The Law Stripping charities of their charity status

Remove this Banner Ad

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,277
18,862
AFL Club
Sydney
The federal government is currently pursuing regulatory change to allow for the deregistration of charities in cases where staff commit a summary offence, the most minor of legal breaches.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...es-will-stifle-political-advocacy-experts-say




My only question is; would a Royal Commission finding of a cover up of the sexual abuse of thousands of children deem an organisation to be unfit to be a charity? If not, why not?







Read all about it here:


https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2021-149084



Treasury is seeking submissions on the draft legislative instrument and explanatory materials for changes to governance standard three in the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Regulation 2013 to expand the scope of impermissible activities that registered charities must not engage in or promote others to engage in.


In response to recommendation 20 of the Strengthening for Purpose: Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Legislation Review 2018, released on 6 March 2020, the Government committed to explore legislative options to address uncertainty in the law. The amendments will include that, in addition to the current governance standard, registered charities:


  • must not engage in conduct that may be dealt with as a summary offence relating to real property, personal property or persons under an Australian law; and
  • must take reasonable steps to ensure their resources are not used, nor continued to be used, to promote or support any entity to engage in unlawful activities prohibited under the standard.

The purpose of governance standard three is to give the public confidence that a registered charity is governed in a way that is sustainable and consistent with its purposes, and that it protects its assets, reputation and the people it works with. The amendments are intended to ensure that governance standard three is more consistent with the disqualifying purposes set out in the Charities Act 2013.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Chief

Overlord
Dec 1, 1999
98,084
76,109
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
So if your charity promotes a peaceful, lawful protest, and the police kick off with the violence, what level of proof is required to show that your charity or it’s resources were used in committing offences?
 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
55,274
97,763
AFL Club
Hawthorn
So if your charity promotes a peaceful, lawful protest, and the police kick off with the violence, what level of proof is required to show that your charity or it’s resources were used in committing offences?
Don't be nasty to the fossil fuel industry and you'll be fine. The poor miners can't cope.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,277
18,862
AFL Club
Sydney
So if your charity promotes a peaceful, lawful protest, and the police kick off with the violence, what level of proof is required to show that your charity or it’s resources were used in committing offences?
No need to prove charity resources were used.
 

Chief

Overlord
Dec 1, 1999
98,084
76,109
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
No need to prove charity resources were used.
  • must not engage in conduct that may be dealt with as a summary offence relating to real property, personal property or persons under an Australian law; and
  • must take reasonable steps to ensure their resources are not used, nor continued to be used, to promote or support any entity to engage in unlawful activities prohibited under the standard.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,277
18,862
AFL Club
Sydney
The IPA. Anyone know why the least charitable group of people in the country end up being registered as a charity?
It's a safe space for right wing f-wits???

Then again, that would qualify Newscum for charitable status as well.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,277
18,862
AFL Club
Sydney
  • must not engage in conduct that may be dealt with as a summary offence relating to real property, personal property or persons under an Australian law; and
  • must take reasonable steps to ensure their resources are not used, nor continued to be used, to promote or support any entity to engage in unlawful activities prohibited under the standard.




Requirement to take reasonable steps to ensure the proper use of resources

The expanded standard will also require registered charities to take reasonable steps to ensure their resources are not used to promote or support any entity to engage in an unlawful activity where that unlawful activity, if undertaken by the charity itself, would result in a breach of governance standard three.
As with the existing governance standards, the steps that are reasonable to comply with the new requirement are to be determined objectively (i.e. from the perspective of a reasonable person) and will depend on the specific circumstances of the charity.
This change covers a situation where a charity’s resources are used to promote or support any entity, which includes any individual, organisation, group of persons, as well as a charity’s volunteers and third parties (such as beneficiaries or donors), to engage in an unlawful activity.
This new requirement reflects community expectations that registered charities should govern the use of their resources responsibly and ensure that their resources are subject to controls and safeguards against potential misuse, either from within or outside the entity.

What is meant by a charity’s resources?

In this context, ‘resources’ is intended to cover a registered charity’s senior management and its staff, funds, property and other assets. This includes a charity’s online presence (e.g. a website on the internet or social media accounts), communications material (e.g. letters and emails), responsible persons and employees of the charity, charitable revenue (including donations), and land or buildings owned by the charity.
However, ‘resources’ is not intended to include a charity’s volunteers. This means that a registered charity does not contravene the expanded standard if a volunteer promotes or supports any entity to engage in an unlawful activity without the authorisation of the charity.



https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-02/c2021-149084_faqs.pdf
 

Chief

Overlord
Dec 1, 1999
98,084
76,109
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
This change covers a situation where a charity’s resources are used to promote or support any entity, which includes any individual, organisation, group of persons, as well as a charity’s volunteers and third parties (such as beneficiaries or donors), to engage in an unlawful activity.
SO I suppose entities need to be careful in their language - but I thought that they already are.

Though I reckon a few Facebook pages for some local charities like anarchist book shops and the like could be construed as supporting "unlawful activity" and those guys could have their wings clipped.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,277
18,862
AFL Club
Sydney
SO I suppose entities need to be careful in their language - but I thought that they already are.

Though I reckon a few Facebook pages for some local charities like anarchist book shops and the like could be construed as supporting "unlawful activity" and those guys could have their wings clipped.
The entire purpose of the exercise is to get GetUp.


Which is extraordinary when you consider what went on in the churches with all the raping of children, on church property, at church events.
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
May 3, 2009
20,517
16,517
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Sounds like this is aimed at unions and organisations like Getup! and Greenpeace who arrange publicity stunts as a form of protest.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
18,277
18,862
AFL Club
Sydney
Sounds like this is aimed at unions and organisations like Getup! and Greenpeace who arrange publicity stunts as a form of protest.
Spot on.

This is just an amendment to the existing legislation.
The only thing they've changed is downgrading the offence from indictable to summary.
+ they've added some wishy-washy explanatory garbage.

End result: the only thing these new amendments can catch is GetUp/Greenpeace/Vegan charities. (Unions aren't charities)

Back to my original question.
It won't catch organisations where child sexual assault was/is rampant.
But it will catch protest groups.

What sort of sick joke is that?
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
10,711
13,321
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
How about we ban "charities" that seem to spend almost all money on expenses such as wages and travel for directors and dont seem to do anything but as pr organisations
If an organisation is getting the tax benefits of being a charity I'd like to see full transparency of how much they pay their employees and board members.

By definition a charity is not-for-profit. If an organisation is generating large amounts of revenue but avoiding profit, and subsequent taxes, by diverting excess funds to highly paid employees then at the very least that information should be publically available - so sponsors can judge whether their money is being well spent. It would also allow easier reviews by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission to ensure their charitable status is legit.

Then there's the question of fairness. Many of these charities run as businesses competing against businesses who are at a disadvantage because they have to pay tax.
 

Over The Post

Bless you, my children
Nov 17, 2007
12,613
11,856
Bikini Atoll
AFL Club
Richmond
By definition a charity is not-for-profit. If an organisation is generating large amounts of revenue but avoiding profit, and subsequent taxes, by diverting excess funds to highly paid employees
petrescue.com.au

It's a "charity" that rakes in millions in donations and is even encouraging people to name them in their wills. They do not rescue a single pet. Not one.

Instead they run a website with a great logo, that charges actual rescue organisations to list animals for adoption. A huge proportion of their income goes to paying mega-salaries to the founders. Last time I looked their costs for running the site was about $100k a year, plus another hundred for employees (web designer). They do deals with places like Petbarn which donates near-use-by food to this "charity" which then distributes it to a small handful of favoured groups. Have a look at their annual returns, it'll make you think you're in the wrong business. Trust me, they are *hated* by those on the animal rescue front lines who do all the dirty, emotional, harrowing grunt work and see potential donations and support disappearing into these pricks' pockets.

It's pretty much the same as donating money to realestate.com.au because they help people find houses, or to seek.com.au because they help the unemployed. It's just a ******* website. Sorry, "charity."

Then there's the question of fairness. Many of these charities run as businesses competing against businesses who are at a disadvantage because they have to pay tax.
<koff> Sanitarium Foods <koff>
Have you had your tax-free Weetbix today?
 

Remove this Banner Ad