COLLECTIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2007. Page 727.)

The Hon. A.L. EVANS (22:22): I support the second reading of the bill, although Family First has some concerns that it would appreciate being addressed. Family First is a strong supporter of the work of charities and our charity workers. Our community would be a poorer place without those who dedicate themselves to the wellbeing of the neediest in our society. In the past volunteers would be responsible for selling badges and collecting money for their charity. However, the number of volunteers available for collection is in decline, with 41.67 per cent of employed males now working over 40 hours a week. As their work obligations increase, fewer people are willing to volunteer.

Family First recently spoke to Wendy Shirley from the South Australia Volunteer Fire Brigades Association, who was concerned for volunteers in that sector as employers put increasing restrictions on CFS volunteers. Our society today, with its focus on the bottom line, is not friendly to the volunteer spirit. In the absence of suitable volunteers many charities employ professional collectors and charity collecting is increasingly seen as another industry. It is hard to criticise a charity that is struggling for survival for using a professional collection service to stay afloat, but it makes us ask whether our society is heading in the right direction.

New section 6C provides that collectors must indicate whether they are being paid or carry a badge which indicates they are paid collectors. Prominently advertising the fact that the person is a paid collector will, no doubt, decrease the donation received. There will most likely be cases where collectors will attempt to hide the badge, print the notification in small font and so on to hide the fact. Regulations concerning the size of font that could be used on the badge may be of assistance, provided the spirit of the legislation is complied with. However, we are likely to see a decreased take in donations for paid collectors. Some charities may stop using such collectors and some may even fail, which is a heavy price.

Nevertheless, Family First believes the community should be informed about where their donations are going. Nothing is more detrimental to a generous society than a creeping sense of scepticism. Nothing is more likely to close people's wallets than a sense that their money is not going where it is promised. That is the current risk. On balance, Family First believes that the disclosure of paid collectors is the best solution for our society and charitable organisations in the long-term. However, we also believe the community must increasingly be encouraged to volunteer. One element of disclosure missing from the badge reference in new section 6C is the name of the organisation being collected for.

I sometimes come across people with buckets in the city asking for donations to feed Adelaide's hungry population. This, of course, seems like a worthwhile cause. These collectors are actually members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. No doubt they are sometimes hungry, but if the fact that this is a religious collection was made more prominent, no doubt people of other religions may refuse to donate to that cause. I have read the current provisions and it appears that the name of the organisation being collected for does not need to appear on the badge. I am also uncertain whether this group would be regarded as a charity or whether their activities would fall just outside that definition.

I keep in mind that the current wording of the bill puts an onus on charitable collectors, which is not matched by those who may be collecting for organisations whose purposes fall outside the definition found in clause 4. That is something of a concern, and it does appear unusual that a group such as a local netball club is exempt from the disclosure requirements while the Salvation Army is not. I would be grateful if the rationale behind this decision could be explained during the committee stage.

With respect to certain charity entertainment events, the bill will also require disclosure to be explained more specifically before the function. I know that past events have included dinners with Cherie Blair and Rudi Giuliani. It is important that people who are outlaying so much money know how much is really going to charity and how much is going to the guest or to the organiser. That seems very sensible to us, and we commend the government for the clearer disclosure provisions in this regard.

Family First also commends the minister for tabling amendments to the bill which resolve some other concerns that we had, including, under the previous version, what would happen with the collection plate at a Salvation Army hall. We therefore indicate support for these amendments. We further sympathise with the concerns of the opposition and note the concerns raised by the now departed Hon. Nick Xenophon. We will consider these concerns during the committee stage. With these comments, I indicate Family First's support for the second reading. We will consider the bill further at the committee stage.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (22:27): In closing the second reading debate, I point out that this bill clearly proposes a minimum set of disclosure requirements for organisations that collect for charitable purposes, investigative powers and a number of administrative and technical amendments. It is the result of an extended consultation with the charity sector with the objective of achieving a balance between improved disclosure and the cost of administration. We believe that this bill achieves that balance.

The fundamental provisions in the act have been in place for many years. Its purpose is to provide statutory protection to both givers and collectors, which is still relevant today. As clearly stated in the title, the act regulates collection activities for charitable purposes. It does not apply to the commercial activities of the charity; for example, allowing the use of the charity's name on a product in return for a product fee. These circumstances are addressed by laws that apply to businesses generally. In relation to donations, givers want to know that collectors are legitimate and collectors need to protect their name and reputation so as to maximise collections into the future. The act achieves this and should not be abolished, as suggested by the opposition in another place.

However, there appears to be some confusion among the opposition about how the act currently works. The Hon. David Ridgway in his second reading contribution suggested that a local football club collecting for a charitable purpose would need to be licensed by virtue of the amendment bill. That is not true. The licensing and authorisation framework, in essence, remains unchanged. The local football club collecting on behalf of the licensed charity simply needs to contact the charity for authority to collect on their behalf prior to collection. The football club does not need to be licensed. This is an important protection that gives control to the licensed charity about who collects for them from the public and how that is done.

