As Christmas approaches, many Australians will be planning to donate to charity.


Few would realise, however, the incredible damage the Gillard government is about to unleash on the sector with the advent of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC), expected at some point before the end of the year.

The ACNC will force charities to adhere to a raft of new tax and compliance requirements, dissuade people from becoming involved with charities and turn people off from donating.

There are 600,000 not-for-profit entities (NFPs) in Australia of which approximately 56,000 are charities. In relative growth terms, the NFP sector is second only to mining. Clearly, charities in Australia are big business.

In May 2011, the government announced $53.6m in funding for a “one-stop-shop” for the “support and regulation” of the NFP sector to replace the various arrangements in place in each state and territory and federally with the Australian Taxation Office. 

It’s admirable for the government to cut the red tape and make things easier for charities - but that’s not what they’re doing. 

The ACNC will force many charities to submit “Annual Information Statements” for the first time. They will have to give the government detailed information about their activities, operations and volunteers. And more charities will be compelled to notify the ACNC if they make changes to their board of directors or amend their constitution.

The cost to charities of this will be huge. The Baptist Ministries initially estimated that the ACNC would cost Baptist churches across Australia an extra $1 million on compliance.

So far only South Australia has announced that they will be amending their current arrangements to fit in with the ACNC. Far from creating a one stop shop, all the ACNC has done is whack another layer of regulation on charities.

The ACNC will also ramp up the penalties for when things go wrong. Australians currently donate $14.6 billion in volunteer time every year to charities. The ACNC legislation proposes that volunteer board members could be held personally liable in cases of management malpractice and will introduce exorbitant fines as penalties.

Indeed, the potential penalties faced by volunteer board members of charities is greater than a director of a normal business in many cases.

These measures won’t stop people from doing the wrong thing. They will simply discourage people from becoming involved in charities in the first place.   

And the ACNC will force charities to submit increased levels of information about their donors which can be made publicly available at the discretion of the Commissioner.

Whilst the level of detail of information required is yet to be made public, the fact that individuals may well be forcibly identified to the government and publicly ‘outed’ against their will only serve to prevent many from giving at all.

Of course, it’s also a gross violation of a person’s right to privacy for details about their private donations to be handed over to the government.

Apart from the damage the ACNC will do to charities, and the bungling over the issue of getting the states and territories on board, the government’s communication with the sector over the proposals has been appalling.

To take one example, the government will be increasing taxation to the earnings of NFPs that are deemed to be “non-altruistic”. It is yet to be communicated to charities what is considered non-altruistic and what is not. To make matters worse, this increased taxation will be applied retrospectively. As in, right now.

Indeed, the sector is currently in the farcical situation of operating under a taxation framework that is yet to be finalised and certainly yet to be communicated.

The ACNC is one of the worst examples of government involving itself where it is not needed or wanted. Far from making things easier for charities, the ACNC will make things harder and more expensive. Charities should be left to get on with serving those in need, not the government.

Comments on this post close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented

60 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Super D says:

      06:17am | 29/10/12

      The charitable sector has grown as a result of the tax deductibility of donations. In effect individuals are able to direct taxpayer funds to the causes of their choice. Perhaps the charitable sector should say goodbye to deductibility and tell the government to back off. There isn’t actually any intellectual or indeed moral argument for deductibility.

    • Rhino says:

      08:07am | 29/10/12

      Yup many charities are absolute b*llsh*t. Exclusive Bretheren comes to mind, they set up all these regular run of the mil businesses and use charity concessions to avoid taxes. Hill$ong is also a shocker as well, tell me how Brian Houston earning $200k mostly via fringe benefits and having an effective tax rate of 15% is fair.

    • Adam R says:

      12:46pm | 29/10/12

      Are you kidding? Who is the taxpayer? It’s you and I, it’s our money and the less the government takes from us the better. The moral and intellectual argument is that these funds are going to community institutions that provide services and charity to the public on behalf of their donators. Tax should only be used to provide for necessary services. This is an overreach and a knee jerk reaction to getting the budget back to surplus without making savings and spending more. You and I are literally paying for the mistakes this government has made and now it will be the communities and those in need. $1m is a lot to just take away from one church, I can only imagine the impact on the Salvos and other organisations that are larger.

      No one wins in this except the government. They should be ashamed, they know what they are doing is taking money out of charities.

