the Banner Bright

Yet another attack on civil society by the Morrison Government: “The Australian government introduced new regulations last week that could have a major chilling effect across Australia’s diverse charities sector. The government’s aim was clear: the regulations are intended to target ‘activist organisations’, and specifically crack down on ‘unlawful behaviour’. Despite this rhetoric, there is no evidence unlawful behaviour by charities is a problem of any significance. By clamping down on charities in this way, the government is not only curtailing their ability to organise peaceful protests, it is imposing more unnecessary red tape on an already highly-regulated sector. The regulations would give the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) new powers to take action against a charity if it commits, or fails to adequately ensure its resources aren’t used to commit, certain types of ‘summary offences’. These are generally a less serious type of criminal offence, and can include acts such as trespassing, unlawful entry, malicious damage or vandalism. If the ACNC commissioner believes a charity is not complying with the regulations, they would be able to take enforcement action, which may include deregistering the charity. … In effect, the regulations mean that if a charity organised a protest in front of a government department and initially refused to leave, this could be considered trespassing. And this could then be grounds to have the charity deregistered. … [A] comprehensive review of the ACNC legislation commissioned by the government in 2018 did not identify any issues with unlawful behaviour by charities. In fact, the review recommended removing the ACNC’s existing power to take action against charities that commit serious breaches of the law. … Despite this, the new regulations would extend the reach of the ACNC and expand its existing powers even further.”

(In case you think the regulator would surely be reasonable in using its new power, remember its chairman is a greedy, pro-coal, racist eugenicist who has long been committed to removing charitable status from organisations that advocate on policy.)

Research by Anna Stansbury at the Peterson Institute for International Economics: “To what extent do US firms have an incentive to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)? Stansbury examines this question through a simple comparison of the expected costs of noncompliance (in terms of legal sanctions) to the profits firms can earn through noncompliance. In the case of the FLSA minimum wage and overtime provisions, typical willful violators are required to pay back wages owed and in some cases additional penalties, if detected by the Department of Labor (DOL). Based on available data on the penalties levied, a typical firm would need to expect a chance of at least 78-88 percent that its violation would be detected in order to have an incentive to comply with the FLSA. In practice, the probability of detection many firms can expect to face is likely much lower than this. In the case of the NLRA, a firm that fires a worker illegally is required to reinstate the worker with back pay if the violation is detected. Based on empirical estimates of the effect of unionization on firm profits, a typical firm may have an incentive to fire a worker illegally for union activities if this illegal firing would reduce the likelihood of unionization at the firm by as little as 0.15-2 percent. These analyses illustrate that neither the FLSA nor the NLRA penalty and enforcement regimes create sufficient incentive to comply for many firms. In this context, the substantial evidence of minimum wage and overtime violations, and of illegal employer behavior toward unions, is not surprising.” It would be fascinating to see a similar analysis of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s time and wages enforcement, and of the Fair Work Commission’s adverse action decisions. I can’t imagine our toothless tigers would fare much better.