Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Hansard source

Throw him out. I was talking about deductible gift recipient status, which, quite clearly, this legislation does cover, and I was talking about confidentiality agreements for these organisations. Because the government has pulled out of providing a whole lot of social services, it is asking the charities to provide those. Where the charities do pick up the contracts, they are asked to sign a confidentiality agreement which, again, prevents them from commenting when they believe that government policy is wrong.

A study by Clive Hamilton and Sarah Maddison of the Australia Institute, which I mentioned a moment ago, called Silencing dissent, shows that these organisations in many cases are clearly frightened of criticising the government. One of the leaders in persecuting organisations that are advocates has been the Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative think tank which, incidentally, has charitable status and which has referred to these organisations as ‘cashed-up non-government organisations which are an unrepresentative dictatorship of the articulate’.

The Institute of Public Affairs, incidentally, received $50,000 of government funding to audit non-government organisations to determine whether they were legitimate representatives of the people whom they claim as their clients. Incidentally, the Institute of Public Affairs, which received this $50,000 in government funding, whilst it is a charitable organisation, does not disclose its donors, which of course is one of the criticisms that it makes of these other organisations.

The churches, amongst other organisations, have really been caught in this sandwich. If they are working to relieve poverty once it is obvious in the community, that is okay; if they want to talk about why poverty exists in a country as wealthy as Australia, at a time when it is raining cash from the resources boom, then they have their charitable status threatened.

Obviously, no government likes to be criticised—none of us take it well. But previous governments have understood that, in a healthy and strong democracy, people who advocate for the most disadvantaged members of our community should not be punished for standing up for those people. It is vital for democracy, in fact, to have people standing up for the most disadvantaged members of our community, to make sure that their voices are represented when decisions are being made.

Since the 2001 inquiry into the definition of charities and related organisations, and the proposed charities bill in 2003—the bill that lapsed—many organisations have argued for a rethink on laws and regulations relating to charities. At the end of last year Jobs Australia and ACOSS released a discussion paper floating an idea relating to the reform of charities, the definition of a charity, regulations relating to charities and categorisation. They are calling for a more modern definition of a charity. We are still working with a definition from 1891. It goes without saying that the role of these organisations has changed significantly since then. It may well be worth modernising and harmonising the regulation of various tax statuses so that the current confusions over whether an organisation is a charity, a public benevolent institution or a deductible gift recipient are removed.

ACOSS has suggested that we consider the establishment of a charities commission, similar to the one in the UK. The commission would act as a gatekeeper of charitable status at a federal level. It would mean that the regulation of many of these non-government organisations and their tax treatment would be at arm’s length from the government. That would allow these organisations to continue to play the important role they play in the community without fearing that, if they are too outspoken, they will lose their tax deductibility status. Advocates of a charities commission argue that it would streamline and improve the overall regulation of charities as well as harmonise the accountability requirements placed on charities and deductible gift recipients by state and Commonwealth regulators and departments. I think that is well worth considering.

I mentioned some research earlier by Sarah Maddison and Clive Hamilton from the Australia Institute. There has been a great deal of very interesting research also undertaken by another academic, Joan Staples, that goes through just how the government has used its funding and tax deductibility status to prevent a number of these organisations from saying what it is that they truly believe about the way that the most vulnerable people in Australian society have been treated. Joan Staples’s research in this area is very relevant as well. This whole argument about the shutting down of the defenders of the most vulnerable people in the Australian community reminds me of what the founder of the St Vincent de Paul Society, Frederic Ozanam, said. He said, ‘Charity is the oil being poured on the wounded traveller, but it is the role of justice to prevent the attack.’ I think that any system that helps pour the oil on the wounded traveller is worth supporting—of course I support that. But any system that actually prevents advocacy for justice for those people has serious flaws.

See this speech in context