News Archives - Page 28 of 32 - Community Council For Australia

Freedom of Speech for Sale

If the charity sector accepts government restrictions on its public voice, it will be a sad day for Australian democracy and it will mean that free speech is for sale in Australia, writes David Crosbie, CEO of Community Council for Australia in Pro Bono News, 20 July 2017:

Freedom of Speech for Sale, Pro Bono News, 20 July 2017

The proposal to prohibit any form of advocacy during election campaigns by charities that receive foreign donations, and the recent request from the Register of Environmental Organisations for environmental charities to provide details of their “on the ground remediation work” (as opposed to advocacy activities) are both measures that will reduce the public voice of charities.

They also reflect a more primitive Australia where money is power, and where the disempowered pay a price for freedom of speech.

Former Australian prime minister Sir Robert Menzies said in 1942: “The whole essence of freedom is that it is freedom for others as well as for ourselves: freedom for people who disagree with us as well as for our supporters; freedom for minorities as well as for majorities. Here we have a conception which is not born with us but which we must painfully acquire. Most of us have no instinct at all to preserve the right of the other fellow to think what he likes about our beliefs and say what he likes about our opinions. The more primitive the community the less freedom of thought and expression is it likely to concede. All things considered, the worst crime of fascism and its twin brother, German national socialism, is their suppression of free thought and free speech.”

The restrictions on the rights of charities to exercise their free speech and advocate for or against government policy, or even to oppose environmental degradation, are a real challenge to the capacity of charities to pursue their purpose and represent the communities they serve.

The proposed new policies to restrict the voice of charities will be welcomed by some of Australia’s most powerful vested economic interests, but there is no evidence they serve community interest or reflect good policy.

The most influential lobbyists in Canberra include the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. In the latest federal budget the guild managed to get an additional $800 million on top of the $4 billion a year paid to an anonymous group of less than 5,000 pharmacy owners (pharmacy staff, including pharmacists, are often paid relatively low wages).

The guild can restrict the supply of medications and dictate who can open a pharmacy and where. Alternative, more free market based models, like having trained pharmacists within supermarkets, operate successfully in New Zealand and elsewhere around the world. While they clearly increase accessibility of medications and would reduce government expenditure, their adoption in Australia is blocked by the guild who have a $100 million fighting fund to protect their lucrative position.

There are other influential lobby groups that are very good at prosecuting the economic interests of their members. One of them is the Minerals Council of Australia.

In February this year, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull appointed Sid Marris, formerly at the Minerals Council of Australia and a News Corp bureau chief, as an adviser on “climate change, energy and resources policy”.

In a powerful quarterly essay titled The Long Goodbye, Anna Krien described the way the mining industry not only contributed to the demise of prime minister Kevin Rudd and ended the mining tax, but also now employs many key former government ministers and their staffers from all sides of politics.

“Australia has a political system captured by the fossil-fuel industry. It is a political Stockholm syndrome built on donations, royalties, taxes and threats (Rudd’s fate still looms large).The vast pensions given to politicians on their retirement were premised on the idea that being a civic representative, making the hard decisions, could lead one to become professionally untouchable. Instead, Parliament has become a transit lounge for politicians and their staffers on the way to fossil-fuel companies and their lobby groups. Inertia is the result.” (Anna Krien)

Krien points out the very effective use of money and lobbying power by big business in critical areas of public policy including public health and the environment.

While governments talk about the supposed “foregone revenue costs” of providing limited tax relief for donations to DGR charities, they never talk about the huge amount of foregone business tax revenue associated with the inflated business expenditure for political advocacy and the underwriting of peak bodies like the Minerals Council of Australia.

I do not agree with many of the policy positions advocated by Clubs Australia, the Brewers Association, the Wine Federation of Australia, the Australian Grocery Council, and many other well-funded business advocacy groups that appear to me to put profit before people. Despite my opposition to their views, I would never seek to restrict their capacity to exercise their voice, their freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

As Sir Robert Menzies and many others have argued, the strength of our democracy is about encouraging and supporting the right to free speech. We do not get to control or restrict the rights of others to criticise, to oppose, or to be a problem for us.

History tells us that it is often the ratbags, the difficult ones, those who challenge the prevailing view, that are the real champions of change. These trouble-makers are at the heart of our democracy precisely because they are difficult, because they ensure our decision making is accountable.

Free speech should never be for sale to the highest bidder. The Minerals Council of Australia should not be able to tell environmental groups what activities they need to engage in if they want to be able to retain charitable or DGR status. A medical research institute that receives funding from the Bill Gates Foundation should not have to shut up during election campaigns and not highlight the need for more medical research funding.

Charities exist because the community wants them to exist. Charities have satisfied a public benefit test to obtain their concessions from the government. Charities are very accountable for their activities through a well-functioning regulator. There are already many controls over charities that extend beyond compliance with the law, and significant restrictions on their capacity to engage in political activities.

Communities want their charities to be advocates, to raise their voices, to represent those who do not have the capacity to influence policies. Unlike Gina Rinehart, most of us do not have the means to fly government ministers and their partners around the world so they can attend private family functions with international leaders, or offer massive salaries to parliamentarians and their staff after they have served in office. None of us could write off such expenses against our taxable income.

Some in government are opposed to charities publicly campaigning or exercising their free speech, especially when the charities involved receive government tax concessions or donations from international philanthropy. They want to put a price on freedom of speech.

If the charities sector accepts this restriction of their public voice, it will be a sad day for Australian democracy. It will mean that free speech is for sale in Australia.

