing as many of these stories as we can, encouraging our communities, charities can rebuild the sense of security we all rely on to keep trying, keep contributing, keep living our lives as well as we can.

Already I have seen some charities promoting the work of others, asking their donors to give to charities who are closer to the front-line efforts to support communities at this time. So many charities are already doing amazing work at a local level. 

People will see Australia’s recent events through many different lenses. 

Travelling internationally during January, the most common response I get when I say I am Australian is concern about our fires and their impact on our native animals. When you dig below these initial reactions there is often discussion about climate change, what it means for Australian communities, and the fact that so many of our emergency service workers are volunteers.

I was speaking with a Canadian firefighter this week, who has spent considerable time in Australia. He told me of his admiration for the volunteers across Australia putting their lives on hold to protect their communities. He said their sense of needing to protect their communities, including their environment, was incredibly strong.

As we begin 2020 it is not just this determination to protect lives and property that matters. We need to acknowledge that the recent devastation goes beyond the environmental and human costs, incomprehensible as they are. We must also acknowledge that for many, our faith in who we are and the lives we lead, has been shaken.

I hope charities across Australia will rise to the challenge of rebuilding our communities, rebuilding our sense of belonging and having value, not by glossing over recent events, but by using them to fuel our determination not to accept the unacceptable. We can embrace the grief, but make it good grief.

CCA, like many charities, is looking forward to this challenge.

Read on Pro Bono News: good-grief

Good Grief Read More »

Two good, two bad, one leader – 2019 in reflection

News

Two good, two bad, one leader - 2019 in reflection

In 2019, the art of disagreeing without personal vitriol and shallow gotcha point scoring was drowned in a sea of conflict driven, click bait informed, hyper partisan messaging … Surely, we are better than this? CCA CEO David Crosbie reflects on 2019.

Two good, two bad, one leader – 2019 in reflection, Pro Bono News, 19 December 2019

A lot has happened in 2019; the miracle election, the strength of the student climate protests, a stagnating economy, the emergence of the “quiet Australians”. Royal commissions became a means of building consensus for governments to act, partly because government alone seems less capable of prosecuting an agenda. 

Across the year I have written more than 20 articles on these and other issues. In wrapping up the year I have chosen not to focus on a specific issue, but to highlight two good trends in 2019, two bad, and to talk about one outstanding leader who brought tears of belonging and hope to my eyes several times in 2019. 

Let’s start with the bad trends first. 

I cannot remember a time when civil space in Australia was so under threat. In 2019 we saw raids of journalist’s homes and the ABC, prosecution of whistleblowers, a growing chorus for “activists” to be denied charitable status, and an increasingly dismissive approach to long-held processes developed to protect our core institutions. Courts and judges have been critically pursued by church and state, for the first time ever a major bill was passed through the lower house of parliament with no debate at all, ministerial codes of conduct have been repeatedly flaunted, and conflicts of interest ignored. Governments seem to be more prepared to bluster their way through any form of criticism relating to their fairness, independence or probity. 

“I cannot remember a time when civil space in Australia was so under threat.”

Individual privacy has diminished, freedom of information is in decline, government accountability is less transparent, and scrutiny of community-led policy advocacy is increasing. 

It is not new that governments become annoyed when charities call out failures in their policies and actions. What is new is the heightened perceived threat to future funding and support if a charity is critical of government. The last thing Australia needs when civil space is being challenged is for charities to lose their voice. But I fear that has already started.

The second low for me in 2019 is a related trend of targeting individuals rather than their ideas or actions. In the public discourse of 2019, it was not the strength of your argument, the benefits of adopting your policy, or the evidence to support your proposition that would win the day. What really mattered was the capacity to personally attack and belittle anyone who might be advocating views contrary to your own. 

The most recent example of this form of character assassination involved the NSW environment minister who dared to link a hotter climate, more fires, and more smoke into the one sentence. Minister Matt Keane was pilloried in major newspapers, not by attacking his policy positions or his arguments about climate change, but denigrating him as a “hose poser” because he had volunteered for a local fire brigade and not yet fought a fire. 

