REPORT OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE DEFINITION OF CHARITIES AND RELATED ORGANISATIONS

MORE OF THE SAME: AN OPEN CHEQUE FOR MASSIVE INDIRECT FUNDING FOR PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY

The Report of the Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and Related Organisations has  been published. The submissions of the State School organisations and DOGS ( Press Release 30)  were largely ignored while the submissions of religious organisations were accepted. Taxpayer concerns over the enormous indirect funding through taxation concessions and exemptions can only increase.

Consider the following:

 

Until the Pemsel case in 1891, a "charity" was expected to adhere to the popular meaning of the term. Charitable activities were expected to provide relief for the poor and disadvantaged. Lord McNaghten and two law Lords in that case found that there were four heads of "charity". These included "the advancement of religion" and " the advancement of education". Lord Halsbury and another held to the traditional, popular view. This means that the Pemsel case was a 3/2 decision.

Yet, on the basis of this case, the floodgates have been opened to massive advantages for "religious" and "educational" activities even when these are designed to advantage the wealthy and most advantaged institutions and individuals in our community.

The latest Inquiry has underlined the four heads of Lord McNaghton and extended them further. WHY?

We quote from the Report:

" The Catholic Church in Australia supported the continuation of the common law approach including "the four   purposes set out in the Pemsel test....Anglicare Australia also stated that "the four heads of charity...continue to have relevance today.' but it also argued that 'the definition of charity needs to be updated to encompass a broader range of appropriate ways to overcome poverty and benefit the community' It suggested that the four heads be retained but with some change in the terminology for the first head to 'the relief and reduction of poverty and distress' and for the fourth head to "other community service purposes where these purposes are altruistic." (PP.145-6)

In its recommendations the Report favoured this approach. Although the following observations were made:

" A small number of submissions questioned the continued relevance of education as a charitable purpose. For example, the Australian Council of State School Organisations argued that the recognition of education as a charitable purpose is now totally outdated, largely because of the development of the concept and practice of compulsory education, which is generally recognised as a responsibility of government." (p. 147)

This position was ignored.

 

Similarly the questioning of religion as a head of "charity" was ignored. Although

"Others, such as the Haemophilia Foundation Australia, argued that the concept of a head of charity for the advancement of religion is out of date. Some considered that the advancement of religion should not be supported by the government. Purple Economy Watch stated that "it is not the role of the secular Commonwealth of Australia to advance religion."

the Committee followed the religious men:

On the other hand the Anglican Church of Australia argued that 'the historical position of religion in Australian society, and of religious organisations, is not fundamentally challenged by recent social changes." and

"...The Uniting Church in Australia National Assembly stated that the definition of charity must continue to include the advancement of religion because "religion is basic to human life and therefore a worthwhile and charitable end in itself. " ( p. 148)

 

Those who support our public school systems and the separation of Church and State should be asking this Committee some hard, factual questions. The taxation concessions from the Commonwealth Government are listed in Appendix B as follows :

1.     Tax free threshold of $416.00

2.    Income Tax concessions

3.    Deductible gifts

4.    Refund of Imputation Credits

5.    Fringe Benefits Tax ( rebate

6.    Fringe Benefits Tax exemption

7.    GST non-profit concessions

8.    GST charity/gift deductible entity concessions

9.     GST religious organisation concessions.

Although the State and local government exemptions are referred to elsewhere:

1.    Stamp Duty on property transfers

2.    Stamp Duty on other transactions ( even the "company car" in some States)

3.    Payroll tax exemptions ( an enormous worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the          private education sector but charged to the government sector)

4.    Land tax

5.    local rates

to name but a few,

The Committee provides neither a comprehensive list or even an estimate of the billions of dollars in both direct and indirect grants enjoyed by the religious, "charitable" or "third sector".

Nor did the Committee seriously question the commercial activities of the religious "charitable" or third sector.

It is time that taxpayers demanded facts, figures, and accountability instead of the legitimisation of  massive subsidisation of privilege under the guise of "charity".