Merry Christmas to Peter Wilson. When it was suggested that Peter Wilson should be independent of the old board so that we can have a fresh start Peter responded with "That's your issue". Summary of the meeting here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=594
A good summary of where we are up to by Joe Aston of the AFR, linked to from here: viewtopic.php?f=5&p=4137#p4137
If you are new to this website read the story so far: viewtopic.php?t=321#p1793
Check out some of the AFR articles, too many to list and check out some of the ABC reports: ... 215-h055ej ... 211-h02x1d ... s,/8626662
Please join this website to participate in discussions. Also join our email list at

Peter Wilson:- Reumeration reporting in his charity

This covers the board and management of CPA Australia
Post Reply
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:43 pm

Peter Wilson:- Reumeration reporting in his charity

Post by JWheldon » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:47 pm

Peter Wilison, is director of Australian Human Resources Institute Limited ABN 44 120 687 149. ... F&noleft=1

Have attached the 2014 2015 and 2016 financial accounts to illustrate the way in which the Key Management Personnel remuneration and related party transactions are shown. I would encourage the young accountants to have a look and decide whether they think, these account comply with AASB 124 related Party Disclosures? The questions is how many other organisations are getting the disclosure wrong?

Interested to here your views.
(810.21 KiB) Downloaded 111 times
(6.1 MiB) Downloaded 91 times
(658.25 KiB) Downloaded 82 times

User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Peter Wilson:- Reumeration reporting in his charity

Post by Brett Stevenson » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:50 am

Not so sure 'his charity' is the right descriptor for a membership organisation but perhaps JWheldon you know something we don't?
Just love these one line item remuneration disclosures. Seems Peter’s playing from the same playbook as CPA Australia. Perhaps the AFR need to pressure them also to provide full disclosure. Whew, no mention of this in Peters ‘passionate for CPA’.
Also noticed that Jon Scriven and Peter Wilson both on this board also????
Mmmm, makes you wonder doesn’t it.
Wonder if the search firm, or the N&R Committee, or the Representative Council asked questions on the above two matters?
Perhaps too overwhelmed with the eminence factor I would think.
But there is no doubt that close relationships of new board members in other roles is not a little red flag warning as it should be at CPA. Think Macquarie University and you will get the picture.
No doubt the ‘old boys network’ is alive and well.
Also fascinating the way they give the impression of full disclosure of expenses with about 20 line items, yet two of these (employee benefits, marketing and events) covers over 60% of total expenses. So, for example $39k for telephone compared to $4million plus for employee benefits (a nice new catch-all term to summarise what should be quite specific items understood by all!) is disclosure but really it does leave some obvious questions hanging in the air for a NFP membership organisation. One would have thought for a new Chairman a close scrutiny of the way he operates as Chairman would have been appropriate.
Oh well.

Posts: 376
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:43 pm

Re: Peter Wilson:- Reumeration reporting in his charity

Post by JWheldon » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:00 pm

The Australian charities and Not-for-profits commission describes Australian Human Resources Institute Limited as a Charity. Have attached the information from the website.

It may appear that something very interesting is taking place at this organisation. Maybe for tax reasons or something Peter Wilson's advisers decided to set the business up this way???? He and John Wilson have run this organisation for many years. Maybe some tax experts in establishing charities, may be able to explain why this business is established in this manner. Maybe Peter Wilson can explain this better? Some good governance and better disclosure required. ... avoidance/

Are charities a vehicle for tax avoidance?

Posted by BT Opinion on Tuesday, May 19th 2015

Fiona Martin

A recent decision of the Federal Court has highlighted that although using charities in Australia for tax avoidance purposes is not common, it can happen.

In February 2015, the Federal Court awarded the highest monetary penalty ever handed down against a taxpayer. The amount was $1.5 million. The court awarded civil penalties to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) against Stephen Arnold, Leaf Capital and Donors Without Borders because they attempted to exploit the tax system by generating deductions for gifts to overseas charities to which their clients were not entitled.

In essence the arrangements, which dated back to 2009 and 2010, were that donors would enter into an agreement under which they paid 7.5% of the cost of certain drugs to be used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

These drugs were held in a warehouse in the UK. The balance of the purchase price of 92.5% was not payable until 50 years later. This meant that an initial outlay of $150 would technically enable a donor to claim a tax deduction of $2000.

A further issue at play was that these pharmaceuticals were never actually delivered to the African charities noted in the agreements with the donors.

In delivering his judgment, Justice Edmonds noted at least five grounds why the scheme was not available under the law, including that there was no actual delivery of the pharmaceuticals to the charities concerned at the relevant time and that the purchasers only paid 7.5% of the grossly inflated price of the drugs, yet claimed tax deductions of 100%.

Not only was there significant tax avoidance occurring in this series of arrangements but the judge also felt there was real immorality and a lack of any sense of contrition in the scheme promoters.

In coming to his conclusion Edmonds said: “Specific deterrence is a significant factor where, as here, the contraventions involved deliberate wrongdoing, sustained denials of contraventions and lack of remorse.”