We see the same pattern with so many conservative old white men attacking Greta Thunberg – not about climate science – but about her age, sex, dress, expressions, language, gestures, transport, housing, energy use, health, etc. 

What is even more concerning is how often respected journalists are now co-opted into these kinds of personalised attacks. This shoot the messenger approach sits within an increasingly polarised media barracking rather than reporting.

It is important to note that vitriolic public discourse is not limited to one side of politics or one set of views. It is also worth noting that some public commentators seem marooned on an island of oppositional defiance berating anyone who dares question their world view. 

In 2019, the art of disagreeing without personal vitriol and shallow gotcha point scoring appeared to be drowning in a sea of conflict driven, click bait informed, hyper partisan messaging where the primary goal is to denigrate and belittle your opponent, not address the issue. Surely, we are better than this?

Now for the good news – climate change. 

One of the most positive aspects of 2019 is that the discourse around climate change is finally shifting. Until 2019, many Australians felt climate change was a theoretical postulation. Even if the scientists were right, climate change impacts were way off in the future, a very slowly shifting change that we would be able to adapt to over time. No longer is that view tenable.

“When kids are being kept inside because of the quality of the air, even the quiet Australians start to express concern. And that can only be a good thing.”

As I look out my office window, smoke haze is drifting across Canberra. People are frustrated and angry at the lack of leadership about fires, smoke, and climate change. All this on the back of massive street protests from our young people who rightly point to the science. A majority of Australians now prioritise climate change as the number one issue. We are much more focused about what is happening to our wildlife, our forests and our environment, now and in the future. When kids are being kept inside because of the quality of the air, even the quiet Australians start to express concern. And that can only be a good thing. 

The other good news story for me in 2019 was the continued growth of values-based marketing. Strange as it sounds, more and more of the best and brightest advertising minds that spend millions of dollars creating messages and campaigns have recognised that values are critical in influencing behavior. At this year’s Super Bowl – the most expensive advertising in the world – two companies made what could only be called values statements rather than advertise their product or service. The Airbnb “we accept” campaign is one of the best social inclusion advertisements I have ever seen. The Audi “what do I tell my daughter” advertisement presents a compelling argument for equal opportunity. Companies are spending tens of millions of dollars to send out these messages because values sell.

And if values sell, then charities are in good shape for the future because in my experience values are at the heart of what we do, why we do it and how we do it. The challenge for charities is to better market our values and our value. Most charities are much more authentically values-driven than the companies using these values alignment marketing strategies.

Finally, I want to offer my thoughts on the leader of the year. 

Sometimes in our darkest hour, the very best human qualities emerge and light the way forward. And so it was in New Zealand when a new prime minister showed the world how to help communities come together and begin to heal after a shocking betrayal of humanity.

Not only did the prime minister call New Zealanders together and reassure them that they were not a target because of hate, but she also encouraged New Zealanders to support each other in the grief and confusion saying: “because they are us, we, as a nation, we mourn them”. 

These were not just words – Jacinda Ardern acted them out – wearing a headscarf as she consoled Muslim families of the victims. Only rarely do we glimpse this kind of insightful authenticity in leadership.

I learned a new greeting through watching the New Zealand prime minister: As-salaam Alaikum – peace be upon you. And that seems like a nice way to end 2019.

A special thank you to all at Pro Bono Australia (Wendy and Karen in particular) and the CCA members who enable me to write these articles each fortnight. It has been a privilege.

I hope 2020 brings you peace and new opportunities to make a difference in people’s lives. 

Read on Pro Bono News:  two-good-two-bad-one-leader-2019-in-reflection

 
 

Two good, two bad, one leader – 2019 in reflection Read More »

Why corporate boards need a charity perspective

News

Why corporate boards need a charity perspective

Charities do not need to be more corporate – corporates need to be more charitable. We need a charity person on every corporate board – much more than we need corporates on charitable boards, writes CCA CEO David Crosbie:

Why corporate boards need a charity perspective, Pro Bono News, 5 December 2019

Charities are repeatedly told they lack business skills. Apparently, all charities would benefit from having people with strong business skills on their boards. This may be true in some cases, but what is even more apparent is that corporate Australia needs more charitable skills, including on their boards. Perhaps it is time we insisted that all publicly listed companies must have a designated community position on their board to be filled by a current or former charity manager or CEO?

