Healthy Cities Illawarra Inc and Commissioner of Taxation
[2006] AATA 522
•15 June 2006
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 522
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No NT2004/130
TAXATION APPEALS DIVISION ) Re HEALTHY CITIES ILLAWARRA INC Applicant
And
COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr Julian Block, Deputy President Date
15 June 2006
Place
Sydney
Decision
The decision under review is affirmed.
.......................................................
Mr Julian Block, Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
TAXATION – decision under review concerns the disallowance by the Respondent of an objection against the Respondent’s refusal to endorse the Applicant as a dutiable gift recipient and thus as a “charitable institution” whose principle activity is to promote the prevention or the control of diseases in human beings – consideration as the meaning of “disease” and “injury” – consideration of evidence by Applicant and Respondent – consideration of Expert evidence – discussion and consideration as to the principal activity of the Applicant – the decision under review is affirmed.
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 s.30-20, 34-20, 995-1
Kennedy Cleaning Services Pty Limited v Petkoska (2000) 200 CLR 286
Papacostas v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] NSW ADT 57
REASONS FOR DECISION 15 June 2006
Mr Julian Block, Deputy President
PART A - introduction and background
1. The decision under review is the disallowance by the Respondent of an objection against the Respondent’s refusal to endorse the Applicant as a dutiable gift recipient (“DGR”) in accordance with item1.1.6 of the Table in s.30-20 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (“the Act”) and thus as a “charitable institution” whose principal activity is to promote the prevention or the control of diseases in human beings.
2. The Applicant was represented by Mr Mark Brabazon of counsel instructed by Deakins, solicitors; the Respondent was represented by Mr SW Gibb SC of counsel instructed by Mr Michael Donohoe of the Australian Government Solicitor.
3. The Tribunal had before it the T documents lodged pursuant to s.37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 together with exhibits as follows:
Exhibit A1:An expert witness statement by Professors Baum and Sainsbury dated April 2005;
Exhibit A2:A statement by Mr Frank Wallner dated 2 August 2005;
Exhibit A3:A volume entitled “Applicant’s Supplementary Bundle of Documents”;
Exhibit R1:Consists of two volumes (volumes 1 and 2) entitled “Respondent’s Supplementary Bundle”;
Exhibit R2:A letter by the Australian Government Solicitor to Deakins dated 12 August 2005;
Exhibit R3:A volume of documents entitled “Respondent’s Supplementary Bundle of Documents”
4. In addition to the documents referred to in clause 3 above, the Tribunal received from both parties Statements of Facts and Contentions and lengthy written submissions. The Tribunal also received but did not allot exhibit numbers to a number of dictionary extracts.
5. It may be noted at the outset that the volume of paper produced in this matter was quite extraordinarily large; however the fact that this is so should not be construed so as to suggest that the documentation furnished was unnecessarily large. In this connection:
(a)Exhibit A2, the statement by Mr Wallner, Chief Executive Officer of the Applicant, is not of itself particularly long but the annexures to it are contained in a large bound volume of documents numbering 410 pages;
(b)Exhibit R1 consists as I have said of two volumes; volume 1 is very large indeed consisting of about 800 pages, separated into categories and divided by tabs numbered 1 to 11; the second volume is smaller but otherwise formulated in much the same way;
(c)Exhibit R3 is roughly equivalent in size to volume 2 of Exhibit R1;
(d)If one includes volumes of case authorities submitted by the Respondent and the lengthy final submissions the Tribunal has, apart from the T documents and submissions six large volumes of documents and running in all (at a rough estimate) to some thousands of pages.
6. Oral evidence was given only by Mr Wallner. In respect of Exhibit A1, Mr Gibb did not require Professors Baum or Sainsbury for cross-examination and so that their evidence was admitted. Objections by Mr Gibb to aspects of Exhibits A1 and A2 will be dealt with, albeit briefly, in Part B.
PART B - objections
7. Mr Gibb raised a number of objections to Exhibit A1. Put in very general terms it might be said that he objected in particular to the fact that the professors in Exhibit A1 made a number of statements which are outside their field of expertise. In this context, the professors did purport to advise the Tribunal as to the manner in which in their view the relevant statutory provisions should be interpreted. Despite such objections, the Tribunal admitted Exhibit A1 in the form in which it was tendered but on the basis firstly that the Respondent’s objections had been noted and that the Respondent’s rights were reserved, and secondly that it woul assign little if any weight to material of the nature to which I have referred. As to Exhibit A2, similar objections (but to a lesser extent) were made and resolved in much the same way. Mr Brabazon agreed to the deletion of the last sentence of clause 7.10. of Exhibit A2 and so that its tender was accepted in this slightly amended form.
