Hon Jo Goodhew

Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector

16 November 2012

No review of the Charities Act at this time

Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Jo Goodhew announced today that Government will not proceed with a review of the Charities Act 2005 at the present time.

“The decision to not conduct a review for now reflects that the regulatory regime for charities is still bedding in and the continuing constrained fiscal environment,” said Mrs Goodhew.

In 2010 the Government announced its intention to undertake a first principles review of the Charities Act.

“In light of the recent amendments to the Act which disestablished the Charities Commission and transferred its functions to the Department of Internal Affairs, a first principles review of the Act is no longer appropriate,” said Mrs Goodhew.

“The Government considered narrowing the review to look only at the definition of charitable purpose in the Act. However, it is likely that the current tight fiscal environment would limit the scope of such a review, due to the probable tax implications of any widening of the definition.”

“After careful consideration I have decided that now is not the right time to undertake a review of the charitable purpose definition. This is not a decision I have taken lightly.

“The current definition is still working reasonably well so the need for a review is not pressing. I will reconsider a review of the definition once the fiscal situation has improved.”
ends

© Scoop Media

Public Address Link:
A (Sweary) Analysis Of Urgency Abuse And
The Consititution

Keith Ng: You’re looking at the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Basically, the courts said that the Government had to pay family members who looked after people with disabilities (because not doing so was discriminatory), so the Government passed this law to say: “Yeah nah.”

The RIS isn’t just redacted for the public – it was redacted for MPs. *Parliament* voted on this, with all the relevant facts blacked out.

Sure, it’s understandable, right? If you’re passing a law that’s really dodgy, you don’t want advice from civil servants saying “uh, this is pretty illegal” to be public. But actually, that’s not really a problem here, because in the same piece of legislation, THEY SAID THEY CAN’T BE TAKEN TO COURT. More>>