 |
Legislative Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRUSTS) BILL |
|
1999 Budget Session Index |
|
Legislative Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRUSTS) BILL |
|
1999 Budget Session Index |
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Democrats support the second reading and, in fact, support this legislation. The intention of this legislation is welcome. It is entirely appropriate that those administering trusts on behalf of charities and individuals should have to account for their actions—certainly, to a greater extent than has been the case. The Attorney's second reading explanation spelt out the reasons for this legislation and the Democrats have no difficulty supporting its general thrust. I believe that this will have the intended effect of ensuring that a greater proportion of funds invested for charitable or beneficial purposes will go to their intended recipient or for their intended purpose.
I have received correspondence on this Bill from the Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide, the Most Reverend Ian George, and from the Law Society. The Archbishop is very supportive of the Bill. His Grace points out that there has been a particular concern about the capacity of trustee companies to charge both a trustee's (or administration) fee and also a management fee—a practice known as double dipping. The Archbishop writes: A number of the leading charities and educational institutions, including the Anglican Church, Anglicare, the University of Adelaide, St Peters College Mission, the Crippled Children's Association, the Morialta Trust and many others have seen their income from these trusts whittled away by high fees and diminishing returns. If this is indeed the case, it is a very sorry matter that it has taken as long as it has for the Parliament to act to protect the income of these charitable bodies. The Law Society also supports the intentions of this Bill. I note from the covering letter that a copy of the society's submission has been sent to the Attorney-General; therefore, I presume that the Attorney-General is now aware of the various technical or drafting problems that the society has identified. I merely wish to draw attention to page 6 of the Law Society's submission where the author queries the Attorney-General's suggestion that the number of charitable trusts in South Australia is small—in the order of a few hundred—and that therefore the establishment of an Office of Charity Commissioner is not warranted. The Law Society indicates that that information is wrong and that there are many more charity trusts, and I quote the Law Society as follows: . . . underlying such things as recreation grounds and other public facilities, and charitable associations are frequently discovered by accident. . . they must generally be regarded as holding their property on trust for their purposes which, in many cases, originated from a formally constituted trust, although, with the passage of time, this is often overlooked. There are many churches or church lands, hospitals and non-government schools whose property must be regarded as being held pursuant to charitable trusts. With these comments in mind, I ask the Attorney-General to indicate whether this changes his intention not to approve the appointment of any public officer, such as the Charities Commissioner in the UK. Depending upon the number of trusts which do exist this might be a part-time position for a suitably qualified person; and I suggest that the Office of Public Advocate could be looked at as being able to take on additional responsibilities involved in acting on behalf of the beneficiaries of trusts. I indicate that the Democrats support the second reading of the Bill.