Destroy! Gillard Government goes all Dalek on charities

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’.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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?