8. I do not think it necessary for me to deal with the objections or the argument as to those objections in any greater detail.
PART C - what is this case all about?
9. At the very core of this case is the question of whether in item1.1.6 the reference to “disease” can or should be construed in such manner that it is inclusive of “injury”. The Respondent contends that “disease” and “injury” are concepts which are different while the Applicant contends that in the context of the legislation and put in simplified (and perhaps over simplified) terms “disease” includes “injury”. As will be seen, the distinction is important.
Section 30-(20 (1) (and thus excluding subsection (2)] of the Act reads as follows: INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 - SECT 30.20
Health
(1) This table sets out general categories of health recipients.
Health—General Item Fund, authority or institution Special conditions 1.1.1 a public hospital none 1.1.2 a hospital carried on by a society or association otherwise than for the purposes of profit or gain to the individual members of the society or association none 1.1.3 a public fund established before 23 October 1963 and maintained for the purpose of providing money for hospitals covered by item1.1.1 or 1.1.2 or for the establishment of such hospitals none 1.1.4 a public authority engaged in research into the causes, prevention or cure of disease in human beings, animals or plants the gift must be made for such research 1.1.5 a public institution engaged solely in research into the causes, prevention or cure of disease in human beings, animals or plants none 1.1.6 a charitable institution whose principal activity is to promote the prevention or the control of diseases in human beings none 1.1.7 a public ambulance service none 1.1.8 a public fund established and maintained for the purpose of providing money for the provision of public ambulance services Item1.1.6 is the item which is relevant while item 1.1.5, the immediately preceding item is of assistance in the construction of item1.1.6; this aspect is canvassed more fully later in these reasons.
10. While quoting legislation, it is convenient also to set out the text of s.34-20 of the Act as follows:
Section 34-20
What are occupation specific clothing and protective clothing?
(1) Occupation specific clothing is clothing that distinctively identifies you as belonging to a particular profession, trade, vocation, occupation or calling. To determine this, disregard any feature of the clothing that distinctively identifies you as a person associated (directly or indirectly) with:
(a) your employer; or
(b) group consisting of your employer and one or more of your employer’s * associates.
Example: Occupation specific clothing includes a nurse’s uniform, a chef’s checked pants and a religious cleric’s ceremonial robes.
(2)Protective clothing is clothing of a kind that you mainly use to protect yourself, or someone else, from risk of:
(a)death; or
(b)disease (including the contraction, aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease); or
(c)injury (including the aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of an injury); or
(d)damage to clothing; or
(e)damage to an artificial limb or other artificial substitute, or to a medical, surgical or other similar aid or appliance.
Example: Protective clothing includes overalls, aprons, goggles, hard hats and safety boots, when worn to protect the wearer.
Meaning of disease
(3).Disease includes any mental or physical ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition, whether of sudden onset or gradual development and whether of genetic or other origin.
11. It may be noted that the term “disease” is a defined term in the sense that it is referred to in the dictionary section, 995-1, of the Act. It defines the term inclusively by reference to section 34-20 (3) of the Act and which is quoted above. “Injury” is not a defined term.
12. The Applicant’s case is that in any event its activities regarded as a whole are such that the Applicant is entitled to be treated as falling within item1.1.6.
13. The Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 20 December 2005 is quite one of the most comprehensive and longest Statements of Facts and Contentions I have ever seen; it contains a very lengthy opening section under the head of “Facts”; Mr Wallner in his evidence noted that in the case of some of the employees of the Applicant there has been some change in job description or in the number of hours worked. But those aspects aside, there does not appear to be any significant dispute as to that content under the head of “Facts”; accordingly clauses 1 to 46 of the Applicant’s amended Statement of Facts and Contentions are included in these reasons, but because of their length attached to these reasons as Annexure A.
14. Mr Wallner in his oral evidence confirmed (subject to a few changes of a comparatively minor nature) that Exhibit A2 is correct. It constituted, to a considerable extent, his evidence in chief and it too is included in these reasons and also as an annexure and being Annexure B.
15. In his written submissions dated 25 May 2006 the Respondent included an annexure, also lengthy and in which in respect of each relevant activity of the Applicant he included the information source, the category or subcategory, the actual activity and lastly, whether (in his contention) that activity fell within or without item 1.1.6. That annexure which is referred to in these reasons as the “Survey” was put to Mr Wallner in cross-examination. Mr Wallner agreed that subject to some reservations (referred to later in these reasons) it could be treated as correct. Again and because it proved to be so useful it is included in these reasons but, and again because of its length, as an annexure and being Annexure C.
