HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-10-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

COLLECTIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I will respond to some issues raised by the Hon. Andrew Evans. He suggested that charities that use pay collectors may be tempted to make disclosures as discreet as possible on badges when indicating that a collector has been paid. It was also suggested that the regulations could be used to ensure minimum font size on badges to ensure that the spirit of the legislation is complied with. I advise that the government will monitor this issue and, if there is a problem, it can be addressed through the issue of a code of practice or other licence condition under proposed section 12.

The Hon. Andrew Evans was also concerned that the legislation does not have a requirement for the badge to contain the name of the organisation. Under the proposed bill a collector is required to disclose his or her name or unique identifier each time the person seeks to collect from a person, whether the collector is paid each time the collector seeks to collect from a person, the name of the section 6 licensee on request, contact details on request, and details of a website where financial statements (section 15(2(b)) can be found on request. Section 6C is drafted in such a way that it applies to both telephone collections and face-to-face collections. The option of the badge addresses the badge day scenario. It would be very difficult for a badge day collector to disclose his or her name or unique identifier each time a person popped a $1 coin in the tin.

Being able to identify the collector is important. It allows the charity and/or the regulator to address complaints people may have about the behaviour of a collector. What has been proposed in the bill is a minimum set of requirements and there is nothing that prevents a charity from providing greater disclosure. Undoubtedly, those who provide more information will develop greater trust with donors than those who do not. It is very unlikely that a charity organisation would seek to conceal its identity when collecting. If it does, the bill makes it an obligation on the collector to provide the name of the charity organisation and its contact details.

In relation to the scope of the organisation, the Hon. Andrew Evans also requested clarification on why the new disclosure requirements do not apply to a sporting club but do for a charity. The proposed bill does not alter which collection activities are subject to regulation. The relevant issue to determine whether an activity should be regulated is its purpose. If goods or money are being collected for an organisation for the purpose of assisting others, the donor would be concerned that as much as possible of the donation collected should go to assisting others. After all, that is the reason they gave. In this circumstance, it would be appropriate to regulate and provide for disclosure so that donors can make a sound judgment. If goods or money are being collected by an organisation specifically to assist in the administration of that organisation (for example, a sporting club), then the donor would expect all of that money to be applied to the administration of that organisation. Disclosure about the application of funds and other aspects of the act do not readily apply in this scenario. Accountability of the organisation is obtained through its governance arrangements, that is, the Associations Incorporation Act.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In summing up this debate last night, the minister referred to a comment that I had made some weeks ago in my second reading contribution in relation to the local football club. The minister said last night that, in my second reading contribution, I suggested that a local football club collecting for a charitable purpose would need to be licensed by virtue of this bill. She then said that it is not true. She went on to say that a football club collecting on behalf of a licensed charity simply needs to contact the charity for authority to collect on its behalf prior to collection. The definition of a charitable purpose in section 4 of the act is as follows:

(a) the affording of relief to diseased, disabled, sick, infirm, incurable, poor, destitute, helpless, or unemployed persons, or to the dependents of any such persons;

(b) the relief of distress occasioned by war, whether occasioned in South Australia or elsewhere;

(e) the affording of relief, assistance or support to persons who are or have been members of the armed forces of Australia or the dependents of any such persons;

(f) the provision of welfare services for animals.

As an example, I will refer to unemployed persons. If a business in a town was destroyed by fire or closed as a result of bankruptcy and a number of families found themselves unemployed, and the local footy club thought that it would run a couple of fundraisers to help this group of unemployed people, they are not collecting money on behalf of a recognised charity, they are supporting people in their local community as defined in the bill. That is to what I was referring when I was talking about the local football club raising money for charitable purposes as defined in this bill.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that, if they are collecting directly for people, they need to be licensed. If they are collecting for a charity, they only need to be authorised.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In the event of that example where the local footy club just wants to raise some money to help a group of disadvantaged people in their community or a neighbouring community, they would then have to have a licence for that purpose.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Again, if they are collecting for an individual, they do not have to be licensed, but if they are collecting for a group of people, then they do need to be licensed. However, providing all the money goes to the people for whom they are collecting, then they do not have to be licensed.

