Government goes all dalek on charities

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by bordsilver, Nov 10, 2012.

  1. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    I don't know enough about the NFP sector to know whether this has some gross misrepresentations but saddening that there are such direct costs borne by the volunteer sector.

    http://ipa.org.au/news/2775/destroy!-gillard-government-goes-all-dalek-on-charities
     
  2. REDBACK

    REDBACK Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,550
    Likes Received:
    341
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I just want to scream with the System we have been encumbered with...aAaaaaaAaaaarrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Sorry back to abnormal.

    REDBACK
     
  3. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    Actually for those with short attention spans (or small screens on their smart phones), key points include all charities and not for profits to be encumbered with:
    - Extra layer of regulation with a new Govt body - the ACNC
    - ACNC will force many charities to submit costly Annual Information Statements including detailed information about their activities, operations and volunteers
    - High penalties and personal liability on volunteer board members if things go wrong (in many cases the penalties are greater than those on directors of normal businesses)
    - ACNC will force charities to submit increased levels of information about their donors which can be made publicly available at the discretion of the Commissioner <a few privacy issues here>
    - increasing taxation to the earnings of NFPs that are deemed to be "non-altruistic". It is yet to be communicated to charities what is considered non-altruistic and what is not. To make matters worse, this increased taxation will be applied retrospectively.
     
  4. Shaddam IV

    Shaddam IV Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,684
    Likes Received:
    3,494
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    House Corrino
    More rules, more laws, more compliance, more bureaucrats. Typical blundering Labor government. Because Labor is simply the political arm of the ACTU every issue placed in front of them is approached in terms of aggression, rules and constraints because that have no experience outside of the organised crime syndicate that they grew up in. No capacity or ability to understand how to create and generate business and prosperity, they only know how to hobble and destroy everything that they touch.
     
  5. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,409
    Likes Received:
    2,703
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Considering how little charity donation goes to the intended recipients and the number of charities which basically exist 'to exist', I'm not surprised that the government wants their share of the pie. Less to the recipients (again!). Eventually 'the poor' will have no-one to turn to when the government's 'charity' falls short. Come the next crash it will be a bureaucratic nightmare to set up soup kitchens. The jobsworth local councils will ensure that!

    (not to denigrate the absolute honesty and altruism of volunteers in some charities)
     
  6. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,609
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    I've done work for a Not-For-Profit organisation and have friends working in the sector.

    Honestly, if you think the potential for corruption and mismanagement in the unions is bad, you'd have an aneurysm if you knew what goes on in the NFP/charity sector.

    It isn't little old ladies organising a fete in the church hall any more. Charities these days have CEOs on six figure salaries and they're run essentially like private businesses. You can start one up yourself, pay some backpackers to go out onto the street and bully people into handing over their credit card details and spend the lot on "operating expenses" like a nice new BMW 5 series without sending a single dollar to help starving kinds in wherever or on saving an endangered species of grass.

    Although they're run like businesses, the way "competition" works in the charity sector is "competition for donations" rather than "competition for the best outcomes". You get "customers" (donors) by telling the best sob story, not by helping more people or more animals or the environment.

    This quote from the article is particularly relevant:
    The ACNC may very well be a bad and inefficient way of regulating the sector (I'm not saying it isn't) but to say that the sector isn't in serious need of a major clean up is just wrong. The charity sector (c'mon, it's called a "sector" now) is whingeing because they want to keep their tax breaks, not be accountable to anyone but themselves and remain free to keep asking the public for it's hard earned cash on the basis of vague promises that something nice will happen somewhere if they sign up for a Direct Debit plan.
     
  7. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    ^ Thanks Big A.D. I agree that I have viewed the many charities who get so big that they have boards and many paid staff (even if lowly paid) with suspicion. Saying that there are many, many that are still run by local people to meet local needs (and a bunch of others in between).

    I just hope that the volunteer-style charities (i.e. where it is primarily centred around people supplying time with any monies going to materials (such as food) and basic overheads (such as a kitchen) are not being encumbered by the need to add paid staff to deal with the regulations (as soon as you have a significant payroll component then you automatically increase the ability/incentive for the misuse of funds).

    Essentially, hope we're not penalising the 99% for the sake of reducing the wrong done by the 1%.

    Edit: It because of the "misuse" concerns that I tend to always donate time rather than money.
     
  8. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    6,654
    Likes Received:
    1,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Something to think about before donating:

    UNICEF CEO- $1,200,000 per year

    American Red Cross CEO - $651,957 per year, plus expenses

    World Vision President (Canada) - $300,000 base salary per year, (plus supplied - a home valued in the $700,000 - $800,000 dollar value range, completely furnished, completely paid all housing expenses, including taxes, water/sewer, telephone/fax, HD/high speed cable, weekly maid service and pool/yard maintenance, fully paid private schooling for his children, upscale automobile and an $55,000 personal expense account for clothing/food, with a $125,000 business expense account).

    John H. Adams, President, NRDC: $704,796 (whew!); Steven Sanderson, CEO Wildlife Conservation Society: $495,422; Mark Van Putten, President, National Wildlife Federation: $477,138; Steven McCormick, CEO, The Nature Conservancy: $399,788; John Flicker, President, National Audubon Society: $362,237; Peter Seligmann, CEO, Conservation International: $336,3353; Russell Mittermeier, Conservation International: $331,515; Kathyrn Fuller, President, WWF: $310,781. Even underlings do well, i.e., "The National Conservancy paid 1,025 salaries above $50,000, with nine above $200,000 and nine more over $150,000."
     
  9. honey stacker

    honey stacker New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    A friends mum runs a warehouse for a certain charity and says it is a business and 90% of the clothes donated go to ragging and the rest get sold in the shops. No clothes go to people who can't afford them. Management is all about profits.

    edited to protect my friends mum
     
  10. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,609
    Likes Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    I should clarify what I said - there are a lot of great people out there doing a lot of great work that makes the world a better place.

    In my view, being prepared to demonstrate that you're doing it honestly and with integrity is just part of the deal.
     
  11. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    willrocks' post got me to do some searching. Here's a good article in the Age that details the pay arrangements for the collectors on the street:

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/paying-to-collect-the-charity-dollar-20091025-hepx.html

    Obviously it's a win-win for the charities and the collectors but it isn't until year 2 that the money from a signed regular donor flows through to the charity itself:

    And, if interested, an old article discussing pros and cons of paying directors: http://www.companydirectors.com.au/...uly/Featherstone-A-question-of-charity-Jul-08
    Now that the liability ante is being upped, presumably there will be a shift toward more paid directors.
     
  12. Willow

    Willow New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney

    A point on this. The charities are intensly accountable. If they do not do the right thing or are not transparent, people will not VOLUNTARILY give them money.

    The government collects money by force.
     
  13. ShinyStuff

    ShinyStuff New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    It is for this reason that my main charity is "compassion international" where ninety cents in the dollar goes to the kids that i sponsor. And when i give birthday and christmas presents 100% of the donation is handed to the family of the child... There is NO money taken out for administration, even though there would be some handling by the charity.
     
  14. bloomst

    bloomst Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,944
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia.
    One of my mutual friend who is a PA for the Directors of a big multinational charities that involve heavily with monthly direct debit...told me that only 15% of the debit actually left the country to go to 3rd world country.

    Like other said before...the directors always flies first class...limousine...etc etc. It is a business...just like any other. Hence my persistence to donate with them. All of my charity goes to my local church and sports club, and usually in goods/food/snack/flowers for the activities. I don't hand over money to any charity, full stop.
     

Share This Page