      They’re political robbers raiding the chests of every individual and organisation to achieve their mirage of a surplus.

      I cannot for the life of me understand how some people can’t see through this.

    • nihonin says:

      06:26am | 29/10/12

      turn people off from donating = only to charities, not to the government via taxes.  wink

    • Louise says:

      08:23am | 29/10/12

      Exactly. The Government can’t have those pesky charities taking money that rightly belongs to the government. The Government must be in charge of all of our money because the Government knows what is best for us. [REPLAY]

    • iansand says:

      06:27am | 29/10/12

      You mean the charities will actually have to tell their donors what they do with the money?  That is scandalous!!!

    • nihonin says:

      07:13am | 29/10/12

      97% ‘Administration’ wink / 3% Benefit to the community.

    • A Concerned Citizen says:

      07:30am | 29/10/12

      As Richard Ratcliffe would say “every dollar you pay makes four dollars more!”, when he really means “20% goes into advertising” when he is pestering elderly people into disinheriting their children to pay for his $1000 conference tickets.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      06:38am | 29/10/12

      An ALP Government exerting central control and introducing extra layers of bureaucracy which drain the purse? Well, colour me surprised. 
       
      They did the same thing to the health sector; big announcements about how much of our money they were about to apply, little mention of the fact that it goes through three or four layers of filtering and distribution so that it is watered down to a minute percentage by the time it finally hits medical practices and hospitals, where it is actually required.

    • Disillusioned ALP Member says:

      09:10am | 29/10/12

      This Federal Government can’t seem to implement any program without a diarchal.  In typical pink bats, carbon tax, Mining Tax, Grocery Watch, Fuel Watch, NBN rollout, (feel free to add to this list) they take a reasonable idea and implement something else. 

      I would almost say “they can’t organise a F&*^ in a brothel with a fist full of fifties” but then they still have Craig Thompson’s vote.

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:48am | 29/10/12

      This is what happens when people give money to things - they want full disclosure and accountability.

      How this is surprising to anyone at all is just weird to me.  What did you think would be any government’s response to the continued call for accountability?

      (FWIW, I wholly support being open and accountable, but we need better methods).

    • Big Jay says:

      08:38am | 29/10/12

      @Mahrat - Totally agree. Accountability is good, cost of compliance is bad. Charities should be able produce basic financial reports showing how much they collected, and expense groups like cost of service, admin, etc.

      I have to admit I’m troubled by personal liability for volunteer directors, having done this myself for a small suburban sports club. I hate the idea that a genuine mistake or not uncovering a well laid plan could have you in some very hot water.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:29am | 29/10/12

      @Big Jay: I think it comes down to the amount of money you’re tossing about.

      For a small club suriving on 100K a year, compliance is just silly.  It’s not worth the time.

      For nation-wide charities?  Absolutely.  But how we get that compliance is another matter.

    • Stephen T says:

      02:47pm | 29/10/12

      @Mahhrat: All well and good but the description given by the Government for NFP casts a fairly wide net, it captures services such as Aged Care in all its forms, Child Care, Disability, Counselling and Community and Youth Services.  These are areas that delivery critical services to the community, and I know from practical experience that the level of reporting required in several of these areas is already substantial, for myself I would like to see more information regarding the specific areas to be targeted and at least a rationale to provide justifications for the reports assumptions.
       
      “What did you think would be any government’s response to the continued call for accountability?”

      I believe you will find that what people are actually calling for is parliamentary accountability, a point seemingly lost on this government.

    • Latika says:

      06:49am | 29/10/12

      It seems that this Govt will pretend it cares and doing its job by making it up as it goes without the nation or its people benefiting. If Australians haven’t yet realized that we have been misgoverned I have no idea what more would it take to acknowledge that the Gillard Labor Minority Govt is a Govt of ‘mis’ everything from misfire, misfortune, misgiving, misguide, mishandle, mishap, mishmash, misidentify, misinform, misinterpret, MISJUDGE, MISLEAD etc etc. To attack charities is pathetic.

    • acotrel says:

      07:26am | 29/10/12

      @latika
      What you really deserve was for the LNP to have been in power when the GFC first hit ! If the LNP ever gets up, Tony Abbott will probably define these words for you ! :

      misfire, misfortune, misgiving, misguide, mishandle, mishap, mishmash, misidentify, misinform, misinterpret, MISJUDGE, MISLEAD /.