The governance structure adopted by most charities in Australia is derived from the corporate board model where owners, including shareholders, are represented by board directors who promote owner interests, protect their capital investments, and enforce accountability through the CEO across the organisation. In most corporate board rooms, the metrics are informed by bottom-line economics. A company that is increasing profits and the dividends paid to owners is seen as performing well. Compliance with regulations, protecting the environment, contributing back to the community, creating a workplace that values diversity, all these issues are adopted by many businesses primarily because they have been shown to be good for business, good for profitability, good for owners. 

The corporate board model has been accepted within most charities, even though it is not exactly fit for purpose. As Martin Laverty and others who have studied the structures of both corporate and charitable boards have pointed out, the corporate board model is about ensuring the interests of owners inform business practices and organisational behaviour.

A charities board is not about protecting the interests of owners and investors, or even just the interests of existing clients. It is about delivering a public benefit through better meeting the needs of current and potential clients, supporting and encouraging staff and other stakeholders, developing capacity while maintaining very tight budget disciplines, and contributing to building flourishing communities.

The assertion that all charity boards need business skills, accountancy skills, legal skills seems ill-founded. These skills might be nice to have in some discussions, but on their own, they do not guarantee that appropriate or effective organisational governance will be in place. Charities now are talking more about the need for media / communication / marketing skills, or research / evaluation/ impact measurement skills. 

What really matters is not the professional qualifications of the board. Board directors are not the staff and most professional skills that are needed by an organisation can and will be bought in as consultants or employees or even skilled volunteers. If a charity needs a gardener, an accountant, an IT person, they do not need to put them on the board. What really matters is the board’s collective commitment to delivering a public benefit and fulfilling the charitable purpose of the organisation.

In recent weeks, the ethics and accountability of corporate boards has rightly been an issue in the media. How is it that very highly paid bank board directors effectively turned a blind eye to non-compliance, despite being aware of the risks? 

Regardless of how you look at it, some corporate boards are behaving inappropriately. They appear to have no sense of responsibility for the impact of their company’s behaviour on communities. 

Charities have as their primary purpose the role of serving others. Good charities do it well. They have the skills, the strategies to ensure what they are doing not only makes a difference for the people they serve, but also contributes to stronger communities.

If we expect our for-profit companies to display some of this broader community awareness or responsibility, why not insert that thinking into their board decision-making processes? Why not put someone on their board that is not there to serve the interests of owners, but to serve the interests of the communities the company operates in?

What if one position on every corporate board had to be designated as a “community interest board director” position? This director would have to demonstrate the skills required to understand the value the company was contributing back to their community and how that value might be leveraged into even stronger communities. Ideally this director would have senior experience running a charity and be able to demonstrate they had delivered a community benefit. 

While some in corporate Australia may suggest this is a slightly absurd idea, most corporate leaders know very little about the complexity of running a successful charity. It involves much more than just profitability. One of the more common characteristics of successful CEOs in the charity sector is that they tend to be incredibly well rounded with a diverse set of skills. Not the least in this skill set is the capacity to run very tight budgets and still deliver quality services. 

Charity CEOs also tend to have great communication and marketing skills, a very good understanding of contracts and legal documents, and know how to lead and motivate staff and stakeholders. Many have significant business skills. I would suggest the applied business skills of the current CCA board (all CEOs of successful charities) are far superior to most MBA graduates. 

Most importantly charity CEOs are less motivated by greed and more by the desire to serve others, make a difference, strengthen communities, and build trust between people. 