16. It is convenient at this point to note that the Respondent does not dispute that the Applicant is categorised and entitled to be categorised as a charitable institution. The requirements of item1.1.6 are such that the fact that the party is a charitable institution does not have the result that it follows that donations to it are deductible.
17. This is a matter of which it can be said that the written evidence and written submissions were particularly comprehensive and so much so that there was little need for oral evidence and especially in the light of the fact that Mr. Wallner’s evidence was so clearly truthful. It is in these circumstances that I intend to draw on the written documents and including some considerable parts of the Respondent’s submissions; in doing so I acknowledge my debt to their exceptional quality and detail.
PART D - mr wallner’s evidence
18. In giving evidence Mr Wallner had with him his witness statement Exhibit A2 and in addition the appendices to Exhibit A2 and also the annexures separately contained in a very large volume.
19. Mr Wallner said as regards clause 7.9 and appendix 3 to Exhibit A2 that it listed the major activities of the Applicant over the past 10 years. As to appendix 3 and the first bullet point under the head of “Build Healthy Public Policy” he said that the Applicant had become concerned as to the fact that there was no requirement that taxis have child restraints and that this created hazards and the risk of injury. The Applicant joined with the RTA to set up a pilot program. Some taxi companies were supportive while others were not.
20. As to the second bullet point under the same heading in appendix 3, Mr Wallner noted that drowning in private swimming pools was a leading cause of death for children under the age of five years. Although the State of New South Wales has enacted relevant legislation as to fences (and climbing aids) local authorities have been hesitant as to enforcement. Wollongong alone has according to Mr Wallner 10,000 private swimming pools. The Applicant carried out research which resulted in time in legislative amendments.
21. As to the last bullet point under the same heading in appendix 3, Mr Wallner said that in the Illawarra area air pollution is a serious concern. The Applicant has been involved in investigations as to air pollutants. Amongst other things it gave support to community members as to the writing of appropriate letters of complaint.
22. Mr Wallner said in relation to appendix 3 to Exhibit A2 that young children are liable to suffer injury in consequence of accidents in the home. This can occur through burns from a variety of differing causes; falls were also described as a leading cause of injury. The Applicant took part in a project with a local builder and involving the construction of a model house and incorporating a number of safety features. By way of an example of a safety feature Mr Wallner referred to kitchen cupboards which were constructed without sharp corners; he referred also (and by way of other examples) to the fact that the hot water system was regulated at a lower level; and that electric socket covers over electric outlets were installed.
23. Mr Wallner gave evidence as to a number of environmental regeneration projects required in particular in the southern area of Illawarra and arising because of urbanisation. The Applicant obtained grants which enabled it to persuade volunteers in the community to perform bush regeneration projects and in particular in relation to estuaries in the Shoalhaven area.
24. Mr Wallner said in relation to tab G of the annexures to Exhibit A2 (page 205) and when asked what is meant by “one track for all” that this project involved the procurement of grants which in turn permitted the employment of aboriginal people to clear the headland of bushes and weeds so as to construct a two-kilometre track (suitably graded to permit access to elderly and handicapped persons). Carvings which could be seen by the visually impaired were involved; those carvings dealt with historical aspects especially from the perspective of the aboriginal people. Mr Wallner said that visitors now come from far and wide to use the track. Moreover volunteers protect against vandalism.
25. Evidence as to a walking route in the Strathhaven area was to similar effect. Walking tracks were connected and all with a view to encourage people to make use of its facilities so provided.
26. As to tab 1 of Exhibit A3 the Applicant embarked on a project to establish whether heavy industry and pollution could be linked to leukaemia in young people. In fact no such connection was established. In the same context the Applicant worked on facilities for children with cancer designed to enhance their level of life enjoyment. Workers were engaged; those workers included young people who were in danger of dropping out of school.
27. Again in relation to appendix 3 (referred to previously in these reasons) and in relation to disadvantaged communities, a breakfast program was established for children who were not sufficiently fed at home.
28. Mr Wallner gave evidence as to other and similar activities. He spoke at some length as to projects designed to assist old people (and in particular but by no means only to ensure attendance at medical appointments) and projects designed to encourage the use of public transport, and so reduce the level of pollution.
29. The Applicant has also put some considerable effort into beach safety and especially programs designed to assist non-English-speaking persons, and to enable them to understand signs and notices as to flags and other safety aspects and all to prevent or at least minimise drowning incidents. Those non-English-speaking persons were also furnished with instruction as to the taking of illegal quantities of items found on beaches. Persons with the necessary language skills (and there is a wide variety of different languages involved) were employed for this purpose.