      Or perhaps it will simple be - etc etc. ! -  The noes have it !

    • Latika says:

      09:35am | 29/10/12

      @ acotrel

      Sorry can’t take my claim, turn and twist it to your advantage. Typical, pathetic Labor! No defense so have to copy others.

    • Tell It Like It Is says:

      07:07am | 29/10/12

      No surprises there!
      Gillard reminds me of a man who used to appear on the Ed Sullivan show when I was growing up in the US in the 50’s. He had all these plates on sticks and run backwards and forwards across the stage re-agitating all the sticks trying to keep the plates spinning and not falling off. But he was good at it. She’s not.
      So she runs around and makes seemingly poorly thought out and just as badly advised and executed decisions ad hoc. And all the plates are falling down as she runs around giving money here with no thought of where it is coming from (and not helped by the other variety show performer, Clown Swan!) or taking there. Trying to do mission impossible, like some female counterpart to Jesus Christ’s loaves and fishes scenario.
      They’ve spent all OUR money and very badly.  Now we’re like one of those shops with the empty till drawer in the window; ‘no cash on premises’.

    • Sam says:

      07:08am | 29/10/12

      When is Accountability a bad thing ? Also I am sick to death of seeing the wealth of certain churches paid for with tax free donations.

      I have no problems with charities claiming a tax free exemption, IF, they can show every cent went to helping the unfortunate.

      I just fail to see what is so wrong about charities having to do and keep proper accounting records, do certain churches have something to hide ??

    • acotrel says:

      07:29am | 29/10/12

      C,mon now Sam, administration costs must swallow up a smidgen ?
      ‘The system runs on bullshit ! ’

    • A Concerned Citizen says:

      07:58am | 29/10/12

      Wait a minute, the author of this article is a member of the Institute of Public Affairs.
      Why exactly is the IPA talking about this issue? Normally companies with bad records hire the IPA for PR- certainly Australian charities wouldn’t be using their income to do this, right?

    • A Concerned Citizen says:

      07:27am | 29/10/12

      Actually I consider this a very good thing.
      Considering the expose’ done by the Telegraph recently on how many ‘charities’ truly conduct themselves I consider an act to hold them to account and pay proper tax a very good thing, as I am inclined to believe that is the only good thing those ‘charities’ will ultimately end up doing.

    • acotrel says:

      09:09am | 29/10/12

      The tax they pay will probably end up being used for the original purpose for which the money was collected anyway, but the outcomes will be better.

    • Mack says:

      07:31am | 29/10/12

      It would be nice if Julia could introduce the same level of compliance on the ACTU - there would surely be some interesting findings there….

    • Borderer says:

      08:59am | 29/10/12

      I was actually thinking the same thing.

    • OzTrucker says:

      07:34am | 29/10/12

      You’ve just gotta love ‘em don’t ya!

      If its not bad enough that the cost of living is though the roof these mongrels have to go and make life difficult for those trying to help out.

      The double standards are just breathtaking aren’t they. It’s ok folks we can jet all over the place, pocket our six figure salaries, sneak our Mrs along (I don’t care what bits of paper she has, what race she is or how many languages she speaks Bob. She is not an elected MP and she does not work for foreign affairs mate), but you lot over there have to keep better records ant tell us each time you change your underpants. Oh and if you dont and we find out about it we’ll fine the hell out of you, ok? 

      And they wonder why the likes of me just look at them with distaste.

      A lot of us work our collective arses off to make enough to pay the bills. Some of us are lucky enough to have a few bucks left over to give to the Sally’s or their charity of choice. Others donate their time to the SES or CFA and other volunteer groups.

      All this time the banks make eyewatering profits. Refuse to pass on rate cuts and screw us with fees and charges.  Hell we can’t tax them too much we need then to hold the union slush fund money. But that’s ok though.

      The MRRT brings in no revenue. But that’s ok though. (I wonder what’s happening with the state royalties situation)

      Another young bloke gives his life in a foreign country. But that’s ok though.

      Carbon tax works great. Nanna will not be able to afford to run an air con in summer or a heater in winter, she’s a tough old bird she’ll be right mate. Now she might have a problem getting meal on wheels. But that’s ok though.

      Now it’s time to put our greasy paws into the pockets of charities and not for profit groups. Make them jump though a few more hoops. Add to the cost of the good work they do. But that’s ok though.