The CHAIRMAN: A good example would be the motorbike rider from Keith.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Chairman just reminded me of the Andy Caldicott trust which has been set up to support Andy's wife and children at Keith. A whole range of organisations supported that fundraising. I am not sure whether Tracey Caldicott would want to be included in the definition—'affording of relief to diseased, disabled, sick, infirm, incurable, poor, destitute, helpless, or unemployed persons'. The opposition's concern from day one is that this is setting up a licensing regime that will be cumbersome and over regulating what is normal country community behaviour and activities.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: This has been in place for many years; we are not introducing anything new.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I understand that the definition has been in place for many years, but I question the need to have the local footy club licensed to do good in its own town, which is generally what the footy club, the cricket club, Apex, Rotary, and Lions do in their local communities, as all members would be aware. It is crazy that we would expect them to be licensed to assist in the community, as they have done for the past 100 years.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: If they are currently not required to have a licence then we are not changing that. A person collecting for a sporting club, school or church is not currently covered by the act, and the bill does not increase the scope. The amendments are about increasing disclosure, transparency and accountability. The licensing and authorisation framework in essence remains unchanged.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I move:

Page 4, lines 6 to 9—Delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—

(a) the person—

(i) only collects or attempts to collect money or property from persons known to the person or with whom the person regularly associates; and

(ii) provides all of the money or property so collected to the holder of a section 6 licence; and

(iii) is not a paid collector; or

(b) the person—

(i) only collects or attempts to collect property for the purpose of affording relief to a particular person or to the dependants of a particular person; and

(ii) provides all of the property so collected to that person or to those dependants; and

(iii) is not a paid collector.

This simple amendment protects well intentioned South Australians who collect from people and give all donations to a section 6 licence holder. As the act currently stands, if a person is collecting for a charitable purpose they must be either licensed or authorised by a licence holder. The government thanks the Hon. Sandra Kanck for her contribution to this amendment, which arose out of a discussion about the operation of the act and the common occurrence of spontaneous collections among concerned individuals for a range of charitable purposes. The Hon. Sandra Kanck was concerned that these well intentioned activities could conceivably be illegal. Such a provision could work against South Australians' natural instincts to give to those less well off.

It is not uncommon for a group of friends or work colleagues to agree to give to a charitable purpose. Further, I am sure that one member of this group would volunteer to collect the donations with the intention of providing them to a section 6 licence holder. This well intentioned activity is currently in breach of section 6 of the Collections for Charitable Purposes Act if the licence holder has not been informed and authorised by the collector. Of course, no government would seek to prosecute a person who volunteered to collect on behalf of a group of friends or work colleagues and give all the money to a charitable purpose. Section 19 of the act provides this discretion to the minister to determine whether or not to prosecute. Nevertheless, it is wrong to consider this well intentioned activity to be illegal. The purpose of this amendment is to no longer treat this sort of collection as illegal on the proviso that the collector collects from persons known to the person or with whom the person regularly associates and all the money or property collected is provided to a person licensed under the Collections for Charitable Purposes Act and is not a paid collector. I commend the amendment to the committee.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition does not support the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I move:

Page 6, lines 29 to 40—

Delete proposed subsection (3) and substitute:

(3) If any speaker or other performer at an entertainment to which this section applies is to be paid a fee or commission of an amount that exceeds, or is likely to exceed, the prescribed amount, the holder of the section 7 licence under which a person is authorised to conduct the entertainment must, at the request of any person, tell the person the amount, or likely amount, of any such fee or commission.

Maximum penalty: Division 6 fine.

(3a) For the purposes of subsection (3), the value of any non-monetary consideration to be provided to a person (including the value of any travel or accommodation costs to be paid in respect of the person's attendance at the relevant entertainment) must be taken into account in determining the amount of the fee or commission that is to be paid to the person.

This second amendment moved by the government clarifies what is to be included in the calculation of the fee or commission paid to an entertainer for the purposes of disclosure under new section 7. Further, the amendment corrects an anomaly that exists in the bill where monetary payments and other considerations are treated separately. I would like to acknowledge that this amendment was originally tabled by the Hon. Nick Xenophon before his decision to run for the Senate. The government decided to progress this amendment because it is consistent with the government's policy position and it improves on the drafting of the bill. I am advised that, if it is passed, the Minister for Gambling will monitor the implementation of this revised provision to determine whether the prescribed disclosure amount currently set at $5,000 is too low. If this is the case, the government will consider increasing the prescribed amount.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will make a comment before I indicate which way the opposition will be voting. I think that we had a 2005 version of this bill. The government consulted widely (so it claims) and has redrafted the bill. The Hon. Nick Xenophon had an amendment drafted which, says the minister, improved the drafting of the bill. With all the resources of the government over 2½ years or more, I find it a little baffling that these things were not thrashed out earlier. In fact, is the amendment improving the drafting of the bill or are they just some of the words the minister has chosen to use? In any case, the opposition will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (6 to 8) passed; schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments; committee's report adopted.

Third Reading

The council divided on the third reading:

AYES (10)

Evans, A.L. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. Hood, D.G.E. Hunter, I.
Kanck, S.M. Parnell, M. Wortley, R.
Zollo, C. (teller)

NOES (8)

Bressington, A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Lawson, R.D.
Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W. (teller) Schaefer, C.V.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.

PAIRS (2)

Finnigan, B.V. Lensink, J.M.A.


Majority of 2 for the ayes.

Third reading thus carried.

Bill passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT