36. Red Tape Reduction (Again)

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about red tape reduction (again).

I recently grumbled about the government’s “bonfire” approach to red tape reduction, but fortunately the national charity regulator, the ACNC has been saved at least temporarily from the bonfire and there is a now a Senate Committee review.

I suspect the Committee will simply hear again that most charities like the notion of a purpose-built, independent regulator and don’t wish to be returned to the regulation by the tax collector.

But if the government really wanted to reduce red tape for the charitable sector, it would pick up recent recommendations from the Not-For-Profit Reform Working Group about changes to tax deductible gift giving.

Currently, most charities get tax basic concessions by virtue of being charities. But if you want donations to you to be tax deductible, you need a whole separate process. In many case you need to establish a separate Gift Fund in your constitution with its own bank account and management committee. And if you’re an environmental, arts or harm prevention charity you then need to apply to the relevant Minister to be placed on the appropriate register of organisations.

The Minister may sit on an application for years, or grant it as if it was a piece of political largesse for supportive charities.

However, there are also charities who are exempt from such Ministerial whim – those who because of some historical accident or political deal are listed in legislation as being deductible gift recipients.

It’s stupid and it’s dodgy.

A good piece of red-tape reduction would be to abolish the need for a separate Gift Fund and the various Registers, and repeal the separate parliamentary listings and then simply extend tax deductible gift recipient status to all charities.

This would increase donations to charities, remove the implicit notion that some charities are more worthy than others, and be a direct assistance to thousands of organisations who are doing good work in the community.

It should be simple – if you are a not-for-profit organisation with a charitable purpose, you should get all the same tax charity concessions. Full stop.

If the government is not prepared to embrace this really good piece of red tape reduction for the charitable sector, we might just begin to suspect that their red tape reduction is really about something else – which is where I finished my previous grumble.

I am Greg and I am still grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 15 April 2014

29. Excellence

I am Greg and I want to grumble about that genre of mindless bureaucracy which is service quality standards or service excellence accreditation.

The accreditation is a potentially useful idea sabotaged by a focus on process rather than outcomes as someone goes into a workplace they may have no understanding of to ensure that a series of policies and practices are in place – regardless of whether or not those predetermined processes are useful or appropriate.

And so, there are occupational health and safety processes to ensure that office workers don’t get paper cuts in the paperless offices, whilst at the same time ignoring the big issues of workload, long hours, and job insecurity.

There are staff management policies which ensure that the most ruthless bosses know which boxes to tick and the best managers can’t do what might actually promote good work; and privacy policies full of stunning requirements like keeping people’s private information private.

There are even policies about having policies, but not, sadly, about whether the work and service is actually excellent.

And that is the point. Excellence is about a focus on people’s needs and outcomes, it is not about an accumulation of processes divorced from outcomes, and organisational structures and cultures.

Any accreditation divorced from outcomes, but particularly in relation to services to vulnerable and disadvantaged people is insulting, and a great waste of time and resources, but apparently you won’t be eligible for government grants and contracts if you don’t have such important paperwork. Not that that will stop another set of bureaucrats asking you again for the same policies when you apply for or report on the abovesaid grants.

So while we hear lots of talk about red tape reduction, and have seen some good moves at state and federal level lately, there is still a long, long way to go.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 18 February 2014

20. Bike Riding

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about bike riding – and I do this having just completed a 9-day ride along the Great Ocean Road with about 5,000 others. My grumble is not about the lycra – yes I know it looks appalling and turns people into lurid billboards, but it is by far the most comfortable clothing to cycle in, and over a long distance that matters.

And my grumble is not about bike riders not obeying road rules – most of the rules and road infrastructure were not made for bikes and are often inappropriate ‘car-thinking’, and sometimes unsafe. Although having said that, I do support helmet laws as I have twice cracked a helmet on the road without any harm to me. That’s two points for the so-called “nanny-state”.

My grumble is about the commercialisation of riding. I know that large groups of middle aged men combining high disposable incomes and a sport full of machines and gadgets is a marketer’s dream. But now the charities have got in to the market and I am sick of being asked to ride to cure cancer or some other injury, disease or condition, or to help a particular charity. They may be good causes, but if I really wanted to “ride for a reason”, it would be because it is cheap, keeps me healthy, is good for the environment, saves the community money, gets my brain working and is just plain fun.

The charity imperialism reached a farcical point for me earlier this year, when I went to register for a major community ride – on public roads I have ridden many times – only to find out I needed to raise several hundred dollars for a charity first. Frankly, if I was going to raise money for a charity, it would not be for that particular one. But the bigger issue is, what is it that requires us to ride, run, walk, shave, wear a ribbon or grow a ridiculous moustache to get donations for good causes.

It is the logic of a contract – that there must be an exchange to make it legitimate, or that you must do something to “earn” the charity dollar.

Personally, I dream of a community beyond such commercial logic, a community which gives what is needed, simply because it is needed, not because of some sporting indulgency. Imagine that, being able to fund good things on the basis of issues, not gimmicks!

I am Greg and I am grumbling – and riding, for fun.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-20/ 

First Broadcast: 17 December 2013

17. Asylum Seekers

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about asylum seekers. I won’t grumble about border protection and the race to see who can manage desperate people in the most inhumane way. That is beyond a simple grumble.

But while the public debate focuses on distant shores, right now there are around 4000 people in Adelaide who have come to Australia seeking asylum and who are living in our community on bridging visas or in community detention awaiting determination of their claims. However, under Federal government policy these people are prohibited from working and have to live on 89% of the already below-the-poverty line Newstart allowance. To add insult to injury, the state government seems to deem them ineligible for housing and a range of other community supports as this is seen as a Commonwealth responsibility, or because the HealthCard [which they are not eligible for] is the criteria for eligibility.

This exclusion has hugely detrimental impacts on those people’s mental health, sense of self and on their chances of finding a place in and contributing to the community (both immediately and should their application for asylum be successful). The risk is that desperate people will turn to anti-social ways to find sustenance and identity – as you would if you were living in overcrowded and temporary accommodation in a hostile environment. Or alternatively they arrive at the doors of already over-stretched charities to ask for a help – which is fine, but it is just another example of charities picking up the pieces of failed government policy.

It is time that government, both state and federal got beyond demonising asylum seekers and provided simple services to people who are really in need. And is it really too much that these people be allowed to work? They already face such daunting challenges they are unlikely to be competition for those already looking for work, and are perhaps better in award-paying work than in the informal economy. Given the current policy that no asylum seekers arriving by boat will be settled in Australia, there can be no argument that relaxing these restrictions will provide an incentive to others to come to Australia.

Such a change of policy is desperately need just to treat people in our community with some basic measure of dignity, and it can be done without any impact on our border security, our national identity or our ability to bully our nearest neighbours.

I am Greg, I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast at https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/gregs-grumbles-17/ 

First Broadcast: 26 November 2013