The number of not-for-profit (NFP) sector workers reporting a negative view of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) tripled in 2012, as more details of its precise nature became clear.
The difference between the two parties on this new NFP regulator is simple: Labor wants to keep the ACNC, which it created last year, and the Coalition wants to abolish it.
Both major parties claim that their top priority for the NFP sector is reducing red tape.
So why the black-and-white difference in platform?
It's a matter of faith versus evidence. Labor puts its trust in the ACNC's statements, which are full of promises of reducing bureaucratic meddling. The Coalition looks to its actions, which thus far have confirmed the sensibly skeptical view that the best way to reduce regulation is not to create a new $15 million regulator.
A major blow to the ACNC's credibility came just last week when the massive charitable organisation UnitingCare Australia released a report saying that if the ACNC were up for review right now, they would, based on their experience so far, lean toward recommending it be abolished.
UnitingCare's main complaint was that in its first six months the ACNC has saddled their branches with more paperwork, not less.
Referring to the new Annual Information Statement (AIS) that the ACNC has made mandatory for Australian charities – some of which have never been required to submit such detailed information to a regulator – UnitingCare explained that 'much of the information required in the AIS has already been provided to government, often several times in different formats.'
'A significant opportunity for the ACNC to reduce red tape from the beginning of its operations has been missed.'
The ACNC had a chance to demonstrate its seriousness about streamlining the charity bureaucracy, and it did not take it.
The hostile UnitingCare report was followed a few days later by a statement from another large NFP, Catholic Education Melbourne. In it, executive director Stephen Elder criticised the ACNC for 'providing no additional transparency to the way Catholic education reports to government, only duplication of existing regulation.'
Elder estimated that new reporting requirements could take Victoria's Catholic schools 45 working days of 'unnecessary pen pushing' to fulfill.
Tony Abbott says his government would replace the ACNC with a slimmed-down version that, instead of regulation, focuses on providing support, information, and consultative services. The NFP sector itself has expressed a strong desire for better coordination of professional expertise and best practices.
A national body like the one the Coalition has proposed would meet the needs of NFPs and charities. The ACNC, if kept, looks poised to serve the needs only of federal bureaucrats.
Helen Rittelmeyer is an intern at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Crushing red tape for charities
Crushing red tape for charities
The difference between the two parties on this new NFP regulator is simple: Labor wants to keep the ACNC, which it created last year, and the Coalition wants to abolish it.
Both major parties claim that their top priority for the NFP sector is reducing red tape.
So why the black-and-white difference in platform?
It's a matter of faith versus evidence. Labor puts its trust in the ACNC's statements, which are full of promises of reducing bureaucratic meddling. The Coalition looks to its actions, which thus far have confirmed the sensibly skeptical view that the best way to reduce regulation is not to create a new $15 million regulator.
A major blow to the ACNC's credibility came just last week when the massive charitable organisation UnitingCare Australia released a report saying that if the ACNC were up for review right now, they would, based on their experience so far, lean toward recommending it be abolished.
UnitingCare's main complaint was that in its first six months the ACNC has saddled their branches with more paperwork, not less.
Referring to the new Annual Information Statement (AIS) that the ACNC has made mandatory for Australian charities – some of which have never been required to submit such detailed information to a regulator – UnitingCare explained that 'much of the information required in the AIS has already been provided to government, often several times in different formats.'
'A significant opportunity for the ACNC to reduce red tape from the beginning of its operations has been missed.'
The ACNC had a chance to demonstrate its seriousness about streamlining the charity bureaucracy, and it did not take it.
The hostile UnitingCare report was followed a few days later by a statement from another large NFP, Catholic Education Melbourne. In it, executive director Stephen Elder criticised the ACNC for 'providing no additional transparency to the way Catholic education reports to government, only duplication of existing regulation.'
Elder estimated that new reporting requirements could take Victoria's Catholic schools 45 working days of 'unnecessary pen pushing' to fulfill.
Tony Abbott says his government would replace the ACNC with a slimmed-down version that, instead of regulation, focuses on providing support, information, and consultative services. The NFP sector itself has expressed a strong desire for better coordination of professional expertise and best practices.
A national body like the one the Coalition has proposed would meet the needs of NFPs and charities. The ACNC, if kept, looks poised to serve the needs only of federal bureaucrats.
Helen Rittelmeyer is an intern at The Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: