DOGS 2008 Submission

When the Rudd Government set up a Senate Economics Committee with the title: Inquiry into the Disclosure Regimes for Charities and Not-for-Profit Organisations, the DOGS said Ho-Hum! Here we go again! The Churches will make submissions and nothing will happen of any consequence! Australia could even go backwards further.

Nevertheless, we made a submission and along with other submissions this can be sighted on the Website www.aph.gov.au/senate/Committee/economics_ctte/index.htm. If you click on Current Inquiries, Disclosure Regimes for charities and not-for-profit organisations , then click on Submissions Received, you will find the DOGS submission at No. 158. If you want a holiday from the big guns from the religious organisations, you might wish to peruse the submissions from the Australian National Secular Association at 159 ; The Secular Party of Australia at 87; and the Rationalist Society of Australia at 111.

Three Earlier Submissions

DOGS referred the Inquiry to three previous submission to federally created bodies.

1.      In 2000 we made a submission to the Senate Employment Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee re State Grants ( Primary and Secondary) Bill 2000. This was placed on our website a as Press Release 19 at www.adogs.info/pr19.htm

2.       In 2000 we also made a submission to the Prime Minister's Inquiry into the Definition of Charity. We placed this submission on our DOGS website as News Release No. 30 at www.adogs.info/pr30.htm

 Even in 2008, eight years later, we discover that in the months January to August 25, there have been hundreds of visitors to this Press Release. We also note that in previous years there has been a great deal of interest in this Press Release. We have followed the fate of the recommendations of this Committee. They were opposed by church interests and were largely abandoned. In particular, the federal government failed to establish a Charities Commission similar to that in other Commonwealth countries. The legislation that was actually passed merely extended taxation exemptions to enclosed religious orders engaged in prayer. Even under the 1601 Elizabethan definition of Charities , this was regarded as a 'superstitious use'. The really interesting fact about the Australian Government's definition of charity is that the list in the original Elizabethan definition did not include religious organisations but only mentioned maintenance of church towers- presumably because the bell and later clock had a public use.

Religion only became 'charitable' after the Morice v the Bishop of Durham case in 1804.

So, after 2000, Australia went back, past  Elizabeth 1, into a definition of 'charity' involving 'superstitious uses' . Back we go, into the Middle Ages. Church dominates the State and invades the Public Treasury.

Wonder why?

3.       In 2004, DOGS made another submission, this time to the Senate Employment Workplace Relations and Education References Committee: Inquiry into Commonwealth Funding for Schools. This submission was placed on our website as News Release No. 91 at www.adogs.info/pr91.htm.

Our three earlier submissions referred to above were ignored.

No action was taken on the establishment of a Charities Commission.

Nor did any of the above Federal bodies take any action to rectify our concerns regarding the accountability of billions of dollars of public expenditures on charities/non-profit organisations for example schools. The 'purple economy' of tens of billions of dollars of taxations expenditures otherwise known as taxations exemptions ( for income tax; fringe benefits tax; capital gains tax; GST; stamp duties; land tax;  local government rates and taxes etc. etc. ) is a national scandal. If these taxation expenditures are added to the direct grants of State Aid given to private religious schools, the taxpayer subsidisation of religious educational institutions far exceeds any public funding of public education.

 The relationship between religious institutions and the taxation system is a national scandal.

Relationship between Federal Bureaucrats, Politicians and Australian Not-for-Profit Church School Faction: Not in the Public Interest

In their 2008 submission DOGS expressed concern about the accountability issues in relation to the public subsidisation of charitable institutions and not-for-profit organisations that have run educational enterprises since the 1960s.

Current levels of taxpayer funding without proper public accountability to citizens runs counter to the public good. DOGS do not consider that the accountability of religious institutions to craven politicians is acceptable to citizens like ourselves. Our experience has been that taxpayers have been taken for a ride. We quote from an Advertisement we placed in the Age on Friday 2 December 1977:

Because of the fear of the sectarian church lobby, politicians have abdicated their responsibility to protect the taxpayer's interest. Without support from politicians, bureaucrats and administrations in the Schools Commission have followed their natural tendencies to avoid confrontation with church school interests at all costs.

DOGS experience since the 1960s and 1970s has confirmed our concerns about the breakdown of basic democratic procedures like accountability for expenditure of public moneys. The entanglement of church with state has led to an unfortunate undermining of the state, an abdication and abnegation of ministerial and parliamentary responsibilities and a deep scepticism in the community concerning the honesty of religious organisations themselves. The lessons of history tell us that when Church and State meet at the Public Treasury, taxpayers are in trouble.

Australian National Audit Office Should be Involved and then Sacked:

DOGS have ongoing concerns with the performance of the Auditor General and the Australian National Audit Office ( ANAO). This public authority should be pulled into line and disciplined for its ongoing failure in relation to church school accountability. We hear a lot from Ms Gillard about 'accountability' and 'transparency'. Why doesn't she do something about the ANAO? On past performance they should be sacked!

Intestinal Fortitude Required

 DOGS invite the Senate Economics Committee to have the intestinal fortitude to bite the accountability bullet and overcome the cancer in our Body Politic.