      How the hell do they sleep at night.

    • bananabender56 says:

      07:43am | 29/10/12

      Some of the biggest landlords in the world are churches - are they paying tax on their profits from property?

    • iansand says:

      07:45am | 29/10/12

      Does it mean that the IPA will have to tell the world where its money comes from?

    • acotrel says:

      09:13am | 29/10/12

      No.  The IPA is not a charity, it is a propaganda instrument fully funded by the conservatives, just like Alan Jones. Perhaps he should be subsidised more ?

    • Cat says:

      07:46am | 29/10/12

      The government would have done better to cut the number of charities. We have too many. South Australia has two charities concerned with guide dogs - because there were arguments about the way things should be handled. There are many other very small charities - one for “obsessive-compulsive disorder” as an example.
      Many of these small charities have come about because someone has felt a larger group is not dealing with their very specific needs or wishes. They tend to be about personalities and big fish in small ponds. It may well be with the best intentions in the world but the administration of them is often very expensive.
      The constitutions of some charities are incredibly and unnecessarily complex - and the same goes for many other NFP organisations. Many of them are a legal nightmare.
      Reducing the number and streamlining them would benefit everyone. But other reform is also needed. If you volunteer now you almost invariably need a police-certificate - reasonable if you are dealing with people or other people’s money or property, You also need “occupational health and safety” training and other “training”. It gets more and more difficult to volunteer for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the charity.
      The government however needs to be very careful. Anglicare is the biggest service provider outside government. Other church organisations also kick in a multi-billion dollar service. Whatever people might think of organised religion it is a fact that without these services many other problems would increase, along with taxes.
      So yes, charities should be accountable but the government has to make the reporting requirements reasonable and the capacity to volunteer within reach of everyone.

    • Fred says:

      07:48am | 29/10/12

      $53.6 million could have gone directly to the NFP Sector especially those that donot attrack big business donations

    • NigelC says:

      08:19am | 29/10/12

      Attack or attract? Spelling doesn’t matter right?

    • barry from adelaide says:

      07:54am | 29/10/12

      Perhaps this will bring further scrutiny to sales and marketing organisations like Hillsong, the Church of Scientology, and the Exclusive Brethren?

      I dont see why the businesses run by these organisations deserve any tax concessions.

    • chuck says:

      08:08am | 29/10/12

      Unfortunately Latika Nihonin appears to be right. My son worked for a very large charity for a short period and was so put off by the obvious bleed of $‘s from their rightful recipients that he left.
      As they say charity begins at home something the current profligate lot in power should learn. With a willingness to cast $‘s to obtain spurious places in the UN, business class trips for spouses, hangers on and billions in “aid” to our so called friends in the Nth what chance is there left for the down and outs?

    • AdamC says:

      08:16am | 29/10/12

      The author has a valid point here about duplication among jurisdictions, but that is where it ends.It is not unreasonable that charities make financial disclosures and be held responsible for misfeasance.

      As a couple of commenters note above, charities already benefit immensely from the full tax deductibility of donations. In this context, Dalek Gillard et al are unlikely to ‘exterminate’ the non-profit sector in Australia.

    • John Humphreys says:

      03:16pm | 29/10/12

      I run an NGO that does not receive tax-free money. Most NGOs do not have DGR and so do not receive tax-free money.

      We arrange for relatively small amounts of money to be sent to poor Cambodian students each year, and none of the Australian volunteers receive any money. We do it because we like the project.

      Each year the government wants more pointless paperwork (and fees). Now they want even more pointless paperwork. I often don’t have the time… so I guess we’ll see whether the government hunts me down and “saves” the Cambodians from my tainted money.

      I have the financials and reports online and send them to the donors (and anybody else interested) so why can’t the government just leave me alone? It’s like they have a pathological desire to control other people.

      Seriously—why am I being punished here? And why are keyboard warriors out there cheering while NGOs are being attacked? :(

    • Christian Real says:

      08:30am | 29/10/12

      Not everyone can afford to donate to charities anyway, some of them ring up and attempt to pressure you into donating more than you can afford to.
      Does money donated go to those who need it, or to those that run it?Charity,as they say, begins at home.

