Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Listening to the Senate right now. Tax law debate about forestation schemes that are in effect ponzi schemes....but anyhow. Xenaphon introducted an amendment to the bill to introduce a public benefit test to tax-exempt "non-profits", arguing that such organizations (specifically, The Church of Scientology), if they are to enjoy tax-exemption should have accountability to the Australian public for their activities. Mentioned a laundry list of their behavior which would exclude them...disconnection, forced abortion, child labor law violations, stalking, intimidation, etc... Gone to division...just about to fail (okay, now just has...6 ayes to 28 nos). Greens are supporting, but the government and opposition are not. Of note though, is that neither major argued against the content of the proposed amendment, but rather the appropriateness of it's insertion into the current debate. Both Senator Sherry (labor) and Xenophon, have used the word cult in regards to Scientology... "Cult clearinghouse" to be exact...which is what Xenophon was using to justify the insertion of this amendment in the context of the current debate. The comment got quite a few chuckles. Update: Here's the hansard! (Pages 14-16, or PDF pages 28-30)
re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment /r/ title is amended to say "Australian Senate", because i had my hopes up thinking this was happening in the U.S.
re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Good work, El Diablo! Thanks for keeping us posted!
re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Good spot. Interesting about tax forestation thing we had a similiar thing in the UK back in the 80s. So he needs 12 more senators, hmm.
re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Anonybank would buy them, if he rilly loved us.
re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment great to see he continues to bring up this issue.
re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment SBS News: World News Australia - Xenophon won't give up on Scientologists
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Actually more...not everyone in the senate was in the senate. Even though it went to division (so the bells were rung for people to come in and vote), since the government and opposition already indicated they would be voting no, not everyone would need to come into the senate chambers to defeat the proposed amendment. May also have been some senators in committees (not sure...but that's often the case). For a majority you'd either need one of the major parties to vote aye - or the very unlikely situation where a significant number of senators from the major parties, most likely the coalition, crossed the floor. Edit: There are 76 senators all up...so, assuming everyone attends you need 39 votes for a majority...this means an additional 33 votes (i.e. either the coalition, or labor + family first, or labor + a coalition member crossing the floor) The ayes Independent (1) - Xenaphon Green (5) The nos (not all in attendance) Labor (32) Family First (1) - Senator Fielding The coalition - Tend to vote as a block - Liberal (32) - National (4) - Country Liberal (1)
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Will I be able to tell from the Hansard why the majority voted for continued fraud by non-profits? Or can someone explain it to me in simple terms what their reasoning is because I don't see any obvious disadvantages in a public benefit test. It's been working well in the UK for a very long time.
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment There is a likely hood aus is gonna have an early election due to the persistant incompetence of the Labor party. Neither party dares to put forward anything thats the least bit controversial. Hell even the legislation for that facist net censoring plan has been more or less put on hold.
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Yeah, it was put on hold because Conroy is a fucktard. As for not doing anything controversial, if Labor does bring anything forward, Abbott, being the pig-headed ignorant moron he is (he doesn't think climate change is occuring) will simply block it on the pure line that the Liberals are in the opposition, so they must therefore oppose everything that is introduced by the government, cause ya know, it's their job.
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Well, from what I could gather, they had little to say about the content of Xenophon's amendment, rather they objected to the "timing" (they didn't feel it was relevent to the tax-bill before the senate) - hence they voted 'no'. It certainly wasn't the case that they outright objected to a public benefit test for non-profits...just didn't want to consider it at that particular juncture. In that regards, it shouldn't be too discouraging. It may mean that they wish to consider the issue through a seperate debate. Senator Sherry indicated that were some things Xenophon was saying that he agreed with (and some things he did not), which is at a minimum promising. I'd expect that now the Henry taxation review is complete, tax-issues will remain on the agenda for some time. We know that Xenophon will bring this up again, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it become a seperate debate in the nearish future because of the whole tax-focus at the moment (just my own suspicion...no inside info or anything).
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Climate change is certainly occurring, as it always has been. Politicians can't do anything about that, though, other than to use fear about it to waste more money and hurt more people. Carry on....
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment This issue of public benefit testing in Aussie was mentioned sometime early last year IIRC but as you know politicians have short memories. Public benefit should be raised again because at the end of the day the Australian public are in a recession like most of the world and they could do with not funding anything that doesn't benefit them. Oh and any bawwing about human rights being infringed by not giving religions carte blanch tax exemptions is rubbish; a lot of people who exercise other human rights still have to pay tax, no where does the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights say "freedom from tax". Even the US doesn't explicitly state religions should be tax free in their constitution; shocking I know but taxing religious organisations like one taxes other organisations is not abridging the right to freedom of religion - just the "freedom" to amass shed loads of money and distribute it how you please (i.e. for the benefit of the leaders so they can travel around in style). Charities are fine, great even in many cases, and worthy of social support through tax exemption but to class all religions as charities and so provide social support without over sight is folly in the extreme. The US should wake up to this small fact too.
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE HANSARD WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2010 (proof issue) http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds120510.pdf pages 14-16: Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (11.00 am)—by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 6105 standing in my name: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 7), insert: 7A. Schedule 4A 1 July 2010. 1 July 2010. (2) Page 34 (after line 6), after Schedule 4, insert: Schedule 4A—Public benefit test Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 1 After section 50-50 Insert: 50-51 Public benefit test for items 1.1 and 1.2 Public benefit test (1) The regulations must formulate a test (to be known as the public benefit test) against which the aims and activities of an entity may be assessed. (2) The public benefit test must include the following key principles: (a) there must be an identifiable benefit arising from the aims and activities of an entity; (b) the benefit must be balanced against any detriment or harm; (c) the benefit must be to the public or a significant section of the public, and not merely to individuals with a material connection to the entity. (3) The public benefit test may contain provisions relating to the manner in which the test is to be applied to the aims and activities of an entity, as well as ancillary or incidental provisions. (4) The Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that regulations are made for the purposes of subsection (1) before 1 July 2010. Entities must meet public benefit test (5) An entity covered by item 1.1 or 1.2 is not exempt from income tax unless the entity meets the public benefit test. During the last sitting session I moved two Senate motions calling for an inquiry into the Church of Scientology and in particular into the need for a public benefit test for organisations that receive tax exemptions from the Australian government. Recommendation 41 of the Henry tax review supports the establishment of a national charities commission which would monitor, regulate and streamline tax concessions for the not-forprofit sector. Importantly, it would also be tasked with codifying the definition of a charity. The government’s response during the last sitting session was that they did not want to pre-empt the Henry tax review in relation to considering the motions I had put before the Senate—in particular, one motion which specifically targeted the whole concept of a public benefit test like that which exists in the United Kingdom. The review is out and the recommendation is there, but the government has chosen not to adopt it. A public benefit test currently exists in the United Kingdom. This amendment would introduce a similar process here. In the United Kingdom it applies to religions and charitable organisations. It says that there must be an identifiable benefit arising from the aims and activities of such an entity, the benefit must be balanced against any detriment or harm and the benefit must be to the public or a significant section of the public and not merely to individuals with a material connection to the entity. This amendment puts in place a reasonable test for bodies seeking to be recognised as charities and seeking to get tax-free status. It ensures that their aims and activities are of true benefit to the community as a whole. For charities and other entities to receive tax exemption it seems only fair that they must meet this public benefit test if they are to be propped up and supported by the Australian taxpayer. I make no apology for introducing this amendment here in the context of this legislation. I have flagged previously that I will be persistent and relentless in pursuing a just outcome for the victims of Scientology to ensure that this organisation receives appropriate scrutiny. Indeed, for any organisation that receives the benefit of a tax-free status there must be a degree of accountability, and that is lacking in our current laws. This would fix that, by adopting the tried and tested UK test of a public benefit test. Some of the allegations that have been made against the Church of Scientology include criminal behaviour, coerced abortions and stalking. There is completely unconscionable conduct in relation to the way their members are treated. There are issues in relation to child labour laws and in relation to the way employees and volunteers are treated. The whole issue of the conduct of this organisation—the hundreds of thousands of dollars they charge, and more, for their courses—seems extraordinary. People are put under pressure and families are ripped apart. It causes harm and devastation to individuals. I acknowledge the support of Professor Pat McGorry, an Australian of the Year and one of Australia’s pre-eminent experts in mental health, and others, such as Professor Ian Hickie, who have expressed real concern that this organisation is against people seeking assistance from medical practitioners, psychiatrists or psychologists for mental health issues—that is dangerous. And that is why it is appropriate that we have once and for all a public benefit test. I seek the support of my colleagues to do so. If this is defeated, as I expect it will be, I indicate that, every week that this Senate sits, there will be a motion related to this issue. Senator Sherry is smiling and he does so with good grace, but this is an issue that will not go away. Too many people have been hurt by this organisation. We need to have a degree of accountability and public scrutiny. This mechanism of a public benefit test is a significant way forward. It has been tried and tested and been subject to robust scrutiny in the United Kingdom. We should adopt it here. Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (11.04 am)—Although we can empathise with many of the statements of Senator Xenophon, we do not find it appropriate to deal with this issue in this piece of legislation. It is an entirely different issue to clearing houses. We look forward to a debate and to the processes that will be more suited to this. But, in this instance, we will not be going down the path of talking about attributes or otherwise of Scientology or other groups in a debate about clearing houses. Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (11.05 am)—The Australian Greens will be supporting Senator Xenophon’s amendment. It is essential that we end up with this public benefit test, and I commend him for continuing the campaign for such a test. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Assistant Treasurer) (11.05 am)—The government will not be supporting this amendment. There are legitimate issues that Senator Xenophon raises—some of which I agree with, some of which I do not agree with. As Senator Joyce has indicated, this legislation is about a clearing house for superannuation; it is not about a public benefit test for religion. It is about protecting 19,000 investors who have lost money in forestry investment schemes from an inappropriate tax outcome. The legislation is also about eligible managed investment trusts. It is about as far away as you could get from a public benefit test that would apply to charities. Senator Xenophon, you have pointed out that there were some recommendations in the independent tax review. I am also aware a Productivity Commission report has been finalised on this issue of charities. So, whilst I accept that you are keen to make your point—and you are perfectly entitled to make your point—this is not the appropriate place to be cross-inserting a public benefit test in this type of legislation. Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (11.07 am)—I thank my colleagues for their contribution, in particular Senator Milne for indicating the support of the Australian Greens in relation to this. To Senators Joyce and Sherry, I indicate they should think of this particular amendment as a ‘cult’ clearing house. Think of it in those terms because this is about behaviour. It is CHAMBER not about belief; it is about behaviour. It is important that having this sort of legislation would be a clearing house for determining who is legitimate and who is not in the public benefit. Senator Sherry may be bemused by my analogy, but I still think it is valid. It may be stretching it, but it is not improper under the standing orders to introduce this amendment in the context of this debate. We are dealing with tax laws. This is an amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act and I am sure this chamber and my colleagues are more than capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time—they can consider other concepts. I appreciate where we are at on this. I will continue to pursue this issue through motions and other means, whether it be a private senator’s bill. I will continue to persist with this issue because too many people are being hurt, too many victims are coming forward and, if we had a public benefit test, I think that would solve many problems. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Assistant Treasurer) (11.08 am)—Very briefly, I accept your brave attempt to connect a ‘cult’ clearing house with a superannuation clearing house and I would suggest that if we were to have a clearing house for cults you would not want them to escape without penalty. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Xenophon’s) be agreed to. The committee divided. [11.13 am] (The Temporary Chairman—Senator PM Crossin) Ayes………… 6 Noes………… 28 Majority……… 22 AYES Brown, B.J. Hanson-Young, S.C. Ludlam, S. Milne, C. Siewert, R. * Xenophon, N. NOES Adams, J. * Bernardi, C. Bilyk, C.L. Birmingham, S. Cameron, D.N. Cash, M.C. Colbeck, R. Collins, J. Crossin, P.M. Farrell, D.E. Feeney, D. Fielding, S. Forshaw, M.G. Furner, M.L. Humphries, G. Joyce, B. Kroger, H. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. McEwen, A. McLucas, J.E. Moore, C. Parry, S. Pratt, L.C. Sherry, N.J. Stephens, U. Williams, J.R. Wortley, D. * denotes teller Question negatived.
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Aussie anons raised the idea with Xenophon and wrote to the entire parliament about the concept in November just after Xenophon addressed the Senate. No, Australia did not go into recession. ABC The Drum Unleashed - The Drum Wrap: The Budget 2010
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Oh well, at least there's still something encouraging there then. Thanks for reply. Much appreciated. Lend us a few quid then, tightarse.
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment "Xenophon fails" Starting to become a rather common phrase. Maybe he should take the hint?