Next time someone suggests that charities need more business skills, perhaps the response should be to ask whether charities would be more effective in delivering on their mission if they had a senior banking executive on their board? Would the charity and the communities they serve benefit by having the corporate aptitude for pursuing profit at all costs applied to their decision-making?

Of course, there are business leaders who take their responsibilities to communities very seriously. They are to be commended. It is also important to acknowledge there are some charity leaders who are greedy or who pursue profit as the primary goal. But generally, charities are about making a difference in communities, corporates are about profit.

In too many areas of Australian society, the ends justify the means seems to be the predominant idea. The examples keep coming: CommInsure, Westpac, Bupa Aged Care, Crown, Robodebt, indefinite detention of innocent people, etc. The moral compass is missing. 

Thankfully, the charities sector is grounded in values, not greed. 

The Australia I want to live in values relationships over money, prefers Giving Tuesday to Black Friday, and sees success as being about an inclusive society rather than budget surpluses and bigger dividends to investors. If we are to build the kind of Australia we all want to live in, maybe it is time for charities to play a much greater role in working with corporate Australia?

Read on Pro Bono News: why-corporate-boards-need-a-charity-perspective

 
 

Why corporate boards need a charity perspective Read More »

#GivingTuesday – feel good by doing good.

News

#GivingTuesday - feel good by doing good.

Giving Tuesday is a growing global movement. Giving makes you feel good, by doing good. Join thousands of Australian charities and get involved today!

CCA Chair Tim Costello and CEO David Crosbie talk to why they are getting behind #GivingTuesday.

 

#GivingTuesday – feel good by doing good. Read More »

Policy failure – the new black?

News

Policy failure - the new black?

Government policies are too often grounded in short termism and two-dimensional political popularism. We can’t have Royal Commissions into every area where policy making is failing. Time to change writes CCA CEO David Crosbie in Pro Bono News.

Policy failure – the new black?, Pro Bono News, 21 November 2019

Too many government policies are grounded in short termism informed by the two-dimensional political popularism that drives website click-throughs and social media likes. Australia cannot afford to have royal commissions into every area where government policy making is failing. 

Government policies that are not delivering public benefit need to be called out, especially by charities that have a critical role to play in ensuring our communities flourish.

An important report was released this week, without much fanfare and only limited media coverage.

It is unusual for the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), who describe themselves as a “free-market” think tank, and Per Capita who describes themselves as a “progressive” think tank to come together in a joint project to undertake research. They did for this report and both are to be commended.

The Evidence Based Policy Research Project was arranged and funded through the newDemocracy Foundation (nDF), a non-partisan organisation that seeks ways to “do democracy better”.

The key findings of this research present an indictment of government policymaking in Australia.

IPA director John Roskam said in quoting their report: 

“Australia’s governments, both state and federal, are failing to undertake best practice policymaking. This failure is undermining the quality of public policy and is having a detrimental impact on faith in public institutions. Public policy in Australia is often made on the run, built on shabby foundations, motivated by short-term political gain, and consequently having mediocre outcomes.”

Emma Dawson, executive director of Per Capita Australia suggested:

“While ideological values and principles must always guide the direction of government, this project shows that following a rigorous and consultative process is critical to the effective development and implementation of policies to serve the public interest.”

The findings will not surprise many people that work in the charities sector. Governments have long ignored or dismissed advice and suggestions from charities about how policies, programs and services could be better directed and leveraged for public benefit. 

What is particularly interesting about this research is how the government policies were tested. The report is based on two organisations scoring 20 government policies from state and federal government departments against a core group of 10 questions. 

These questions were derived from criteria developed by Professor Ken Wiltshire of the University of Queensland Business School. They seek to identify the processes used to arrive at policy decisions. 

Here are just five of the questions:

  1. Need: Is there a statement of why the policy was needed based on factual evidence and stakeholder input? 
  2. Goals: Is there a statement of the policy’s objectives couched in terms of the public interest? 
  3. Options: Is there a description of the alternative policy options considered before the preferred one was adopted? 
  4. Pathway: Is there evidence that a comprehensive project management plan was designed for the policy’s rollout? 
  5. Consultation: Was there further consultation with affected stakeholders after the preferred policy was announced? 