    • Chris L says:

      08:31am | 29/10/12

      I’ll actually be more inclined to donate to charity once these regulations are in place, they way I used to before learning how much money charities keep for themselves (“administration”) and how little of it gets to the people they’re supposedly helping. I wouldn’t care which party introduced this.

      The fact that some states aren’t playing ball is hardly surprising. A similar thing happened when Howard introduced the GST and states refused to remove they individual charges the way they were supposed to. Did we blame Howard for that or did we blame the recalcitrant states?

    • Christian Real says:

      08:36am | 29/10/12

      Charities have turned me away from donating to them a long time ago simply because of their pressure marketing phone calls, so it does not matter what new laws or rules that the ALP government brings in before the end of the year,
      The old saying rings true, Charity begins at home

    • Rose says:

      11:28am | 29/10/12

      One of the problems charities face is that due to the ever increasing cost of compliance they need more and more money to achieve fewer outcomes.  As a result they have sunk to outsourcing a lot their fundraising which has led to those people in shopping malls trying to get you to sign up for direct debits or the pressure phone calls.
      I think it’s a lose/lose situation!!

    • Laura says:

      08:40am | 29/10/12

      For the past two years I have been treasurer of an Country footbal club with an annual turnover of about $150k, sure it isn’t a charity but I was a volunteer and all money made was through fundraising, and work by other volunteers. The football club was also incorporated which meant we have to fill out the paperwork stating where money came in from and where money went out to, this was generalised into categories, we weren’t required to show each line item. If you maintain your books right you should be able to add up what comes in as fundraising, donations etc, and what goes out to utilities, wages, maintainance etc. Why shouldn’t charities have to do the same?

      Some of the big charities would have paid employees so they would be required to ccomplete BAS and group certificates as well anyway.

      Complaining about having to do it just makes the rest of us wonder how disorganised you are (and how our money is being spent if you are) or what you are trying to hide.

    • Big Jay says:

      10:56am | 29/10/12

      Producing financials should be relatively easy (refer to my comments above for background). I think it will only be “controversial” if it goes down the path of big companies or organisations that produce general purpose financial reports. If they have to start to report how much exec’s are paid (by name), and how many are in certain income brackets (by number), who the top donors are (like top 20 shareholders), and other additional “disclosure”.

    • Miles Heffernan says:

      08:41am | 29/10/12

      Less regulation. Partisan Anti-Gillard musings - not by the IPA, say it ain’t so? (**Picks myself up from the violent feather breeze that just knocked me over.)

      Charities enjoy the benefits of a tax free world without much external scrutiny - while I am sure these laws are far from perfect, what is the solution? Or is the status quo just fine and dandy when taxpayers are footing the bill?

    • ex utero says:

      08:51am | 29/10/12

      Peter Gregory
      Institute of public affairs,

      Conservative good
      Labor bad
      say no more

    • ibast says:

      08:55am | 29/10/12

      Dodgy charity organisations are so prolific in Australia I just assume they are all a scam.

      This type of action is well overdue.  Quoting this:

      “There are 600,000 not-for-profit entities (NFPs) in Australia of which approximately 56,000 are charities.”

      Doesn’t help you argument in the slightest.

    • Big Jay says:

      10:25am | 29/10/12

      @Ibast - NFPs are just organisations that don’t distribute profits. This ecompasses everything from you’re local soccer club, to the RSL club, unions and professsional associations, industry groups and so on, that just means there are losts of them, dodginess is not implied

    • bananabender56 says:

      09:00am | 29/10/12

      Maybe apply the same oversight rules that unions operate under to the NGO’s and charities?

    • Stephen says:

      09:04am | 29/10/12

      The incessant barrage of beggars ringing my phone asking for money has seriously eroded any goodwill one might be disposed towards in terms of donations. Professional tele-mendicants smoothly trying to take your money for a variety of “worthy” causes, whilst those causes are under no obligation to report on their expenditure.

      Sorry…those days are done. You want my money, you show me where it goes…starting with those tele-mendicants.

      And while we’re at it, remove the favourable tax concessions from ALL religions.

      This is, in effect, a massive subsidy funded by all taxpayers who do NOT subscribe to the fantasy rantings of these deluded and deceitful cults. Let them believe as they wish, but let them pay their fair share. I have no desire for my taxes to be higher to compensate for these voodoo pedlars.