30. Mr Wallner spoke at some length of projects designed to prevent traffic accidents. Children were taught road rules and the importance of safety helmets when riding bicycles. For this purpose a mini road system was constructed. The Applicant is no longer involved in this particular project.
31. The Illawarra Environment and Heritage Centre, as the name suggests, relates to environmental issues.
32. The Applicant worked with Kiama authorities to assist them with their own “Safe Cities” program.
33. There was other evidence much of it connected with monetary aspects and with which I need not deal in any detail. The Applicant is funded but only to a limited extent by the State Government and its funding from that source is utilised in the main to pay salaries and overheads and so that the Applicant is reliant on grants for many of its activities and projects. Mr Wallner said in particular that the Applicant has eight members of staff in all and this number includes Mr Wallner himself; all of them, and again including Mr Wallner work on a part- time basis.
34. Evidence in some detail was as I have said given as to funding and particularly funding shortages. The Applicant, it is clear, relies on grants to some considerable extent. From 2000 to 2004 by way of example the Applicant received $15,000 to $20,000 per annum from the Sydney Casino.
35. Mr Wallner said in particular that some of the job descriptions in Exhibit A2 have altered and some of the hours worked have also over time altered. The Tribunal does not think that these alterations are of such moment that they need be set out in detail.
36. In cross-examination Mr Wallner was asked in particular whether the Summary (containing items 1 to 120) furnished a reasonably accurate description of the Applicant’s activities and proposed activities during the relevant period. Mr Wallner agreed that the content had been taken from the Applicant’s own documents (and website). He said that while the Summary was accurate it was not comprehensive in that there were a number of objectives (some of a minor nature) which had not been included. He said also that he would like to add some items and moreover that a different weighting would be desirable. When asked as to whether relevant activities had been omitted Mr Wallner referred in particular to services for the aged and especially transport to ensure that they kept their medical appointments. A walk event was run (for about two years) to enable the Applicant to assist with meals on wheels. Moreover a healthy aging photograph exhibit coordinated with the Wollongong Photographic Group, was organised; this involved pictures of old people taken by their children and designed to encourage what was referred to as “healthy aging”.
37. It is sufficient in conclusion to say that Mr Wallner was a patently honest witness who at times gave evidence which, it might be thought, did not advance the Applicant’s case. I should note also that I have not sought to deal with all of the very considerable detail in respect of Mr Wallner’s evidence and that the content of these reasons constitutes a summary only of some of the evidence and some only of the numerous and various projects involved.
38. The overall picture which emerged from the evidence of Mr Wallner in particular is of a small organisation much in need of funding which engages or engaged in a large number of diverse projects some of which could be said to be directly linked to disease prevention. There were and are many projects and activities linked to accident prevention or in other words injury prevention. Some projects again might be said to be linked most directly to general welfare in a broad sense. In a very indirect sense general welfare might have a bearing (however distant in some cases) on disease prevention. To assist the disadvantaged aboriginal community is clearly praise-worthy; moreover members of the community so assisted might perhaps become less liable to contract disease but that does not mean that the activity was thus directly linked to disease prevention. If for example young people and particularly young aboriginals are encouraged to stay at school, it will be easier for them to find jobs thereafter which might increase their incomes and again have the effect that the incidence of disease is (thereafter) less severe. But this cannot be said to constitute disease prevention. It is in these instances that,however praise-worthy the activity, the disease prevention aspect is remote. Much the same could be said of assistance to the aged. If the aged are assisted in keeping their medical appointments, they too may be less vulnerable to the incidence of disease but that is not the same as the prevention of disease. Assistance to non-English-speaking persons and in particular as regards beach safety is obviously desirable and the prevention of drowning is clearly to be achieved to the maximum extent possible but it can hardly be said to prevent disease.
PART E - the evidence of professors baum and sainsbury
39. It is hard to know how to characterise Exhibit A1 but it must be said that it was of little assistance. I include Parts 3 and 4 only noting that, part 4 particularly contains matter which was outside the area of expertise of the professors and touched on matters which are to be decided by me. Those parts of Exhibit A1 read as follows:
3. Public health
3.1 Public health emerged as a distinct professional and academic discipline in response to the severe threats posted to the health of the public by the urbanisation and industrialisation occurring in western Europe, north America, Australia and New Zealand in the second half of the nineteenth century. Although the specific activities of (the discipline of) public health have changed over the last one hundred and fifty years as the specific threats to public health (the health of the public) have changed, the fundamental goal has remained the same: the protection and promotion of the health of the public through a combination of activities which encourage and enable individuals to lead safe and healthy lives within safe and healthy natural, built and social environments. Inevitably, to protect and promote the health of the public the major locus of public health activities are the prevention of disease in individuals and communities. Briefly, this involves research to understand how specific diseases are caused and action to remove, block or mitigate the causes.