The 10 questions make a lot of sense, and not just for governments. Many charities might do well to consider these questions in their own policymaking decisions. They certainly go beyond the “what can we get funding for” approach that can sometimes inform policymaking within charities.

The findings in this report could not be clearer. Only four of the 20 government policies reviewed achieved a score of eight or above out of a possible score of 10. Eight of the 20 policies failed to apply appropriate processes. These included:

  • Fed Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More Of Their Money Act 2019 (Average rating 4.5) 
  • Fed Assistance and Access Act 2018 /Encryption law (Average rating 4.0) 
  • Vic Fire Services Reform Act 2019 (Average rating 3.0) 
  • NSW Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Amendment Act 2018 (Average rating 3.0) 
  • NSW Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment Act 2018 (Average rating 4.0) 
  • Qld Final Environmental Approval for Adani Mine (Average rating 3.0) 
  • Fed Promoting Sustainable Welfare Act 2018 (Average rating 2.5) 
  • Fed Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material Act 2019 (Average rating 2.0)

There are many lessons in this report for government policymakers, mostly about taking the time to get policy right through more strategic engagement and active consideration of alternatives.

A good place to start improving government policymaking in Australia might be to actively seek out a range of charities involved in the issue or communities that will be impacted by the policy, and provide support for considered input into how best to deliver the government’s goals while achieving greater public benefit. Unfortunately, this kind of engagement remains the exception. 

There is a challenge here for all charities. Australian communities deserve much better than ill-considered short-term policies that fail to deliver public benefit. Charities are in a position to not only call out government policies that are failing, but also make an invaluable contribution in formulating policies that will provide genuine public benefit.

Sam Mellett, director of Susan McKinnon Foundation that contributed funding to the research said:

“Our governments should make policy decisions with a clear process that starts with establishing the facts, weighs up the pros and cons of various options and involves a dialogue with communities and stakeholders before resolving. More often, policy development tends to be short-term, partisan and reactionary and often lacks a public mandate for implementation.”

Charities across Australia agree. It is time we stopped rewarding failure and insisted on better government policymaking processes. We cannot afford to let bad policymaking become the new normal.

Read on Pro Bono News: policy-failure-the-new-black

Policy failure – the new black? Read More »

Why Australia needs more noisy charities!

News

Why Australia needs more noisy charities!

Governments might not like noisy charities – but without them Australia would be a much less healthy, safe and prosperous country, writes CCA CEO David Crosbie in Pro Bono News, 7 November 2019.

Why Australia needs more noisy charities!  Pro Bono News, 7 November 2019

Governments generally dislike noisy charities, the kinds of charities that highlight injustice, inadequacy, environmental degradation, ethical inconsistencies, failures and unmet needs. But without noisy charities Australia would be a much less healthy, safe and prosperous country.

While there have always been ebbs and flows in relationships between governments and charities, one consistent theme is a form of paternalistic imbalance, where governments are the keepers of the money, the maker of rules, the all-powerful arbiter of which charities they will bestow their approval upon.

Most charities go along with this relationship, not because it is enjoyable or even productive, not even because it means money for their organisation, but because accepting unequal terms is the price to be paid if the communities that the charities serve are going to benefit through receiving government support and funding.

The new and somewhat disappointing development in this relationship is that governments now seem more comfortable openly criticising charities for advocating on issues, and are now talking about laws to silence charities, to reduce their capacity to advocate for their charitable purpose.

Our current prime minister has partly built his brand around wanting to serve the “quiet Australians”. In recent weeks this theme has been ramped up to include protecting economic interests. The prime minister has condemned “progressives” for telling people “where to live, what job you can have, what you can say and what you can think – and tax[ing] you more for the privilege of all of those instructions.” He also called out environmental protestors, shareholder activists and those who engage in boycotting companies doing business with coal mining companies:

“A new breed of radical activism is on the march. Apocalyptic in tone, brooks no compromise, all or nothing. Alternative views not permitted….