He went on to state that “the penalties need to be substantial enough to persuade potential promoters that it is not worth the risk of whether a tax exploitation scheme will escape the detection by the Commissioner”.

But have these tax avoiders learnt their lessons? Interestingly, they had tried the same scheme in Canada in 2009. At that time, Canada’s equivalent of the ATO, the Canada Revenue Agency, had revoked the registration of the entity involved in the scheme on the grounds that the amounts claimed for the costs of the drugs were grossly inflated.

Yet, the Donors Without Borders website is calling for public support, claiming that almost $7 million worth of medicine was donated and delivered to sub-Saharan Africa in 2010, and that the ATO is trying to stop life-saving goods from reaching those suffering in Africa, being “more concerned about tax deductions than saving lives”.

This case is an incredibly blatant example of the use of charities and charitable giving for tax avoidance purposes. The perpetrators were probably caught because they were so flagrant.

But until 2012, it is quite possible that there were many more of these types of schemes going on. The ATO was the only government entity with the power to withdraw the privileges of tax deductibility of donations to organisations. Yet overseeing charities is not its main role nor is it its main area of expertise.

But the good news is, that since late 2012, Australia has had the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC). This federal government entity is charged with educating and regulating the charities and not-for-profit sector. Like any such organisation is it not infallible.

However, unlike the ATO, it does have staff that is experienced and knowledgeable about charities and not-for-profits. It has the power to investigate and deregister entities such as Leaf Capital.

And the ACNC’s additional powers of registration of charities, and the public scrutiny that this allows, may also mean that these types of entities may be caught and weeded out much earlier that has happened with the Leaf Capital case.

The future of the ACNC has been in doubt since the 2013 federal election saw a change in government to a Liberal/National Party Coalition. Under the stewardship of Kevin Andrews as minister for social services, the Coalition initially mandated the abolition of the ACNC.

In late 2014, the Social Services portfolio was given to Scott Morrison and he indicated that he was not interested in pursuing the abolition of the ACNC. The latest development is the May 2015 federal Budget which has allocated funding for the commission until 2019.

This is particularly welcome as the not-for-profit sector has come out strongly in favour of the work the ACNC is doing.

Fiona Martin is an associate professor in the school of taxation and business law at UNSW Business School.
(162.65 KiB) Downloaded 84 times

User avatar
Brett Stevenson
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Peter Wilson:- Reumeration reporting in his charity

Post by Brett Stevenson » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:15 pm

Wow JWheldon, you are a marvel at what you find.
Very well done.
It does raise an interesting can I say ethical issue or perhaps that is jumping to conclusions.
You are right to suggest that perhaps Peter Wilson and Jon Scriven might like to explain that to us after all CPA's logo does have the word 'integrity' emblazoned across it.
Could it be a Claytons Charity?

Posts: 376
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:43 pm

Re: Peter Wilson:- Reumeration reporting in his charity

Post by JWheldon » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:34 pm

This organisation which the CPA President runs, has lots of questions, which maybe the ATO, ASIC and ACNC need to take a closer look at. Unfortunately these organisations have limited resources and so many problems in the Not-For Profit sector and Charities sector, which the government does not have the stomach to review and take appropriate action. How CPA Australia can justify spending funds on the Rabbitoh's and its described as "entertainment" in the IRP, and the ATO not wanting to take a closer look at?

The accounting boards are focused on consolidating accounting reports even more. Why? ... ments.aspx

Reduced Disclosure Requirements

The AASB is continuing its efforts to rationalise financial reporting in Australia through its Differential Reporting project.

In June 2010, the AASB issued Standards establishing a differential reporting framework consisting of two tiers of reporting requirements for preparing general purpose financial statements (GPFSs):

(a) Tier 1: Australian Accounting Standards; and

(b) Tier 2: Australian Accounting Standards – Reduced Disclosure Requirements (RDR).

Compared with Tier 1, Tier 2 significantly reduces the disclosure burden and the costs of preparing and auditing GPFSs for most entities, whether for-profit or not-for-profit in the private and public sectors.

The AASB is now undertaking research to assess the implications of earlier proposals relating to clarifying the meaning of GPFSs and changing the application focus of Standards from reporting entity to GPFSs. The AASB is considering the potential impact of these proposals on entities that currently prepare special purpose financial statements.

In this section of the website, you will find links to information regarding all aspects of the Differential Reporting project, including:

Project updates on the progress of the Differential Reporting Project
Tier 2 work program setting out the estimated times for the release of Tier 2 Supplements to Tier1 Exposure Drafts/ Standards
Tier 2 requirements including Standards establishing Tier 2 and compiled RDR versions of Australian Accounting Standards for early adopters
An explanation of the principles used to determine Tier 2 disclosure requirements
An archive of consultative documents, submissions, media releases and other material relating to the Differential Reporting project

User avatar
The Cyclist
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2017 2:11 pm

Re: Peter Wilson:- Reumeration reporting in his charity

Post by The Cyclist » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:10 pm

Interest extract from the AHRI Constitution

At least CPAA have the nomination committee to rubber stamp new directors. ARHI don't even bother with that and absolutely no restriction on a director being re-elected indefinitely. Lets hope our new President doesn't try to implement this practice at CPAA. One saving grace is that the State Directors are elected by the members with voting conducted electronically with hard copy ballot papers only provided to members with no email addresses.

"Nomination of Directors for election


7.4.1 No person (other than a retiring Director) is eligible for election to the office of Director at any general meeting unless:

(a) a member nominates the person by giving notice in writing signed by the member to the Company;

(b) the person nominated has given notice in writing signed by the person of his or her willingness to be elected as a Director of the Company; and

(c) the nomination is approved by the Company Board and the Council of State Presidents in accordance with clause 7.4.4.

7.4.2 To be valid, such notice needs to be delivered to the Company’s registered office not less than 35 business days before the date appointed for the meeting unless the nominee has been recommended by the Board for election in which case the notice is required to be delivered to the Company’s registered office at least 28 days before the meeting.

7.4.3 A Director must be a Member at the date of the general meeting to qualify for appointment.

7.4.4 The Company Board and the Council of State Presidents will each determine the question of whether a particular nomination should be approved as follows:

(a) by simple majority vote at a meeting of the Company Board, and of the Council of State Presidents respectively, conducted in accordance with the applicable rules of the Constitution

(b) if no consensus is reached under clause 7.4.4(a) the question is determined by simple majority vote at a combined meeting of the Company Board and the Council of State Presidents conducted in accordance with the applicable rules of the Constitution as if those Council members attending were Board members (with the Chairman to exercise the casting vote). "

Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:23 am

Re: Peter Wilson:- Reumeration reporting in his charity

Post by theallseeingeye » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:44 pm

So it appears that the guy has no demonstrated passion for reporting transparency , and no demonstrated championing of member-centric governance ? How did these NOT make the list of must-have qualities required of our new Board members, after all that has happened ???

Just doesn't pass the sniff test, does it. Oh, and he's written a book that is being sold through his charities' shop. Sound familiar ?

Posts: 376
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:43 pm

Re: Peter Wilson:- Reumeration reporting in his charity

Post by JWheldon » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:19 am

Found this on ACNC (Australian Charties and Not For Profit Commission - interesting reading. The definition of a charity leaves it open to anyone to exploit this structure. The good governance is information, is also interesting. Not sure CPA Australia is meeting this?

Extract from attached document from ACNC

"What is a charity?

The word ‘charity’ means different things to different people. People commonly understand charities to be organisations that exist to help others. Whether it is providing accommodation to those in need or teaching English to newly arrived migrants, charities are at the heart of the effort to make our communities safer, fairer and more vibrant places to live.

There is, however, a particular legal definition of charity. Charities must be not‑for-profit, have a charitable purpose and be for the public benefit. Charities have to meet this definition and the requirements of the ACNC Act before they can be registered with the ACNC.

What are registered charities?

In this guide, we use the term ‘charity’ to refer to all types of charities registered with the ACNC. Charities may also be registered with other government agencies such as state and territory regulators or accreditation bodies.

The ACNC registers different ‘types’ or categories of charities. These are:
■■ charities for the relief of poverty, sickness and the needs of the aged
■■ charities for the advancement of education
■■ charities for the advancement of religion
■■ charities for other purposes beneficial to the community
■■ public benevolent institutions (PBIs)
■■ institutions whose principal activity is to promote the prevention or the control of diseases in human beings (health promotion charities (HPCs))
■■ not-for-profit child care services. "

What is a governing body?

The governing body of a charity is the group of individuals who together are ultimately responsible for overseeing its operations and making sure it is working towards achieving its charitable purpose in a way that also meets its ethical, legal and financial obligations.

For the purpose of this guide, we refer to the governing body as the ‘board’ and those on it as ‘board members’, but it or they may have another name such as ‘management committee’, ‘council’, ‘governors’ or ‘synod’ (for some churches).

Charities come in many different shapes and sizes and so do their boards. Although boards are made up of a group of individuals, they only have the power to bind the charity as a group, not as individual members – so it is the board as a group that can make decisions, not individuals on their own. It takes teamwork.

What is the role of the board?

The board is responsible for providing leadership and strategy to a charity. It also bears ultimate legal responsibility.

Generally, boards delegate some of their responsibilities to staff or volunteers. However, there are some things that are usually reserved for the board such as appointing the most senior staff member(s) (such as the chief executive officer, if the charity has one), developing (or at least approving) a strategic plan, considering how organisational risks should be managed and calling meetings of the charity’s (general) members (if any).
Every charity is different and so are their boards. However, there are some responsibilities that are common to most boards:

■■ accountability – making sure your charity meets its obligations, manages its finances and operates transparently
■■ strategy – setting the charity’s long-term goals and making sure it pursues its charitable purposes
■■ resourcing – securing funding and other resources to support the work of the charity
■■ advocacy – representing the charity to the community and to its members and stakeholders (with a chief executive officer and staff, if any)
■■ monitoring – making sure the charity is run as required under its governing documents and the law.
Governance for Good - the ACNC's guide for charity board members [1MB PDF].pdf
(771.03 KiB) Downloaded 63 times

Post Reply