Statutes Amendment (Commonwealth Registered Entities) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 March 2016.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:52): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Commonwealth Registered Entities) Bill 2016, and I suspect I will be the only speaker. I indicate that the opposition have considered the bill and will consent to the same.

Essentially, this is a bill the government claims to be necessary to reduce the administrative burden for charities registered under the Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission Act 2012. There is probably nothing further from the truth; nevertheless, I note the following: firstly, under the Associations Incorporation Act 1985 and the Collection for Charitable Purposes Act 1939, charities collecting money or attempting to collect money or goods for a defined charitable purpose in South Australia need to be licensed.

South Australia has had a regulatory disclosure regime since 2009; however, a national scheme was established in 2012. There has certainly been some movement for that, and I think the new federal government were considering whether it was necessary for them to keep a national regime. However, on 4 March this year, the federal government announced that they would keep the national structure.

I am not inspired to accept that it is necessarily in any way to help consumer protection; I suspect it is entirely for them to keep an eye on what entities are in existence for the purposes of making sure they get their rightful entitlement to taxation. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, they have decided to keep the national scheme.

What this bill does, as has been identified in the second reading contribution of the government, is to provide some of the regulatory duplication (definitions, etc.) and, in particular, one which is to relieve charities of the obligation to lodge periodic returns of certain information, has been provided to the commissioner and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

In other words, the national scheme is staying in place. We have a state scheme that is sitting alongside it and, so that you do not have to duplicate a lot, some relief has been offered. However, I raised this question during consultation and I would ask the Attorney to provide some explanation as to why it is necessary for us to keep the state scheme if we are going to stay in the national scheme, and it now seems clear that the federal government of the day is agreeing to continue to do that.

During the consultation and, in particular, the briefing provided by the government advisers on 16 March, I requested to be advised, firstly, how many people were employed in business and consumer affairs to undertake this responsibility under the state regulation scheme and, secondly, the number of those entities that are registered in South Australia. I noted that apparently there were approximately 600 but that was also to be provided. Thirdly, I requested the cost to business and consumer affairs to provide this service, namely, the registration procedure and compliance under the state scheme which today we are indicating we will allow to continue.

We may not still agree with that if I do get the answers to those questions, but it is not a bill of such moment that we would hold up the passage of the bill at this stage. However, I would ask that that information be provided because, quite frankly, even though SACOSS and other entities representing the not-for-profit sector have accepted that this legislation pass, it does raise the question why we need to have this regime in the state at all if we are going to a national scheme.

If we are all about reducing red tape, then I am sure the Attorney will come back with some argument to support why it needs to stay. I did read with interest on 14 March an article by Mr David Caruso, President of the Law Society, where he pointed out that there is a level of red tape and form filling necessary even for the simplest exercise like conducting a sausage sizzle. He wrote:

Last Sunday, the Law Society cooked a sausage sizzle for the Henley Surf Life Saving Club. The Three Little Pigs Gourmet Meat Store donated some sausages and we partnered with the Melanoma March to feed their hungry walkers. All was going well—but then came the forms. The council dutifully sent us a food event notification form and vending permit form. We needed a probe-thermometer to measure sausage temperature and to advise that other sausages would be transported and refrigerated. There was an application fee, mobile food vending permit fee and vending on local government fee.

Luckily the Henley [Surf Life Saving Club] already had some approvals so we bypassed some of the red tape [but] there is a touch of irony in surf lifesavers coming to the rescue of lawyers on permits and approvals.

The council process is designed to ensure community events are not disruptive to the very community they serve and that safety standards are met, but there is a significant approval process, even for a sausage sizzle, to which an applicant must dedicate staffing and finance.

It is not just in a simple event such as this that there is some level of red tape. It is also in the state business and consumer affairs agency continuing to employ people to keep a state register and, presumably, at least on an ad hoc basis, conduct some audit of compliance. With that, I indicate that we will consent to the passage of the bill on the basis of the Attorney exercising some courtesy in getting me the information requested.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (17:59): I thank all the contributors on this topic. I think I am able to assist the honourable deputy leader about a couple of matters that she has raised, and if there are more things that she wishes to be apprised of, I am very happy to do my best between here and another place to add to what I am about to say.

The first question, as I understand it, is why don't we repeal the whole of the act? I am advised of the following information: a number of charities collecting for charitable purposes in South Australia will not be registered with the ACNC and they will still be required to be licensed. In addition, the provisions contained in the Charities Code of Practice issued by the minister under the CCP act apply to all licensed collectors in South Australia.

The code promotes greater public confidence in charities through increasing transparency and availability of information. The code of practice covers areas such as hours and location of collection activities, identification requirements for collectors, ongoing collection agreements, promotion of collection activities, receipts, health and safety of collectors and disclosure by collectors.

The next question: how many charities are licensed under CCP, and how many of these are registered with ACNC? The number of charities licensed under CCP is approximately 660. Consumer and Business Services has not yet undertaken an analysis against the ACNC database to confirm the actual number of charities also registered with them. Not all charities collecting for a charitable purpose in South Australia are registered with ACNC, and will continue to apply and lodge financial information with CBS each year.

It is not mandatory for charities to register with ACNC. Any charity seeking access to commonwealth taxation concessions and other commonwealth benefits and concessions, including deductible gift recipient status, is required to be registered with ACNC, which I read to mean that it would be in their best interest to be registered.

What are the cost savings? CBS, I am advised, operates in integrated functional areas and there is as such no specific unit or specific employee or employees whose entire duties are devoted to the licensing of collections for charitable purposes. So the effect of that is in practice that some people who work in CBS will cease doing as part of their otherwise required duties whatever is involved here, but they have got plenty of other things to keep going with, so it does not result in FTEs as such being completely released.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am told that it gets absorbed in the workforce, because I think to be fair and, again, I will receive a shake of the head or a nod or something if this is wrong, this is not by any means the major work of CBS, and so it is a relatively minor additional function, so I do not think it yields anything in FTEs. Anyway, that is what I am advised. They can get on with other things like compliance and other activities of that sort, so hopefully that is of some help.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (18:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.