Oz: Not-For-Profit Regulator on the way

[Cherished]

June 2010 - Senate Economics Committee's public inquiry into Senator Xenophon's proposed "public benefit test" amendments to tax laws for the not-for-profit sector (charities)

August 2010 - Then Assistant Treasurer of Australia, Nick Sherry, announced that, if re-elected, the Labor government would put in place a Commission to administer the laws relating to the not-for-profit sector.

The Australian: Charities shake-up on the way

September 2010 - The Committee's report was published and Today Tonight did a program about the report.

28 February 2011 - The government's response to the Committee's report was tabled in the Australian Senate. The report had been published on Parliament House website on 22 February 2011.

The government said they had told the Treasury Dept to do a scoping study for putting in place a national Not For Profit regulator. The public benefit test would be considered as part of the scoping study, which would be delivered in "early 2011".

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threa...dations.77073/

I went searching for the scoping study last night. To my surprise, I found that the Asst Treasurer, Bill Shorten, had released on 21 January 2011 a "Consultation Paper - Scoping Study for a National Not-For-Profit Regulator".

Even more surprisingly, the Consultation Paper sought submissions by 25 February 2011 (before the government's response was even tabled in the Senate).

I'm in two minds as to how to think about this. On the one hand, it would have been good to have the opportunity to make submissions. On the other, the issues raised in the scoping study are highly technical and encompass issues of corporate law and federal/state jurisdiction. Cult victims are unlikely to have many contributions to make at this stage of the process. Perhaps the process reflects a new asst treasurer keen to get the thing moving. Perhaps it reflects a reality that a lot of consultation with and within the states will be needed in order to get a fully fledged national regulator off the ground and the govt were keen to get that underway. Perhaps none of the above.

Anyway, here's the treasury's page regarding the Consultation Paper: http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentit...ContentID=1934

[scooter]

Maybe Bill Shorten was hoping to avoid getting deluged by the cult's OSAbots bearing copious BS submissions whining about attacks on religious freedom. :D

That way, he could have a quiet career and not be constantly harassed by strange people in out-dated clothes with funny stares and speech patterns.

[Zhent]

Were there any submissions for this consultation paper (that are available to read) ?

[Jump]

Were there any submissions for this consultation paper (that are available to read) ?

The site says none available.

[Cherished]

I've done a bit more research and have come up with a theory.

Possible reason for the rushed timeframe:

COAG is the Council of Australian Governments (that is, the federal, state and territory governments). COAG has been engaged in a rather effective process for harmonising laws and regulation nationally, in order to reduce the burden on business.

COAG already had a plan in place to reform aspects of the regulation of the Not-for-Profit sector, specifically to do with:

1. harmonising a "standard chart of accounts" (SCOA)- for use by governments in grant applications and supervision; and
2. fundraising.

The Consultation Paper mentions the SCOA. It would make sense for the reforms to be considered together, whether or not implemented at the same time.

The target audience for the Consultation Paper may have been the state governments, via COAG, which met on 13 February 2011. COAG then published a Deregulation and Competition Agenda, which lists Not-for-Profit reform to occur in 2011 and 2012. I don't have dates for meetings of the Ministerial Council for Federal Financial Relations - the subset of COAG ministers tasked with the NFP reform - but there's a good chance that the council met in the days before or after COAG itself.

In short, I think this is positive. It seems that discussions between the relevant governments are probably underway.

[Cherished]

Were there any submissions for this consultation paper (that are available to read) ?

They're here: http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentit...ContentID=1983

Treasury has received 162 formal submissions in response to this consultation. There were 156 public submissions, and six confidential submissions. The public submissions are listed below and are accessible by selecting the author.


...
Church of Scientology 50.74kb
Church of Scientology - Canberra 23.15kb
...

[Jump]

They're here: http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentit...ContentID=1983

Thanks Cherished! You're a marvel

[Zhent]

Lol @ Michael Gorden (And Nick Broadhurst) scrambling to shoot down the NPS regulator while trying to maintain an appearance of being balanced and not breaking out into "OMG RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY WE HAVE OVER 9000 GROUPS THAT HELP MILLIONS EVERY DAY".

By redefining charity within parliament, Australia could suffer a definition that favours
“popular” groups, while excluding or discriminating against minority groups through some
arbitrary delineation based on advice from some vested interest or lobby group, or even
pressure from some tabloid media as we have experienced.

In 2010 there was a tax investigation by the federal senate into religion. The investigation
committee spoke of fairies at the bottom of the garden, mocking religion. It was not
professional. A senator’s pet hate became national tabloid news.

Whoops, spoke too soon!
I do like how they keep refering to Scientology as a 'small minority group'. Guess those 250,000 members haven't been very active on the bridge lately.

[Petey C]

NFPs who subscribe to Philanthropy Australia's blog received this notice in late January:
http://blog.philanthropy.org.au/2011...ator-released/

I think your theory about COAG is right, specially after checking out the COAG Reform Agenda.

[Jachs]

Lol @ Michael Gorden (And Nick Broadhurst) scrambling to shoot down the NPS regulator while trying to maintain an appearance of being balanced and not breaking out into "OMG RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY WE HAVE OVER 9000 GROUPS THAT HELP MILLIONS EVERY DAY".



Whoops, spoke too soon!
I do like how they keep refering to Scientology as a 'small minority group'. Guess those 250,000 members haven't been very active on the bridge lately.

A scramble for please dont let anyone examine and control our activities, were on beans and rice already!

.
Michael Gordon might be pushing buttons he will later regret, hes come across as a control freak.

.