Freedom of Speech for Sale Read More »

Give Me Knowledge, Not numbers

News

Give Me Knowledge, Not numbers

A successful and transparent charity delivering on its purpose should not be sucked into discussions about whether it should be spending 10 per cent or 15 per cent on its overheads, writes David Crosbie, CEO of Community Council for Australia in Pro Bono News: Give Me Knowledge, Not Numbers.

Give me Knowledge not Numbers, Pro Bono News, 6 July 2017

“SOCRATES: What, Lysimachus, are you going to accept the opinion of the majority?

LYSIMACHUS: Why, yes, Socrates; what else am I to do?

SOCRATES: And would you do so too, Melesias? If you were deliberating about the gymnastic training of your son, would you follow the advice of the majority of us, or the opinion of the one who had been trained and exercised under a skillful master?

MELESIAS: The latter, Socrates; as would surely be reasonable.

SOCRATES: His one vote would be worth more than the vote of all us four?

MELESIAS: Certainly.

SOCRATES: And for this reason, as I imagine–because a good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers?

MELESIAS: To be sure.” – The Socratic Dialogue: Laches by Plato

Not everyone can run a charity effectively, particularly charities that employ people and deliver various programs and services. Running charities requires a level of skill, experience, capacity.

Unfortunately, there are many who would seek to undermine and diminish this knowledge.

I am not sure what is gained when charities seek to appease ill-informed commentators and experts-for-hire touting their econometric models, many enthusiastically pointing out that the numbers are wrong, and eagerly telling charities how they could and should do their work better.

I used to live on a dead-end street set on a peninsula surrounded by a river. There was one narrow road into the area which became very busy during peak hours. Many of my neighbours campaigned to have a bridge built over the river to end the daily gridlock and open the peninsula up to the wider world. The campaign was unsuccessful.

What if we decided we would just raise the money ourselves and build our own bridge? What if we collectively pooled all the building materials and tools we had, combined it with the money we raised, and just started building the bridge ourselves? How hard can it be? Put a huge amount of concrete in the ground, put in supports, run big steel girders from one side to the other, more concrete. I have successfully run a multifaceted charity and national peak bodies in mental health, and alcohol and drugs, surely, I could work out how to build a bridge?

The reality is that building a public bridge is a complex project requiring expertise, skilled surveying and engineering, planning and careful execution by a range experts and experienced tradespeople. You can’t just build a bridge.

In my experience, there is a similar reality about the kinds of services and supports provided by many charities and not for profits. Most of the major programs run by charities also need careful planning and execution by people with expertise. They require knowledge.

When my taxes are being used to build a bridge, I am not able to demand that a certain percentage be spent on the road surface or the geological surveys. I have to leave these decisions to those who have the knowledge and experience, and rightly so. I want the bridge builders to respond to the needs of the community by building the best and safest bridge possible, and provide value for money in delivering that outcome. I might express my opinion about what I would like from a user perspective, but I leave up to the experts the critical decisions about how they can best deliver the desired outcome.

If I want to support more remote Indigenous students to complete secondary education, or, help homeless people to secure sustainable accommodation, or, ensure more people in Africa have access to safe drinking water, I want the best possible programs to deliver these outcomes, and to provide value for money.

A successful businessman, a lucky investor, or a medical specialist, may have money to contribute towards a special program, or even to build their own bridge. That does not make them knowledgeable or an expert. I would no sooner allow a businessman, investor or medical specialist to build a public bridge than I would allow them to tell specialists in charities how best to deliver their outcomes.

Everyone is free to have an opinion, but charities need to be informed by real knowledge and expertise about what is going to deliver the best outcomes for the communities they serve. This is not about opinion, but about evidence, experience, knowledge.

Recent debates about charitable fundraising, about how much is being spent on infrastructure, administration or promotional activities, about the need to better audit charities and their activities are all part of the same agenda to have the charities sector engaged in a discussion it can never win.

If ‘Charity A’ spends $100 on fundraising, and raises $400, has it done better than ‘Charity B’ spending $2 million and returning $4 million? What if the $400 was returned in the first year with no further return. What if the $4 million was returned over five years with losses in the first and second years, $1.5m surplus in the third, $1.3m in the fourth and $1.2m in the fifth? I could do numbers. Charity A achieved a 75 per cent return in the first year. Charity B made a loss in the first year. Charity B only returned 50 per cent on the fundraising investment, but ended up being able to offer $2 million worth of additional new programs that made a difference. Charity A offered $300 worth of benefit. Is one better than the other?

These arguments are just as unwinnable as a bridge builder engaging in a debate about the amount of money spent on geological surveys for a bridge. Sometimes you need to spend more, sometimes less, it all depends on what you are trying to achieve and over what period.

There are two fundamental interrogations all charities should publicly account for: the first is about transparency. Is the charity transparent about all it does, its expenditure, relationships and engagement with its communities? Are there clear and transparent policies, governance, and decision making?

Transparency is the foundation stone of trust, the antidote to suspicion. It is the light that ensures personal interests, financial advantage and misuse of resources cannot go unnoticed.

The second fundamental area of public accountability is fulfilment of purpose. A charity may claim to be delivering certain outcomes, but is it? Does it really make a difference? How? Does the charity acknowledge their failures and their successes, what has been learned, what has been achieved?

A successful and transparent charity delivering on its purpose should not be sucked into discussions about whether they should be spending 10 per cent or 15 per cent on its overheads.

It should, however, be very strong in arguing how it delivers real outcomes, achieves change and has a positive impact in the communities it serves.

If people are donating money to a charity to achieve a purpose, they want to know the money will be used in the best possible way to deliver the outcome they support.

The strength of the charities sector is not in having zero overheads, or being able to produce audits that indicate high levels of specified activities or outputs. The strength of charities is that they have the knowledge to deliver real outcomes to the communities they serve. This is what we need to focus on and talk about. This is what counts. Anything less is just numbers.

Give Me Knowledge, Not numbers Read More »

Divide and Conquer

News

Divide and Conquer

In the face of a targeted campaign to limit advocacy, the charities sector must not become divided, writes CCA CEO David Crosbie in Pro Bono News, Divide and Conquer, 22 June 2017:

Divide and Conquer, Pro Bono News, 22 June 2017

It took a lot of effort from many people over more than a decade to establish the Australian Charites and Not-for-profit Commission (ACNC).

At the parliamentary launch of Regulating Charities: The Inside Story, edited by Myles McGregor-Lowndes and Bob Wyatt, Anne Robinson, the founding chair of the Australian Charity Law Association, briefly ran through a chronology of events that lead to the establishment of the initial ACNC Task Force, and the long struggle to build an effective regulatory body despite government opposition.

There have been some outstanding champions – none less important than Senator Ursula Stephens – but this achievement was the product of a sustained effort by hundreds of individuals and organisations committed to creating a better regulatory environment for all charities.

There were opponents to the establishment of the ACNC within the charities sector, but the Pro Bono Australia surveys of the sector highlighting 80 per cent support for the ACNC became a critical factor in arguments that sustained it through the difficult early years.

It was an open letter from over 50 leading charities that helped convince the Senate to support the continuation of the ACNC.

In recent weeks, the ACNC has again come under some pressure with the failure to reappoint the outstanding leader Susan Pascoe, but that is not all. Issues are now being raised about the role of charities, the need for greater monitoring, fundraising reform, election campaigning by charities that receive foreign donations, Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status and charity advocacy.

While all these issues are important and require careful responses, it is this last issue that appears to have the greatest potential to divide the sector. The government have made it very clear that a primary target of their proposed reforms to DGR status is the environment movement, particularly charities that campaign against mining and other development.

There may be many reasons why the government is seeking to audit environmental organisations and restrict their advocacy, but there is no doubt that lobby groups representing the mining industry are going to be active players in responding to the Treasury DGR discussion paper.

In a recent newsletter, the Minerals Council of Australia have asked mining companies to make submissions in response to the Treasury DGR paper, providing the address and some suggested content. In part, this newsletter suggests the following:

Greenpeace, Lock the Gate and groups like them currently receive Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status which means that donations to them are tax-deductible. This assists them to raise funds for illegal protests.

You can help by making a submission to the government. Your submission doesn’t have to be long. A simple WORD document with your contact details is all that’s needed.

You might like to cover the following points:

All environmental charities should be regularly reviewed to make sure they are abiding by the law.

Any environmental protest group that breaks the law should immediately have their DGR status revoked. Taxpayers should not subsidise illegal protests by anti-mining groups.

To be eligible for DGR status, the primary purpose of an environmental charity should be “on-ground” work that improves the local environment.

According to ACNC data, environmental charities have a total annual turnover of less than $1.5 billion each year, or around 1 per cent of the total income for all charities in Australia. They employ less than 10,000 staff, but have close to 200,000 volunteers. Approximately 1,000 of the 1,350 environmental charities have a total income of less than $50,000. Interestingly, 57 per cent, or 770 of these charities, have DGR status.

The experience gained through the process of establishing the ACNC shows that strength is unity.

There are 770 environmental charities being targeted within the proposed reforms for DGR, but what happens next if we allow these organisations to face ongoing audits of their activities and restrictions on their advocacy?

I would expect many in the mining industry will take the time to put in a submission outlining how terrible it is for the economy and jobs when environmental organisations disrupt their activities.

I am not sure how many charities will put in a submission saying how important it is for them to be able to advocate (as is their legal right under the definition of charity 2013), or the harmful impact of regular activity auditing.

I do know we should never allow our voices to be silenced. To be silent is to deny what is important to the communities we serve.

The mining industry and others would like to divide and conquer. They are hoping the broader charities sector will distance itself from environmental charities, and be content with these changes knowing most charities are not yet directly in the firing line.

One measure of unity would be if non-environmental charities made more submissions than those charities whose purpose is to protect and enhance our environment.

Even if we cannot achieve this, surely more charities will make submissions than mining companies?

If we are going to create the Australia we want, if we are to become a stronger movement for building and sustaining flourishing communities, we cannot be divided.

You can make a submission in response to the Treasury DGR Discussion paper here.

Divide and Conquer Read More »

Open Letter in support of the ACNC and Commissioner Susan Pascoe

News

Open Letter in support of the ACNC and Commissioner Susan Pascoe

Charity leaders from across the sector have written to the Prime Minister concerned about the future of the Australian Charities and Not for profits Commission following the surprising and disappointing news that ACNC Commissioner, Susan Pascoe AM will not be re-appointed for an additional term and will step down on 30 September 2017.

The Open Letter, signed by over 100 charities from across the breadth and diversity of the sector, is available here and reads as follows:

The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, MP

Prime Minister of Australia

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Friday 9^th of June 2017

RE: Civil Society Support for Commissioner Susan Pascoe and the Independent Charities Regulator

Dear Prime Minister

We write to you concerned about the future of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC). We all want to see it continue and expand its impressive work.

We are therefore very disappointed that the fifth Minister appointed by a Coalition government to oversee the work of the ACNC, who has never met with the ACNC Commissioners, has now indicated he will not be renewing the contract of the ACNC Commissioner Susan Pascoe AM. This is despite positive support from the Treasury and the ACNC Advisory Board. By any measure, Commissioner Pascoe has done an impressive job in leading the ACNC. In November 2016 Commissioner Pascoe was the winner of the prestigious Outstanding Contribution in Public Administration Award – highlighting her world class leadership and professionalism.

Several of your Ministers, including the Treasurer Scott Morrison, have publicly acknowledged the importance of the ACNC and supported its continuing role. This has been a welcome and important reversal of previous policies and enabled your government to build a better relationship with the charities and not-for-profit sector. Unfortunately, it seems not all members of the government are supportive of the very important role played by the ACNC.

We believe Commissioner Pascoe should be reappointed, at least for another 12 months to enable the five-year review of the ACNC to be conducted without excluding her extensive knowledge and experience of how the organisation operates and performs.

Failing this reappointment, we would like you to ensure there is a transparent, fair and consultative process to appoint the best possible replacement. One of the critical criteria for this role is a deep understanding and experience across the charities and not-for-profit sector. Ideally the sector itself would be represented in the selection process. Given what has happened with Commissioner Pascoe, it is very difficult for the sector to have any confidence that the new appointment process will reflect the need for a strong, effective, independent charities regulator.

You have demonstrated in your actions and leadership as a philanthropist that you understand how charities and the broader not-for-profit sector are at the heart of Australian communities. Our organisations are there in the good times and bad. They provide support to the most vulnerable; lift our sights and our hearts through culture, sport, education, welfare, support for the aged or the unwell; promote our spirituality; protect our animals and our environment; play our part internationally, and ensure those less able can still participate. The not-for-profit sector also makes a major economic contribution, employing more than one million Australians and turning over in excess of $134 billion each year. Governments all know we need a strong not-for-profit sector in this country if we are to be both economically strong, and enjoy healthy fulfilling lives.

The establishment of an independent national charities regulator was first seriously proposed through a Howard Government review of the definition of charity in 2001, and has been supported by many, including the Productivity Commission, the Henry Review, and several Senate Inquiries involving hundreds of submissions and numerous public hearings.

Since its establishment under the leadership of Commissioner Pascoe, the ACNC has done outstanding work including: developing Australia’s first ever on-line up-to-date searchable database of registered charities; registering over 11,500 new charities; de-registering over 19,000 charities that were either no longer in existence or failing to meet appropriate standards; winning numerous awards for innovation and digitalization of data; producing informative research reports on the nature and extent of Australian charities and their activities; providing world leading education and support services to charities including fact sheets, guidelines, templates and information sessions across the country. The ACNC has also done what few new regulators achieve – improve public trust and confidence while gaining widespread support across the sector it is regulating.

Again, we urge you to revisit the decision not to re-appoint Commissioner Pascoe or, at the very least, put in place a process our sector can have confidence in for the selection of her replacement.

The vital work of the ACNC must be maintained, for the benefit of charities, not-for-profits and the many communities they serve.

Signatories (Click to view Open Letter with Signatories)

Related media coverage:

7.30 Report, Charity Case

The Saturday Paper, 19 August 2017, Nobbling the Charities

The Mandarin, Statutory commissioner wanted; stakeholder relations experience essential

Canberra Times, Federal government moves to assure charity sector about ACNC’s future

The Australian, Charity bosses lobby Malcolm Turnbull to overturn Sukkar decision

Pro Bono News, Transparency and Merit in Hunt to Replace Pascoe as ACNC Head

Pro Bono News, Calls to Support Charity Regulator as ACNC Commissioner Steps Aside

Open Letter in support of the ACNC and Commissioner Susan Pascoe Read More »

Avoiding a democratic car crash

News

Avoiding a democratic car crash

This week has highlighted how important it is for us to be brave in our advocacy and stand up for democracy, writes David Crosbie, CEO of the Community Council for Australia (CCA) in a Pro Bono News opinion piece, Avoiding a democratic car crash:

Avoiding a democratic car crash, Pro Bono News, 8 June 2017

Over 50 leading charities in the UK have this week published a joint letter seeking major changes to the laws governing the ability of charities to campaign during elections.

The letter has been widely reported in the UK press and gained considerable support. The key concern is the administrative and regulatory burden imposed by the Lobbying Act, which the charities argue has significantly reduced their capacity to campaign in the lead up to the UK general election.

The Lobbying Act imposes new requirements on charities including full documentation and costing of campaign activities 12 months before the date of the election. This requirement is retrospective meaning that all charities involved in campaigning during the current election have to provide detailed financial campaign records back to June 2016. This is despite the election only being called in April this year.

The open letter from more than 50 charities states that:

“The Lobbying Act has had a significant chilling effect on legitimate charity sector campaigning in the pre-election period. A number of charities – including signatories to this letter – have altered or reduced campaigning activities before the election as a result of the act.

Voices are being lost at this crucial time, and our democracy is the poorer for it. Those charities that continue to campaign to further their charitable objects are subject to an enormous and unreasonable administrative and financial burden.”

Most major parties have now agreed to scrap or significantly reform the UK Lobbying Act after this election. Few believe the new law has been effective. Few believe it has enhanced democracy. It seems corporate lobbyists generally have the capacity to comply with the costly financial reporting systems involved in documenting and costing campaign activities. Smaller charities struggle to meet the requirements of the act.

Some charities, like Greenpeace, have found it so restrictive they have refused to comply, and already been fined. A Greenpeace spokesperson described the Lobbying Act as a “democratic car crash”.

Wednesday morning this week on ABC radio, the Special Minister of State Scott Ryan informed Fran Kelly that foreign donations to political parties would be restricted under new legislation he was drafting, but that was not all. The minister also argued that foreign donations to third parties involved in campaigns and advocacy should be restricted as they could influence the outcome of an election. He then discussed the need to restrict overseas funding for groups like GetUp and other third party political campaigners.

At the Australian Progress conference in Melbourne this week (Progress2017) a whole session was devoted to the issue of defending democracy. It was interesting listening to participants in the session talking about all the ways in which pressure had been exerted on them and their organisations not to publicly advocate for policies that would benefit their communities.

In the lead up to this event, a group of organisations lead by the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) worked together to produce a report; Defending Democracy: Safeguarding Independent Community Voices. CCA, ProBono Australia, ACOSS, choice, Justice Connect, and the Reichstein Foundation are among the organisations that collaborated to prepare the report (which is available for download here).

Professor Gillian Triggs, president of the Australian Human Rights Commission launched the report on the last day of Progress2017.

The fundamental principle that informs the report is directly linked to the concerns being expressed by charities involved the UK election campaign. Charities and not-for-profit organisations play a critical role in our democracy, especially during election times. This is about more than providing a voice for the voiceless, it is about engagement in the process of choosing representatives that reflect the concerns of many different communities. It is the heart of democracy, the meaning of democratic process.

The five main areas of concern addressed in the HRLC report include:

preventing advocacy through restrictive funding agreements
restricting or reducing the ability of charities to offer tax deductions to donors (DGR status)
restricting funding of charities from outside of Australia (including from head offices based overseas)
restricting NFP involvement in elections and campaigning
cutting funding and limiting government engagement with peak bodies.

The government is now raising questions about the legitimacy of groups like GetUp campaigning during election periods. At the same time, there is little, if any, discussion about the advocacy and political campaigning of groups like the Minerals Council of Australia, major multinational companies, or the over-protected cabals of special interests, like the owners of pharmacies in Australia.

Campaigning for your vested interests seems to be much more politically acceptable to government than campaigning for the interests of the marginalised, the disadvantaged, the arts or the environment.

The HRLC report argues: “We must work together to protect our independent, vibrant, robust and strong tradition of free speech and community activity.”

This week has again highlighted how important it is for us to be brave in our advocacy, to validate the experiences of the communities we serve, to raise our voices, to not be silenced as we work towards the Australia we want to live in. Democracy depends on it.

Avoiding a democratic car crash Read More »

Advocacy, Politics and Mowing the Lawn

News

Advocacy, Politics and Mowing the Lawn

Charities in Australia currently enjoy some of the strongest legal protections in the world to engage in advocacy, but we should never take these protections for granted, writes David Crosbie in Pro Bono News, 25 May 2017.

Advocacy, Politics and Mowing the Lawn, Pro Bono News, 25 May 2017

The definition of charity that was passed into legislation in 2013 reflected the decisions of the High Court of Australia that engaging in advocacy for changes to benefit society can be a charitable purpose.

As the then assistant treasurer David Bradbury stated in the second reading speech supporting the Charities Bill 2013 when it was introduced into our Parliament: “The bill reflects the Aid/Watch decision that charities may have a purpose to generate public debate about a charitable purpose. It allows for an entity to have a charitable purpose, including a sole purpose, of promoting or opposing a change in the law or government policy relevant to another charitable purpose.”

I was sitting in the Senate gallery when the Charities Bill of 2013 passed in the Senate. There was no major celebration, no fanfare, but those with an understanding of how charity law can be applied to restrict the voice of civil society realised how significant this legislation was.

Around the same time, the Harper conservative government in Canada was enacting an agenda to shut down charity advocacy, particularly in relation to environmental organisations. They initiated audits of the activities of targeted charities, drawing on legislation that restricted the level of policy advocacy any charity could engage in.

The current Trudeau Canadian government has adopted a different approach to the charities sector. To inform their deliberations about the role of charities in public policy and political decision making, a panel of experts was appointed and a report prepared. The Report of the Consultation Panel on the Political Activities of Charities, released a month ago, makes some salutary points about the role of advocacy and the difficulty of excluding what are termed “political activities”.

In framing their report, the authors clearly set out the benefits of charities playing an active role in public policy: “Charities have long played a critical role in our society. Along with providing much-needed programs and services, they serve all Canadians by pressing for positive social and environmental change. Charities bring commitment and expertise to the formulation of public policy, develop innovative solutions to issues and engage a diverse group of stakeholders, many directly affected by the matters under discussion. This is particularly valuable in an era of complex social and environmental challenges and constrained government budgets, where all informed perspectives and ideas are vital.”

To enable and maximise the contributions of charities, we need a regulatory environment that respects and encourages their participation in public policy dialogue and development. This is not currently the case. The legislative framework for regulating charities in Canada is outdated and overly restrictive. It is, in the words of one submission, “antiquated, subjective, arbitrary and confusing” – denying Canadians the right to have their voices heard through the charities they support.

The four recommendations in the report include lines like: “To enable charities to fully engage in public policy dialogue and development… to allow charities to fully engage, without limitation, in non-partisan public policy dialogue and development, provided that it is subordinate to and furthers their charitable purposes.”

Perhaps most importantly, the Canadian report sought to focus on ensuring charities were working towards their charitable purpose rather than focusing on their activities.

The Coalition government in Australia has previously indicated it would like to restrict advocacy by charities. Their attempt to delay the implementation of the new definition of charities was blocked in the Senate, as were their attempts to disband the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

This blocking of the government’s agenda was the consequence of considerable lobbying and advocacy by CCA and others. It was achieved through strategic action, informed by shared information (often through Pro Bono Australia), and supported by charities themselves allocating time and resources to the task. I have no doubt that without this collective effort to resist the government’s agenda for charities, Australia would have followed the Canadian path with increased restrictions on advocacy backed up by audits of activities.

The charities sector continues to face pressure from governments to restrict any advocacy that might be interpreted as critical of government policy. This pressure is sometimes applied through inferred threats to funding, exclusion of input into policy formulation, refusal to meet or consult with organisations, or ongoing attempts to impose new restrictions.

There are no easy answers to the issue of how charities can continue to exercise their right to actively campaign and participate in the development of public policy. CCA continues to work with all political parties and the Senate cross-bench to highlight the importance of a strong civil society voice. We know that we are much more likely to be able to defend the legal right to advocate within our charitable purpose if we join together and act collectively.

As a respected colleague pointed out to me at a CCA board meeting, when it comes to attempts by governments and political parties to restrict the advocacy of charities, the grass will keep growing, and we will need to keep mowing.

Australian Progress is running a special session duringProgress2017 (6 June Melbourne Town Hall) focusing on defending advocacy – David Crosbie is a speaker at this forum.

About the author: David Crosbie is CEO of the Community Council for Australia. He has spent more than 20 years as CEO of significant charities including five years in his current role, four years as CEO of the Mental Health Council of Australia, seven years as CEO of the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia, and seven years as CEO of Odyssey House Victoria.

View original article in Pro Bono News.

Advocacy, Politics and Mowing the Lawn Read More »

Is this a fair Budget?

News

Is this a fair Budget?

The federal budget of so called “fairness” has in some ways reset the government’s priorities and reflects the influence the charity sector can have through effective advocacy, writes David Crosbie, CEO of Community Council for Australia in Pro Bono News, 10 May 2017.

Is this a fair Budget, Pro Bono Australia, 10 May 2017

If there is one value that is most often cited as a core Australian value, it is fairness.

The polling following the 2014 federal budget was devastatingly clear. The “no pain no gain, contribute and build, lifters and leaners, belt tightening, budget repair job” was not seen as fair.

Contrary to what the then-treasurer Hockey and prime minister Abbott seemed to argue, the issues contributing to our budget emergency were not caused by the lifestyles of the poor. Making it harder for those without wealth to get access to healthcare, education or any form of government assistance was not seen by many as a good way of reducing the size of government.

Since 2014, fairness has become an important word in the political arsenal of all sides of Australian politics.

It comes as no surprise that the second Scott Morrison budget claims fairness as an informing principle, at least for the purpose of “resetting” the federal budget and pitching it to a jaded electorate. As part of this “resetting” the government also seems to have embraced increasing debt, something previous Coalition governments railed against.

In this new “reset” budget, health spending is significantly increased reversing many of the previous cuts and adding new expenditure in critical areas like mental health, hospitals, heart health, cancer, and other diseases. Access to a wider range of healthcare in Australia will be better because of this budget.

An increase in the Medicare levy to fund the NDIS, increased investment in social housing, new support (albeit very small) for impact investment, a levy on big banks, and new infrastructure investments are just a few of the other positives.

There are also new negatives. Cuts to tertiary education will impact the poorest students, reducing international development funding to our lowest level ever should be a source of national embarrassment. There is no mention of the environment, and in some areas – like Community Legal Centres – not having money taken away is counted as a good budget measure.

Perhaps the most heartless act in this budget is the proposal to drug test welfare recipients and exclude drug users from pensions and other entitlements. I am not sure where this form of victim blaming ends – next we will be denying diabetes medications and treatment to all fat people. Most of the people I have met battling drug dependence have had horrific experiences in their lives. Why create roadblocks to rehabilitation?

So is it a fair budget?

When CCA was looking at measures for fairness we chose inequality in income distribution, partly because there is an accepted validated measure – the GINI co-efficient – which is measured and reported on an annual basis in many countries around the world, providing us with a good comparative indicator.

Inequality in Australia is at record levels and increasing. This budget reinforces inequality. The poorest recipients of welfare are again to be cut in real terms while the richest Australians will pay less with the lifting of the temporary budget repair tax on incomes above $180,000.

There is an ongoing commitment to trickle-down economics that remains questionable. Whether providing tax cuts to business produces real gains for our community remains to be seen.

As time goes on and people start to unpack the detail of this budget, I am sure many issues will emerge. Some will be positives – new programs and opportunities for people – some will be negatives.

This budget has addressed some issues and improved access to some services, but it doesn’t do much to address growing inequality in Australia or offer increased opportunities for the poorest in Australia and internationally. It does little to support our environment and continues with a central economic commitment to significantly reduce business tax.

At the end of the night, after looking at so many figures, the positives, the negatives, the calls from interest groups about issues addressed or not addressed, one thing seems clear. This budget realises the success of the “Mediscare” campaign and the power of the “I give a Gonski campaign”.

This budget reveals a government that felt it had to do something about housing, about banks, about fully funding NDIS.

In addressing these issues, the 2017 federal budget is not only a resetting of government priorities, it also reinforces a very important message to the whole charities sector. We can influence the shape of our federal budgets, the priorities that get attended to, through democratic processes and effective advocacy.

So if there is something we believe in, something that needs to change to make Australia fairer, it is time to start campaigning to “reset” the 2018 federal budget.

Is this a fair Budget? Read More »

Australian values? Who are we kidding?

News

Australian values? Who are we kidding?

Our Australian “values” need to be grounded in the reality of life in Australian communities and not just a list of words we agree to, writes David Crosbie, CEO of the Community Council for Australia in Pro Bono News, 27 April 2017.

At a local dawn service with my family on ANZAC Day, the featured speaker talked about “Australian values”. Like most Australians, I value and respect this special day where we remember and acknowledge the sacrifice so many have made, and the terrible cost of war. As I looked around at the assembled crowd, I found myself wondering exactly what “Australian values” did we really represent?

At the same time, to commemorate the same occasion, our prime minister was in Iraq and Afghanistan praising the important work of our troops and talking about “protecting our Australian values”. Again, I value the work of our troops and all who keep us safe, but is this really all about Australian values?

In a discussion on ABC TV 7.30 a few days earlier defending changes to tighten Australian citizenship requirements, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull identified Australian values as “freedom, equality of men and women, the rule of law, democracy and ‘a fair go’,” and claimed these were “uniquely Australian”.

“They are shared with many other democracies but… there’s something uniquely Australian about them,” he said. The prime minister also referred to our pride in these values and our commitment to them.

These values the prime minister refers to are not only shared with many countries and cultures around the world, they are also shared with most of us working in the charities sector.

When CCA brought 60 outstanding leaders from across the charity sector together in 2015 (including over half the Pro Bono Australia Impact 25 members) and asked what values were most important in the Australia they would want to live in, it was a relatively straightforward process to arrive at an agreed list of desirable values.

Being fair, just, providing equality of opportunity to men and women, were included in the 14 core values agreed by the CCA AusWeWant Forum.

What was hard for these charity leaders was not naming values they think of as essential in their communities, but agreeing what those values might mean in practice. How do we measure the values we think are important or the values our prime minister talks about as having a uniquely Australian character? How do we make words like fair and just, and equality of opportunity meaningful? What is their utility? What do they mean in practice? How do we know if we are enacting the values we talk about?

Let’s start with equality of opportunity for men and women. The PM talks about gender equality including “in the corridors of power in politics”. What measure might an Australian prime minister apply to ensure he (or she) was delivering equality of opportunity for all Australian men and women?

The Turnbull cabinet has just 10 women out of 41 positions. The number of elected female Coalition members of Parliament is the lowest it has been in over 20 years – only 17 per cent of government MPs are female. Under Turnbull, three retiring female MPs (Bronwyn Bishop, Sharman Stone and Teresa Gambaro) have all been replaced by men.

The Coalition has defended not preferring women candidates in pre-selections arguing all their pre-selections are merit based. Their opposition, the Australian Labour Party, has introduced a quota for female pre-selections. In the current House of Representatives, 40 per cent of ALP MPs are women. The ALP will have 50 per cent women MPs by 2025.

Forty-one countries have more women in Parliament than Australia. If “equality of opportunity for men and women” is a “uniquely Australian” value, perhaps all these countries that have more women in decision making roles participating in their parliamentary processes are more “uniquely Australian” than we are? If the number of women in Parliament is not the measure (and it may not be), what is?

In the Australia We Want first report, CCA used the measure of female participation in employment as one measure of equal opportunity and found mixed results across the country. CCA also used perceptions of personal safety and found that women in Australia feel less safe than in most OECD countries, while Australian men feel safer than their OECD counterparts. What does that say about Australian values?

The CCA Report also asked how “‘just” Australia is, by measuring how many of us are free or locked away. The Report found that: “The number of prisoners in Australia rose by seven per cent in 2015. The rate of imprisonment grew by 6 per cent. Our rate of incarceration is 196 per 100,000, higher than any country in Western Europe, more than double Scandinavian countries, and higher than comparable countries such as Canada and Ireland where the imprisonment rate is less than a third that of Australia.”

When our prime minister talked about freedom and the rule of law, perhaps imprisonment rates were not the measure he was thinking about, but if they were, Ireland is obviously much more “uniquely Australian”.

When considering how the value of fairness was reflected in our communities, CCA examined income inequality and used the accepted measure for income distribution, the GINI coefficient. AusWeWant found that: “Australia’s GINI coefficient has increased between 2011-12 and 2013-14, indicating growing inequality in the distribution of income, while also being higher than most OECD countries.”

Australia is not a society where income is distributed fairly compared to most OECD countries and policies that reduce inequality (like death duties on the richest 5 per cent) are not even on the table for discussion in Australia, despite being accepted practice in countries like the UK, US and Canada. Claiming values like fairness as uniquely Australian may be reassuring, but I know of no measure suggesting Australia is particularly fair compared to most equivalent countries around the world.

Lists of Australian values can sound nice and help us feel our country is special, but these discussions seem somewhat removed from policy or practice. Do any of the values we promote as uniquely Australian actually inform our national policies?

It is important to embrace discussions about what values matter to us, our families, our communities, our country, but making a list of words we can all agree to is not a particularly useful end in itself.

The charities sector is well placed to talk about what values actually mean in practice, how values are or are not being enacted in our communities, and what we can do to more fully realise values like fairness and justice that we think are important. This is partly why CCA has committed to publishing the Australia We Want reports.

Our values should never just be about the words themselves. Our values need to be grounded in the reality of life in Australian communities, and that will not happen if we allow hollow rhetoric about Australian values to go unchallenged.

View article in Pro Bono News: https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2017/04/australian-values-kidding/

Australian values? Who are we kidding? Read More »

Dear Prime Minister, Premiers and Chief Ministers

News

Dear Prime Minister, Premiers and Chief Ministers - 5 April 2017

Fix Fundraising – An Open Letter from 150 of Australia’s leading charities

5 April 2017

Dear Prime Minister, Premiers and Chief Ministers

Australia’s charity fundraising regulations are a mess. They’re out-of-date – they deal with wishing wells and the length of handles on collection boxes, but not with online fundraising, crowdfunding and websites. Charities want to do the right thing, but it’s too complex, too confusing and it’s ineffective.

In economic terms alone this is a big issue: the charity sector employs over 1.1 million Australians generating over $134 billion in annual revenue, including more than $11 billion from individual giving. The loss in productivity involved for the thousands of charities who try to meet the requirements of the seven different fundraising regimes amounts to tens of millions of dollars annually.

It is time to fix this. It can be done, easily, at no cost. Federal, State and Territory governments can provide charities with one nationally-consistent, modern and fit-for-purpose fundraising regime as part of the current review of the Australian Consumer Law. It can be clarified and amended to ensure charities (and those raising funds for them) are required to meet a clear set of donor-focused expectations and requirements in their fundraising activities.

For more than two decades, the sector has been asking governments to #fixfundraising. There have been numerous independent inquiries all recommending change, yet still we are told this issue is not important enough. It seems cutting red tape for business is essential, but cutting red tape for charities is not.

The charities of Australia support and enable so many aspects of our lives − education, the arts, health, housing, employment, recreation, social services, childcare, emergency services, family support, justice systems, international development, the environment, religion and spirituality, animal welfare, and many other areas that are crucial to Australia’s productivity and well-being. We need action now so our organisations, and the donors who support us, can operate under a 21st century, nationally-consistent and fit-for-purpose regulatory regime.

We call on your Governments to prioritise working together to fix this fundraising mess so we can get on with what we do best – building flourishing communities.

View Open Letter and Signatories.

View CCA Media Release.

Dear Prime Minister, Premiers and Chief Ministers Read More »

Victoria Takes a Lead in Fundraising Reform

News

Victoria Takes a Lead in Fundraising Reform

In the coming months Australia’s charity sector has an opportunity to take a huge step forward in fundraising regulation reform, with Victoria leading the way, writes CCA CEO, David Crosbie in Pro Bono News.

Victoria Takes a Lead in Fundraising Reform, Pro Bono News, 16 March 2017

On Wednesday Victoria took a major step forward in supporting the #fixfundraising campaign. A court decision and an agenda-setting speech from a minister in the Victorian government have boosted the case for reform.

Most readers of Pro Bono News know that fundraising regulations in Australia are a classic example of ineffective regulation, duplication and red tape.The existing regime is grounded in an outmoded hangover of federalism requiring charities to comply with seven separate sets of administrative requirements. Perhaps just as importantly, fundraising regulations are rarely enforced and most of Australia’s 50,000-plus charities do not comply with all the requirements, even if they are engaged in fundraising.

For more than two decades charities have been seeking to make the system workable. Academics like Professor Myles McGregor Lowndes, not-for-profit law specialists and even the Productivity Commission have all pushed for reform.

Over the next month or so, the charity sector has an opportunity to take a huge step forward in fundraising regulation reform. The current review of Australian consumer law (ACL) is an important doorway to harmonisation. The ACL can easily be clarified and amended to ensure charities are required to meet a clear set of consumer-focused expectations and requirements in all their fundraising activities. We do not need seven sets of onerous and ineffective regulations.

CCA understands that the main barrier to achieving reform is not a lack of a policy solution or even state reluctance to let go of their regulatory role, the problem appears to be that key ministers and policy makers could not be bothered because it is not considered a significant issue.

It seems that while cutting red tape for business is essential, cutting red tape for charities is not.

When the Victorian Federal Court handed down a judgement on the fraudster Belle Gibson in a case brought by the Victorian Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, the decision highlighted how the existing consumer law can be applied to someone misleading people by saying they are providing money to a charitable purpose when they are not. This is an important judgement because it clearly demonstrates that the consumer law can be an effective way of addressing inappropriate fundraising practices. Breaching Victorian fundraising regulations was not at issue. Breaching consumer law was.

What made this action and decision in Victoria even more significant was the statement made by the Victorian Minister for Consumer Affairs Marlene Kairouz at an invitation only meeting of consumer affairs ministers and policy makers on the same day.

In part of her speech, she said: “The review of the Australian consumer law concludes next month when consumer affairs officials present their final report to all consumer affairs ministers for consideration.

“The review has drawn on a range of sources to build its evidence base and I know that many of you present today have contributed your knowledge and experience, whether that be in survey responses, face-to-face interviews, or formal submissions. Thank you for your input.

I’m also aware that among the issues you have championed is that of nationally consistent fundraising regulation – to both improve the clarity of the ACL’s application and to reduce regulatory burden.

“Research undertaken for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission in 2016 showed that state and territory regulation of charities (including fundraising regulation) imposed costs to registered charities of over $15 million per year.

“This is money wasted and just one reason why I support your calls to overhaul this aspect of the ACL. While I would hope that my colleagues in other jurisdictions are of a similar mind, the reality is that evolution for some looks akin to revolution for others and achieving a consistent view will be a challenge.

“Nonetheless, I will continue to advocate for national reform while taking appropriate action to remove red tape for charities and not for profits operating in Victoria.

“Legislation currently in the Parliament will enable me to exempt an incorporated association or a class of associations from annual financial reporting requirements where they are also registered with and reporting to another regulator.”

Clearly Victoria gets it. We know some other jurisdictions are now on the same page. But we still have quite a way to go to achieve the goal of harmonised fundraising grounded in the appropriate application of Australian consumer law combined with the registration role of the Australian

Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The federal government is yet to offer support and at least two jurisdictions have adopted the “why bother” policy position.

CCA is a member of the #fixfundraising campaign and will be part of proposed activities over the coming months.

If we do not campaign and campaign hard on these issues, they will yet again slip off the policy agenda, and we in the charities sector will be left wringing our hands wondering why our concerns are not being taken seriously.

Well done Victoria and Minister Kairouz, for listening to the charities sector and responding.

I look forward to a vigorous campaign over the coming months to ensure the federal government and other jurisdictions get on board. I hope you will join us.

Victoria Takes a Lead in Fundraising Reform Read More »