“There is no place for economic sabotage dressed up as activism. But there is a third and even more worrying development. An escalating trend towards a new form of secondary boycotts in this country. This is a trend with potentially serious consequences for our economy.

“Together with the Attorney General Christian Porter, we are working to identify a series of mechanisms that can successfully outlaw these indulgent and selfish practices that threaten the livelihoods of fellow Australians…”

It is important to note that there are already many laws covering what you can or cannot do when protesting and there are quite strong laws covering secondary boycotts of companies. 

The Fraser government established laws against secondary boycotts back in the 70’s mainly to curb union power. The Howard government also passed laws allowing for court action to be brought against those involved in secondary boycotts. This was a Peter Costello-led bill primarily targeted at an animal welfare group (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that was boycotting companies involved in skinning sheep to get their wool. There is no evidence in anything the prime minister has said that we need new or additional legislation. 

The prime minister seems particularly concerned about activists disrupting businesses and undermining our economy. 

I find it difficult to support any argument that puts economic interests at the pinnacle of public benefit. Contrary to the assumptions in the prime minister’s speech, the disruption of economic interests is often necessary to ensure safe and flourishing communities. 

As the current and recent royal commissions into banking, sexual abuse of children, aged care, and disability have all highlighted, where achievement and retention of wealth is the predominant goal it can become the driver of systemic failure, abuse, neglect and injustice. 

Would any of the recent royal commissions have happened without some noisy Australians, without charities and other groups raising their concerns, without some form of activism? It took people with courage and values to push for change. Is it “economic sabotage” to demand that a bank stop charging fees to dead people, to demand recompense for the systemic sexual abuse of children, to ask a for-profit aged care provider to reduce their profitability by employing more properly trained staff? Does anyone seriously believe unconstrained license to pursue economic interests without being held to account would be good for Australia? 

I also do not agree with the premise that those being noisy are not the Australians we should be listening to or serving. In most areas of life, winners do not complain. When you are benefitting from the existing system, why disrupt it? There are exceptions of course. Some rich and powerful people use their wealth to become very noisy about their own interests (think Clive Palmer or Rupert Murdoch), but the reality is that people faced with structural inequality and injustice are more likely to have something legitimate to complain about. Not acknowledging these people or their concerns, choosing instead to serve those who already have power and capacity, is at odds with the broader interests of our communities. 

If we want to talk about quiet winners in Australia with little to complain about, it is hard to go past the mining, banking and insurance industries. Governments should not be seeking to offer these powerful companies additional protection. They are pretty good at prosecuting their own self-interest. As Menzies argued in his famous Forgotten People speech about the need for governments to avoid pandering to powerful economic interests: 

“I exclude at one end of the scale the rich and powerful: those who control great funds and enterprises, and are as a rule able to protect themselves – though it must be said that in a political sense they have as a rule shown neither comprehension nor competence. But I exclude them because in most material difficulties, the rich can look after themselves.”

Anyone who has studied history understands that ratbags change the world, often for the better. There are many people I strongly disagree with. I may wish they would shut-up, but I would never wish to have laws that silence them because that would end one of the great strengths of Australia; our capacity to both give and receive criticism, to disagree, to speak openly about injustice or unfairness, to make a case, to argue for that case and seek support for change. 

Within the free speech dialogue, I believe there are few groups more important than charities. Unlike business, charities seek to pursue a charitable purpose, to deliver a public benefit. Charities are driven by values and a commitment to serve others. Their focus is on issues of concern to many across a very diverse range of communities.

Charities will rightly oppose any laws that are about protecting selfish economic interests and restricting the capacity of charities to highlight issues and advocate for public benefit.

Surely we have learnt something from the recent royal commissions. We need fairer communities, not ones where economic self-interest dominates. We need leadership that is about community interests, not just increasing company profits. Most importantly, we need more noisy charities, not less. 

Read on Pro Bono News: why-australia-needs-more-noisy-charities

 
 

Why Australia needs more noisy charities! Read More »