The Hon. David Ridgway, in his second reading contribution, also suggested that the bill makes it a requirement that when a charity sells tickets to an event the advertising and tickets must display the estimated amount and the intended proportion of the sales revenue that will be provided to the charity. That is not so. This was a key issue in the consultation process with the charity sector. The final report released in December 2006 discussed a range of issues relating to events disclosure requirements. It discussed the administrative burden on charity organisations; how disclosure on an event basis, such as networking and profile-raising events, may be misleading and harmful to charity organisations; and difficulties with television and radio advertising to communicate event financial information. The government (as recorded in the final report) agreed with the charities and, as a result, this bill does not require the disclosure of event financial information of this nature.

During the briefings the Hon. Sandra Kanck raised some concerns about how the technical requirements for authorisation would impact on more spontaneous forms of giving to charitable purposes. The government is sponsoring an amendment that will provide an exemption in circumstances where the collector knows the givers and where all the collection is provided to a licensed organisation. This activity should be encouraged, and it will be by this government's amendment. The Hon. Sandra Kanck also raised the issue of how the new disclosure requirements would be implemented, and I can advise that that is the government's intention for a long lead-in period with the amendments commencing on 1 July 2008.

The Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner will, prior to commencement, notify all the changes with a plain English bulletin, place information on the website, establish an advice telephone and e-mail hotline, prepare update bulletins with answers to frequently asked questions, and offer information sessions. Information sessions and update bulletins will continue after commencement if there is a need. No charity need fear the disclosure requirements. The government will not prosecute organisations for making honest mistakes in complying with these new arrangements; it will offer them help to get it right.

The Hon. Nick Xenophon raised a number of matters that will also be dealt with in an administrative way, and I am happy to confirm that the Minister for Gambling has agreed to implement them. The matters are:

ensuring that the website referred to in proposed new section 15(6) will not be part of the liquor and gambling website but will have its own web address; and

that the statement referred to in proposed new section 15(2)(b) will be required to record details of payments to entertainers if they were required to be disclosed during the relevant period under proposed new section 7(3).

Before he resigned from this place the Hon. Nick Xenophon raised a number of questions during his second reading contribution that I will briefly address, for the record. The first question raised by the Hon. Nick Xenophon was in relation to what would be the level of scrutiny and auditing. I am advised that the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner is responsible for the administration of the regulatory arrangement under the Collections for Charitable Purposes Act. The bill we are currently considering provides powers to the minister to appoint inspectors and provides a range of powers to those inspectors. This will improve the ability of the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner to undertake its compliance and enforcement role in relation to the Collections for Charitable Purposes Act.

The second question raised was regarding what would be the sanctions if there was no compliance. Sanctions are provided throughout the Collections for Charitable Purposes Act—for example, non-compliance with a requirement to be authorised or licensed under section 6 has a maximum penalty of a division 6 fine, which I am advised is currently $4,000. South Australians' good deeds will not be penalised for simply honest mistakes in compliance with the act. This can be guaranteed, because section 19 of the act states that no prosecution for an offence against the act may be instituted without approval in writing of the minister. If there is non-compliance the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner will work with the organisation to help achieve compliance. The third question was regarding what regulations were anticipated to deal with the sort of concerns raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and I have already addressed those concerns.

The fourth question was: in terms of the minister exercising his or her power in the past under section 12(2) of the act, to what extent was that enforced? I am advised that, during the financial year 2006-07, the minister has not exercised his power under section 12(2) of the act. The fifth question was: to what extent will this act change things in terms of conditions that are applied and also the resources used to enforce, particularly, the bigger events? As I noted earlier, this bill proposed to implement new disclosure requirements, which have been discussed at length in the final report released in 2006. It does not alter the essence of the licensing and authorisation framework. It does, however, include new powers to appoint inspectors and gives powers to those inspectors that will aid investigations into compliance with the licensing framework and conditions. I am advised that these additional obligations on the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner will be met from the existing resources of the office.

The Hon. Nick Xenophon had filed two amendments to this bill. The first of the two amendments to be filed was not supported by the government because it was inconsistent with the findings of the final report. The second amendment, however, clarifies and addresses an anomaly in the calculation of the performer's fee for the purpose of disclosure under the proposed new section 7. The second amendment was going to be supported by the government. The government will now advance this amendment as a government amendment, because it improves the drafting of this bill. I thank each of the members for their contribution to this debate, and I especially thank those members who have constructively contributed to improving the regulatory model. I also thank the Hon. Andrew Evans, who made his contribution this evening. I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

At 22:38 the council adjourned until Wednesday 17 October 2007 at 14:15.