Equity
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES for the COMMON GOOD
Opinion  |  Leadership

So What Does the Second Object of the ACNC Act Mean?


Tuesday, 19th February 2019 at 8:37 am
Krystian Seibert
Krystian Seibert explains the context behind the second object of the ACNC Act, in light of an ongoing consultation process seeking to define it.


Tuesday, 19th February 2019
at 8:37 am
Krystian Seibert


2 Comments


FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

 Print
So What Does the Second Object of the ACNC Act Mean?
Tuesday, 19th February 2019 at 8:37 am

Krystian Seibert explains the context behind the second object of the ACNC Act, in light of an ongoing consultation process seeking to define it.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) is undertaking a consultation process seeking to define the second object of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012. That object states that one purpose of the ACNC is to “support and sustain a robust, vibrant, independent and innovative not-for-profit sector”.

The other two objects in the act are relatively clear. But that’s not the case for the second object, which isn’t defined either in the act, the explanatory memorandum, or the minister’s second reading speech.

This is where I need to accept some responsibility – as I was the adviser managing the development of the ACNC legislation within the minister’s office back in 2012. I should’ve made sure this was covered off when the explanatory memorandum and second reading speech were being finalised.

Although I didn’t do that, I can now explain what the context for the second object is.

Back in late 2011, the Australian government released the draft ACNC legislation for stakeholder comment. The consultation period ran over the Christmas and New Year period, and there was understandably some consternation because of that.

But there was probably even more consternation about the fact that the draft ACNC legislation seemed unduly harsh – it seemed to approach the task of regulating the sector using a “deficit model”, whereby it was presumed that there were all sorts of governance and other deficiencies within the sector, and that a new regulator was needed to rectify them. This view is conveyed by many of the submissions in response to the consultation.

When my minister, the Hon David Bradbury MP, was promoted to the role of assistant treasurer in early March 2012, I took on responsibility for the establishment of the ACNC within his office, which included managing the development of the ACNC legislation.

I vividly remember my first meeting with a large group of stakeholders from the not-for-profit sector to discuss the draft legislation. It was held later that March from memory, at the Australian Taxation Office’s Moonee Ponds office in Melbourne.

One by one, stakeholders expressed their concerns with the draft legislation. It quickly became apparent that I had to intervene, and ended up effectively chairing the meeting. Stakeholders were consistently making a very valid point. Yes, the ACNC was to be a regulator of the NFP sector, focusing on charities at first. However, the intention behind the regulator was not that it would be the kind of regulator based on the “deficit model” I describe above.

The intention behind the regulator was that it would be a facilitative regulator (something I discuss in more detail in a book chapter from 2016). It would of course take action where there was misconduct, but it would also have a strong focus on supporting charities so that they could achieve their purposes through good governance and embracing transparency.

After some further examination of the commitments made in relation to the ACNC and some additional consultation, my minister made the decision to include the second object, to effectively codify this intention.

In that sense, the second object is not so much about the sector – it’s about the ACNC. It’s about the regulatory approach which the ACNC adopts, and how it positions itself in relation to charities. That’s why it includes the words “support and sustain” so prominently.

The object is about how the ACNC engages with charities, about how it prioritises education and guidance, about how it ensures that through its regulation, the varied and diverse organisations within the sector are better positioned to achieve their objectives and maximise their contribution to the common good. In short, it’s about the ACNC genuinely “caring” about the organisations it regulates (I know that sounds a little cheesy).

That of course doesn’t mean that the ACNC shouldn’t take swift and firm action against an organisation where needed – if there is wilful wrongdoing, it’s certainly the ACNC’s job to address that.

Last year, the ACNC commissioned Tulipwood Economics to prepare a report about the second object which: “… draws on a literature review to provide clarity on the definitions of ‘robust, vibrant, independent and innovative’, and suggests a range of measurements to help assess the health of the sector, and how that health changes over time.”

Unfortunately, the report is way off the mark because in seeking to define the object, it does not take into account the origins of the ACNC legislation and the process of its development.

It floats a range of measures, extracted below, which could be used to assess progress against the object, however these are based on the flawed understanding of the object.

I can confirm that when the object was included in the ACNC legislation, we weren’t thinking about the number of mergers in the sector or the number of new programs charities are operating. What we were thinking about is how the ACNC can operate as a facilitative regulator. So I would suggest measures which focus on what the ACNC does, and not on what’s happening within the sector.

The added benefit of this is that the ACNC can then be held accountable for how it performs in relation to the object. The ACNC will have little ability to influence the measures which are currently being floated, in which case what’s the point of them if the ACNC can’t and shouldn’t be held accountable for how they track?

The better approach is to use measures based around the ACNC’s regulatory approach. These could cover matters such as the provision of education and guidance, the number of outreach events held with charities, as well as the ACNC’s contributions to any policy development processes in relation to the sector. There are just some ideas, and I’m sure that stakeholders will have other suggestions, which the current consultation process can help draw out.

Adopting such an approach would hold true to the real intention behind the second object of the ACNC Act.

About the author: Krystian Seibert is an Industry Fellow at the Centre for Social Impact at Swinburne University of Technology and has a strategic advisory role with Philanthropy Australia.


Krystian Seibert  |  @ProBonoNews

Krystian Seibert is an industry fellow at the Centre for Social Impact at Swinburne University of Technology and has a strategic advisory role with Philanthropy Australia.


Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers?

Get in touch at news@probonoaustralia.com.au

Get more stories like this

FREE SOCIAL
SECTOR NEWS

2 Comments

  • Nava Subramaniam says:

    Really good to know the history of things! so Thank you Krystian. One thing for sure, based on recent research, the Australian NFP sector is wanting a lot more support from regulators and policy-makers for a more equitable and ‘nuanced’ policy environment that takes into consideration organisational size and sectoral idiosyncracies.

    • Derek Mortimer says:

      For once I actually agree with your public comments about the ACNC Krystian
      here is my take:
      The executive summary in the ACNC’s commissioned report on the “second object” makes the curious statement that the report is to:
      “provide a range of workable measures to better understand how the NFP sector as a whole performs against the objects identified in the ACNC Act.” [my italics]

      I understand that NFPs must measure their performance against their own “objects” ie by reference to the “purpose clause” in their constituent documents.

      I understand legislation “objects” as being an interpretation guide for decision makers (ie regulators, tribunals and the courts) to help with applying that legislation per s 15AA Acts Interpretation Act 1901: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/aia1901230/s15aa.html . Hence the ACNC’s second object is really a guide for decision makers within the ACNC, and also the AAT and courts as to how to apply the ACNC legislation.

      Accordingly the ACNC’s second object should be used in my opinion to assess performance of the ACNC, not the performance of charities collectively.

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Is Your Non-Profit Suffering From Regulatory Fatigue?

Oliver May

Thursday, 21st March 2019 at 8:32 am

My Seven Takeaways From the NDIS Leaders Breakfast

Fran Connelley

Wednesday, 20th March 2019 at 3:48 pm

The ‘Hidden Gem’ of Philanthropy

Wendy Williams

Tuesday, 19th March 2019 at 8:44 am

Calls For Stricter Charity Approval Process

Maggie Coggan

Monday, 18th March 2019 at 3:58 pm

POPULAR

Cafe Roasted for ‘Appalling’ Sign Mocking Disability Abuse

Luke Michael

Thursday, 7th March 2019 at 5:18 pm

The ‘Hidden Gem’ of Philanthropy

Wendy Williams

Tuesday, 19th March 2019 at 8:44 am

‘It Takes a Village’ to Help Kids Succeed in Education

Luke Michael

Tuesday, 12th March 2019 at 8:00 am

Equity
pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook

The social sector's most essential news coverage. Delivered free to your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

You have Successfully Subscribed!