Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The shadow assistant minister is seeking to suggest to the House, if I followed his argument, that there is some risk that Catholics would be prevented from proceeding with their processions on Palm Sunday. This is complete bunkum, quite frankly. I think we should continue to fertilise and irrigate our palm trees because we'll need them on Palm Sunday because I can't imagine a circumstance in which the ACNC would be out there with bunting to prevent Catholics from processing on Palm Sunday. I was once told by a silk I was briefing, 'That's a great argument, son, till you run it and lose.' I think that was his very nice way of saying to me that it was, in fact, a really bad argument and that, to be fair, it wasn't worth the oxygen in the courtroom, and that's what we just heard from the shadow assistant minister—a nice argument till you run it and lose. It was complete and utter bunkum.

We're here to talk about activism cloaked as a charity, or charitable organisations and the confidence Australians need to have in them. That's effectively the debate here, and I think it would be remiss of me not to reflect on the activities of yesterday in this precinct. I'll be brief, other than to say that what we saw yesterday at what is the home of Australian democracy was a cowardly, criminal act. It takes no skill and no courage to walk onto the forecourt of Parliament House with paint tins and matchsticks and set prams alight and deface this great building and what it stands for, not to mention the similar actions that took place at the Lodge. I say to those who perpetrated those offences and those acts: you do your cause an injustice because everyday average Australians look at those images and know immediately that they're paying for the clean-up. I'll be waiting with bated breath to see what it has actually cost the Australian people.

Of course, this is a continuum of the activity that we see at government offices. The department of agriculture was targeted last week. Individual MPs' offices have been targeted. To those people who think that it's a courageous and noble act to commit these criminal offences I say: the more courageous thing is to run for election, come to this place and make your arguments in this place. Don't go down to Bunnings and buy the red paint, because what you're doing is effectively asking your fellow Australians to pick up the bill for your—I was going to say 'misbehaviour' but frankly it is your criminal behaviour.

Enough of that. Listening to the shadow minister, I was sitting here reflecting and thinking this is really a situation where those opposed to this relatively straightforward reform want to suggest that this is something more than it is. This measure effectively seeks to require non-government entities endorsed as deductible gift recipients—that great gift from this place that enables charities to operate as entities with DGR status and offer tax deductions for donated contributions—to be registered as a charity or be operated by a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of DGR recipients in this country have this requirement on them already, and all this measure does is extend that requirement to general DGR categories.

I think it is quite reasonable that Australians expect that, if you are getting the privilege of DGR status, effectively public funding, you should conduct your affairs in a way that would satisfy the ACNC. It is a regulatory reform to make sure Australians can have confidence that entities that are given this great privilege are conducting themselves in a manner that is consistent with their charitable principles. Instead what we see all too often in my view is what the former assistant minister indicated when introducing the bill—namely, activist organisation seeking to cloak themselves in the protection of charitable organisations. They do that for the gravitas and recognition that comes with being a charity and because of the very clear financial benefits that come with being able to offer DGR status, or tax deductibility, to people making significant contributions.

The shadow assistant minister said that what our government wants to see is charitable organisations in the environmental field planting trees not campaigning or being political actors seeking to influence debate. Yes, we do want to see trees in the ground—practical, pragmatic environmentalism. But no-one is suggesting they can't be actors in the civic debate. The implied freedom of political discourse in this country is not something this bill seeks to undermine—frankly, it couldn't—but if you want to enjoy the benefits of DGR status we want to see those charitable objectives addressed. In the environmental space, that is practical, pragmatic environmentalism. If you want to come to this place and walk the halls and act in a way that aligns itself with political activism then you step out of the charity space and enter the field as political actors. There are rules that apply in relation to that activity—and so they should. This is quite an obvious scenario. We don't want people cloaked in charitable purposes pretending to be charities when in fact they are de facto activists and seeking to influence debate in a political context.

The Assistant Treasurer knows that something I'm very passionate about is DGR1 status for community foundations—I can see him almost cringing!

As a member of a regional community with probably Australia's strongest community foundation, I hope very much that the campaign to see DGR1 status for community philanthropic organisations is something that we can see be successful in the not-too-distant future. Once upon a time, Philanthropy Australia, the peak, didn't support that push, and we had a dichotomy of opinion between Philanthropy Australia and the peak for community foundations, the Australian Communities Foundation. We no longer have that dichotomy. We have those two important peak bodies in screaming agreement that this would be a positive outcome for community foundations, regional communities and individuals seeking their support nationwide.

There are currently about 38 regional foundations across Australia, ranging in size. They do phenomenal work on behalf of their communities. Importantly, the evidence is clear that individuals living in a regional community are more likely to give to a charitable organisation if they know that that charitable organisation is based in their community and will apply the proceeds of that charitable donation to their community. It's also a very effective mechanism for achieving outcomes in communities through a vehicle which perhaps wouldn't attract the attention of some of the more substantive nation-run and very large charitable foundations or, indeed, national charities.

I encourage, as I have done for some time now, the government to give strong consideration to DGR1 status for community foundations. It would be a massive win for regional Australia, a massive win for those living in regional communities. More importantly, it would see more money contributed to philanthropic effort in those communities, which can only mean better outcomes for communities. So, here, debating the benefits or the merits, if you like, of DGR status for organisations who seek to use that on occasion to run politically charged or politically driven interests is a frustration for my community, because my community sees the very great work that Stand Like Stone does in the community. It does that without the benefits of DGR status. It sees the great, pragmatic, on-the-ground, real-world outcomes that can be achieved. It sees that it is very much a charity. It doesn't pretend to be what it's not. It's not seeking to hoodwink the government into giving it DGR status, despite not wanting to apply to charitable principles. That's a great frustration for my community and one that I hope we will deal with.

In the meantime, this bill is effectively about asking organisations to swim in their lane. Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of DGR recipients in this country are already required to be registered with ACNC or to operate as a registered charity, but we're clearing up and making more consistent the regulation so that that applies to all entities with DGR status. We're effectively saying to the nation: you can have confidence that when you provide a contribution to an entity with a DGR status that it's a contribution to a charity; that those organisations will swim in that charitable lane; and that, if organisations want to exit that lane and enter the lane that's about political activism, that aims to achieve political outcomes through that form of advocacy, different rules apply to those organisations—rules consistent with other organisations which seek to do the same. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context