    • Lasa Bailey says:

      09:14am | 29/10/12

      Yes many charities are rubbish, but there are quite a number that are worthwhile and do great work, this law will cause major problems for them, not to mention the extra work and expense, that would be better served going to the people who need it, few people realise that we have people living in third world conditions here in Australia

    • Bob of the freezing tropics says:

      09:32am | 29/10/12

      I would be happy to see more regulation of charity groups but ONLY if the same regulations apply to unions - not likely under Gil-liar and her mob of despots.

    • Economist says:

      09:51am | 29/10/12

      It’s a confusing article in that the aim is to centralise government intervention and get rid of various jurisdiction requirements, and multiple agency requirements, yet at the same time impose tougher compliance requirements.

      The problem is the third sector these days provides a lot of services including through government grants and services on behalf of the government via other funding arrangements, such as employment services.  The sector provides health services, counselling services, aged care facilities, some manage large real estate reserves, they play on the stock market, they receive donations. Hence their relationship with government is complex as they should have to put together appropriate documentation to comply with government requirements as profit based organisations would have to. 

      Doesn’t it also provide for the centralisation of a volunteer register that would be of great use during natural disasters and the ability to centralise involvement of charities/non-profit organisations under these circumstances?

    • iansand says:

      10:08am | 29/10/12

      Before the GST came in I opened my (metaphorical) shoebox once a year in about February when my accountant seemed to think I should do something about my tax.  After the GST I opened it every quarter, to the advantage of my general financial management.

      Additional reporting can seem to be a burden but is often an unexpected boon.

    • Rose says:

      11:43am | 29/10/12

      This is a real conundrum, not easily solved. Successive governments have outsourced much of their welfare obligations to various NFPs, meaning that there is a need for greater accountability from these organizations. This is a direct cause of many challenges though. Firstly, instead of putting funding and effort in to delivering services, more and more effort and money goes into; competing for grants and contracts, compliance and accountability as well as assessing programs before during and after completion. The upshot is that there is less welfare bang for our buck than ever before. On the other hand it would be completely irresponsible for any government to hand over money without some serious accountability on the part of the recipients. On top of this are the cost burdens associated with minimizing risk (can’t even have a sausage sizzle without a detailed risk assessment), insurance and OHS compliance. Delivering services has become more and more expensive and less and less effective.
      Currently services are provided by those who charge the least, not necessarily those who provide the best value for money.
      Another problem is that as NFPs are now so reliant on government contracts to survive, they are less likely to advocate on behalf of their clients if that means challenging government agendas, so we lose again.
      Some where there must be a solution that balances accountability with independence while still allowing NFPs to deliver the best service at the best price. I’m just not sure that anyone is terribly interested in achieving the best solution, just the populist one!!

    • null says:

      01:06pm | 29/10/12

      “Indeed, the potential penalties faced by volunteer board members of charities is greater than a director of a normal business in many cases”

      Fortunately, union owned super funds remain free of such requirements

    • Lorraine says:

      02:36pm | 29/10/12

      Will the MacQuarie Dictionary be changing the definition of ‘charity” to fit the Gillard government’s new definition of the word?
      And are there any other word definitions they are thinking of changing?

    • Cherie says:

      03:41pm | 29/10/12

      Here is my two cents, probably off topic.
      Anna wanted a monument to the Volunteers,
      “Nobody (flood volunteers) was in it for the recognition and I don’t think anyone was in it for the glory. “
      To the tune of $1Milion, was that money coming out of the money,
      we donated to the “Flood Relief”, that Money was for the People,
      who lost their Homes, I would love an Audit , on that money.

    • Dig a little deeper says:

      03:46pm | 29/10/12

      No Govt should be allowed to 1) not tell you who is going to be subject to tax changes, and then 2) backdate the tax changes.

    • Arnold Layne says:

      04:04pm | 29/10/12

      Pfffff!  As if a Dalek would say “Destroy!” 

      EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

    • Chris L says:

      04:25pm | 29/10/12

      I’m reminded of when Dr Hewson was leader of the Liberal party and Pixie-Anne Wheatley kept asking him about the daleks. He just sat there looking perplexed.

    • AJ says:

      05:14pm | 29/10/12

      Well, gee, I wonder why the IPA (a not-for-profit that goes to extraordinary lengths to conceal its donor list and produces nothing in the way of public benefit) would come out against a regulator that ensures that not-for-profits don’t become tax avoidance machines?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter