This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/31/not-for-profits-admit-to-breaching-political-spending-rules
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Not-for-profit group says sector has breached political spending rules | Not-for-profit group says sector has breached political spending rules |
| (8 days later) | |
| The government announced a review into political donations in 2016 after then-Labor senator Sam Dastyari asked a Chinese businessman to cover a travel overspend. The Liberal-National Coalition and Labor opposition agreed on the need to ban foreign donations, although Labor opposed the ban covering third-party campaign groups. | The government announced a review into political donations in 2016 after then-Labor senator Sam Dastyari asked a Chinese businessman to cover a travel overspend. The Liberal-National Coalition and Labor opposition agreed on the need to ban foreign donations, although Labor opposed the ban covering third-party campaign groups. |
| In December the government introduced legislation banning foreign donations to political parties and activist groups. The electoral funding and disclosure reform bill requires charities to hold those donations in separate bank accounts to ensure they are not spent on advocacy. It requires lobbyists working for foreign interests to register. Separate bills would criminalise support for foreign intelligence agencies and leaks of harmful information; introduce new sabotage provisions and theft-of-trade-secrets offences aimed at economic espionage by foreign governments. | In December the government introduced legislation banning foreign donations to political parties and activist groups. The electoral funding and disclosure reform bill requires charities to hold those donations in separate bank accounts to ensure they are not spent on advocacy. It requires lobbyists working for foreign interests to register. Separate bills would criminalise support for foreign intelligence agencies and leaks of harmful information; introduce new sabotage provisions and theft-of-trade-secrets offences aimed at economic espionage by foreign governments. |
| Charities worry the new requirements will force them to stop advocacy work or divert resources from frontline services. Other groups have warned the secrecy provisions could see government whistleblowers and journalists who report leaks facing 20 years’ imprisonment. Academics say the bill may breach the implied freedom of political communication in the constitution. | Charities worry the new requirements will force them to stop advocacy work or divert resources from frontline services. Other groups have warned the secrecy provisions could see government whistleblowers and journalists who report leaks facing 20 years’ imprisonment. Academics say the bill may breach the implied freedom of political communication in the constitution. |
| Critics of the package are concerned it makes unrelated changes to electoral law including:• A new definition of “associated entity” forcing campaign groups to register as associated with political parties; and• Changed election funding offering political parties that win 4% or more of the vote the lesser of $2.70 per vote in public funding or the amount of their electoral expenditure. | Critics of the package are concerned it makes unrelated changes to electoral law including:• A new definition of “associated entity” forcing campaign groups to register as associated with political parties; and• Changed election funding offering political parties that win 4% or more of the vote the lesser of $2.70 per vote in public funding or the amount of their electoral expenditure. |
| Thousands of Australian charities are in breach of requirements to declare political expenditure because they are not aware of the breadth of spending covered, a parliamentary inquiry has heard. | Thousands of Australian charities are in breach of requirements to declare political expenditure because they are not aware of the breadth of spending covered, a parliamentary inquiry has heard. |
| Witnesses from the Community Council for Australia and Philanthropy Australia revealed widespread non-compliance, in evidence to the joint standing committee on electoral matters, but blamed regulators for the lack of understanding that advocacy on any election issue could be captured. | Witnesses from the Community Council for Australia and Philanthropy Australia revealed widespread non-compliance, in evidence to the joint standing committee on electoral matters, but blamed regulators for the lack of understanding that advocacy on any election issue could be captured. |
| Representatives of the charity and not-for-profit sector attended committee hearings in Canberra to argue against aspects of the foreign donations bill that they believe impose excessive red tape on the sector. | Representatives of the charity and not-for-profit sector attended committee hearings in Canberra to argue against aspects of the foreign donations bill that they believe impose excessive red tape on the sector. |
| The committee chair, Linda Reynolds, suggested that as few as 12 of Australia’s 55,000 charities could face higher reporting requirements because that is the number that currently submit returns to the Australian Electoral Commission. | The committee chair, Linda Reynolds, suggested that as few as 12 of Australia’s 55,000 charities could face higher reporting requirements because that is the number that currently submit returns to the Australian Electoral Commission. |
| Reynolds noted the act currently requires declaration of spending over $10,000 in a financial year on political expenditure which includes “the public expression of views on a political party, a candidate in an election or [a parliamentarian]” and “views on an issue in an election by any means”. | Reynolds noted the act currently requires declaration of spending over $10,000 in a financial year on political expenditure which includes “the public expression of views on a political party, a candidate in an election or [a parliamentarian]” and “views on an issue in an election by any means”. |
| The chief executive of the Community Council for Australia, David Crosbie, said there were “thousands of charities under this definition of political expenditure or the clarification of the definition in this bill that will have to do returns”. | The chief executive of the Community Council for Australia, David Crosbie, said there were “thousands of charities under this definition of political expenditure or the clarification of the definition in this bill that will have to do returns”. |
| Reynolds noted it was already a strict liability offence not to submit a return. | Reynolds noted it was already a strict liability offence not to submit a return. |
| “I agree with you – I think there are thousands of charities that are not complying,” Crosbie replied. | “I agree with you – I think there are thousands of charities that are not complying,” Crosbie replied. |
| He suggested charities assumed the definition of political expenditure meant spending to advertise particular candidates “so they don’t see it as applying to them”. | He suggested charities assumed the definition of political expenditure meant spending to advertise particular candidates “so they don’t see it as applying to them”. |
| Crosbie said that the Community Council for Australia, an independent organisation representing charities, should have informed its members about their responsibility but said regulators including the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) also should have done more. | Crosbie said that the Community Council for Australia, an independent organisation representing charities, should have informed its members about their responsibility but said regulators including the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) also should have done more. |
| Crosbie said World Vision, which submits a return, last year only disclosed money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for advocacy and its return “doesn’t cover all their political expenditure”. | Crosbie said World Vision, which submits a return, last year only disclosed money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for advocacy and its return “doesn’t cover all their political expenditure”. |
| “You imply it’s a failure of the charities, and I think that’s wrong. It’s actually a failure of the [Australian Electoral Commission] and the regulators, not to have informed [us]. | “You imply it’s a failure of the charities, and I think that’s wrong. It’s actually a failure of the [Australian Electoral Commission] and the regulators, not to have informed [us]. |
| “I’m meant to know I’m subject to a law I didn’t know I was subject to?” | “I’m meant to know I’m subject to a law I didn’t know I was subject to?” |
| A spokesman for World Vision Australia said it “has made all appropriate declarations regarding political expenditure as required under the Electoral Act”. | A spokesman for World Vision Australia said it “has made all appropriate declarations regarding political expenditure as required under the Electoral Act”. |
| The advocacy manager of Philanthropy Australia, Kristian Seibert, said he was aware of “many organisations who undertake public expression of views and have not submitted a return”. | The advocacy manager of Philanthropy Australia, Kristian Seibert, said he was aware of “many organisations who undertake public expression of views and have not submitted a return”. |
| Seibert said he would not comment on whether Philanthropy Australia members were in breach because it was not clear they were captured, but there was poor compliance among “charities in general”. | Seibert said he would not comment on whether Philanthropy Australia members were in breach because it was not clear they were captured, but there was poor compliance among “charities in general”. |
| Seibert suggested it was “not their fault” they were unaware of the requirement, and blamed the AEC for not promoting awareness of it. | Seibert suggested it was “not their fault” they were unaware of the requirement, and blamed the AEC for not promoting awareness of it. |
| Charities are already regulated by the ACNC and are allowed to conduct issues-based advocacy provided it fits their charitable purpose. | Charities are already regulated by the ACNC and are allowed to conduct issues-based advocacy provided it fits their charitable purpose. |
| Under the proposed changes, any group that spent $100,000 or more on political activities in the previous four years would have to register as a “political campaigner”. The category comes with requirements to keep records to ensure donors of more than $250 are “allowable donors” – such as Australian citizens or residents – and are not foreign entities. | Under the proposed changes, any group that spent $100,000 or more on political activities in the previous four years would have to register as a “political campaigner”. The category comes with requirements to keep records to ensure donors of more than $250 are “allowable donors” – such as Australian citizens or residents – and are not foreign entities. |
| For donations from non-citizens or non-residents, charities would have to set up special accounts to keep revenue separate from other sources and ensure it was not spent on political expenditure. Breaches of these rules could trigger fines of more than $50,000. | For donations from non-citizens or non-residents, charities would have to set up special accounts to keep revenue separate from other sources and ensure it was not spent on political expenditure. Breaches of these rules could trigger fines of more than $50,000. |
| The charities’ case against the law was boosted by a submission from the ACNC that the new law imposes an “unnecessary regulatory burden on charities”. | The charities’ case against the law was boosted by a submission from the ACNC that the new law imposes an “unnecessary regulatory burden on charities”. |
| GetUp, which has warned that obtaining statutory declarations from donors is not appropriate or feasible, also scored a win when Liberal MP Ben Morton conceded he has concerns with the requirement. | GetUp, which has warned that obtaining statutory declarations from donors is not appropriate or feasible, also scored a win when Liberal MP Ben Morton conceded he has concerns with the requirement. |