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment bump http://forums.whyweprotest.net/318-...ology/senate-says-yes-xenophon-inquiry-66534/
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment Well, that makes a good headline, but it's not exactly reflective of what happened. There are rumours that behind the scenes, he is gathering support...and that is completely compatible with what has been said in the senate. Not sure what part of the world you hail from, but in Aus. there is much more "voting along party lines" than in other parliaments. So, unless the whole party is on board, you get reluctance from senators/MP's to vote in favor of something. The language used in this last "failure", was very much along the lines of "this isn't the kind of amendment we feel is appropriate to consider in this context"...however, NOTHING in regards to the content (yes, I'm repeating myself, but perhaps it's worth repeating). This is classic fence sitting...which means they're not outright opposed...possibly in support, however not yet unanomously...possibly because they have concerns about the implications of such legislative changes which they want to consider further (i.e. avoiding "unintended consequences"...a much used phrase in parliament these days). This is good news. They could very well say "no" to the content of Xenophon's proposed tax-assessment amendment, but they did not - and implicit in Senator Sherry's comments was the suggestion to pursue this as a seperate debate....and more explicitly, that the kind of activities being alleged about Scientology should not go without penalty! Read between the lines, and there's good reason for Xenophon to persist. EDIT: Just read failboats edit...AWESOME!!!!! !!!!!
Re: Xenophon moves Senate - Public benefit test amendment at your service. lolcatz = WWP. lulzcow = CoS. lolguy = Nick Xenophon.
Australia's Charities Bill 2013 was passed on June 27, 2013. Below is a video of the brief speech by Senator Nick Xenophon during the second reading. A transcript of the speech is available on the Senate website, in Hansard for June 27, 2013, and on Senator Xenophon's website.
Time to gather all the evidence up that shows how much time and resources of the CoS go into eradicting psychiatry from the planet, enough that it amounts to a purpose in its own right. Further explanation of new law Disqualifying purposes Unlawful activities 1.3 At the end of paragraph 1.102, include the following text: 1.102A There is a distinction between the purposes of an entity and the activities of an entity. This provision is concerned with purpose. Individual instances of engaging in, or promoting, an unlawful activity would generally not cause an entity to be considered to have a purpose to engage in such activity. However, activities can be considered in determining an entity‟s purposes (see paragraphs 1.27 to 1.29) and an entity‟s engagement in, or promotion of, unlawful activities to an extent that they could be considered to constitute a purpose to engage in, or promote, such unlawful activities, would be disqualifying. 1.102B In general terms, the purposes of an entity are usually the aims listed in the entity‟s constitution, and the activities will be the methods by which the entity achieves those purposes. However, not all purposes will necessarily be listed in the entity‟s constitution. If an entity spends a large portion of its time and resources carrying out certain activities over extended periods of time, these activities may, in fact, amount to a purpose in their own right. Whether the activities have amounted to a purpose will be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant factors, including but not limited to the factors listed in paragraphs 1.27 to 1.28. 1.102C In addition to the distinction between the activities and purposes of a charity, there is also a distinction between the activities of the entity and the activities of the individuals involved in that entity. The Bill is concerned only with the purpose of the entity and to a lesser extent its actions and activities in determining those purposes, not the actions and activities of individuals associated with the entity unless they are authorised by the entity. Unauthorised individual instances of unlawful activity carried out by an employee, member or volunteer of an entity are unlikely to constitute a disqualifying purpose of an entity. Whether an action of an individual amounts to an action of the entity will be determined according to the law of agency and other relevant factors.
This is where the Xes will have their chance to shine! They have done tremendous work getting this bill so far, now teh reward is ready for picking.
Thanks for all the updates. What happens now? Do charities and NFPs need to register under the new regime? Or how is the test to be applied?
Thats an interesting law. especially this" However, not all purposes will necessarily be listed in the entity‟s constitution. If an entity spends a large portion of its time and resources carrying out certain activities over extended periods of time, these activities may,in fact, amount to a purpose in their own right." I wonder how they would treat the information coming out of the rathburn lawsuit in Texas? How would the Australian government view the cult if they had legal evidence that showed that CO$ spends a lot of time and money harassing people? After all, one of the defendants is Church of Scientology International, and because its the international branch of the cult, wouldn't that mean that the Texas law suit would be relevant in Australia?
I agree - this is interesting. It means they don't have to take the charitable objectives at face value - they can look at the actual activities, not just the stated activities. This is a Good Thing.