3.2 For any particular disease, depending on the specific causes and how they interact to produce the disease, the action may, for example, be oriented:
(1) to changing the behaviour of individuals for their own benefit (for instance by providing individuals with relevant information, resources and skills to stop smoking or undertake sexual activity that is safe, or by increasing the price of cigarettes or ensuring that condoms arc readily available in public places);
(2) to protecting! individuals from the harmful activities of others (for instance by banning smoking in enclosed public areas to prevent the exposure of non-smokers to passive smoking or ensuring that free, readily available services are Available for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases);
(3) to creating safe physical environments in which people can live and work (for instance by creating shaded areas in shopping precincts and school playgrounds, etc to protect people from harmful sunlight or eliminating physical and chemical hazards in the workplace);
(4) to producing! healthier social environments (for instance by reducing or ameliorating the effects of poverty and disadvantage which have been shown to be strongly associated with almost all physical and mental diseases and causes of death or encouraging the creation of better social relationships [which have been shown to be protective against many physical and mental diseases] between individuals and among communities).
3.3 In developed countries the second half of the twentieth century brought increasing recognition that the major threats to public health (in terms of 'both increased illness, disability and suffering while people are alive and also increased death rates) were not the infectious diseases of the past but chronic, non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer, arthritis, diabetes and depression which were caused not by infectious agents but by individuals' lifestyles and the environments in which they lived. Along with this recognition has come increasing awareness that:
(1) individual harmful factors can cause several chronic diseases (for instance smoking causes heart disease and many cancers and an increased risk of injury from fires);
(2) most chronic diseases are not caused by a single exposure to one harmful factor but by many factors that interact over many years (for instance smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and low physical activity combine to cause heart disease);
(3) harmful factors in an individual's life interact in complex ways with harmful factors in the wider community to create diseases in individuals;
(4) health promoting factors at the personal and community levels can protect individuals from harmful factors and thus prevent disease (for instance a healthy diet and regular physical activity protect against heart disease and diabetes);
(5) individuals and communities must be involved with the planning and implementation of many public health activities for them to be acceptable and effective.
3.4 From this brief description it will be clear that the task of protecting and promoting the health of the public stealth is now extremely complex and multifaceted. Consequently, no one will be surprised to learn that this is reflected in the discipline of public health which how covers a wide array of specialised skills and is practised in many different settings and in many different ways.
3.5 The World Health Organisation's Healthy Cities program was initiated in the 1980s with the aim of bringing the diverse public health skills to bear on the health problems facing cities, where molt people live in developed countries. The Healthy Cities program recognises that, the reduction of disease and the creation of better health involves interaction between individuals, communities, government and non government organisations and the private sector in the creation of healthier lifestyles and healthier environments. The strategies adopted by the Health Cities program in general, and by Healthy. Cities Illawarra, are based on and incorporate the accepted knowledge, skills and strategies of public health to prevent disease and improve health.
3.6 As with any specialised field, public health contains a range of terms whose meanings may not always be immediately clear to ‘outsiders’. It should be noted, for instance, that ‘public health’ and ‘health promotion’ are terms that are sometimes, particularly in the last two decades, used interchangeably but that sometimes ‘health promotion’ is viewed as only the action arm (as opposed to, say, the research arm) of ‘public health’. Attachment 1 (from Baum 2002) provides a guide to some of these terms. In this submission, we are using the terms interchangeably.
4. Definition of disease and disease prevention
4.1 Part of the ATO’s reason for their decision is that the relevant Act refers to the ‘prevention or the control of diseases in human beings’ and that, in the ATO's opinion, many of the activities that Healthy Cities .Illawarra are engaged in are not concerned with disease prevention. For instance they argue that injury is not a disease. Yet the International Classification of Diseases[1], the internationally accepted “system of categories to which morbid entities are assigned according to established criteria” (page vii), clearly accepts injuries as diseases in the general sense of the word and has a chapter devoted to injury and poisoning just as it does to, for instance, the circulatory system, the nervous system and the genitourinary system.
[1]ICD-10-AM, Tabular List of Diseases. Volume 1 of The lnternational Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification, Fourth Edition - July 2004. National Centre for Classification in Health, Sydney.
4.2 The ATO also quotes a paragraph from the explanatory memorandum to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No 2) which inserted item1.1.6 in the table of Section 30-20(1) into ITAA 1997 and provides a paragraph which asserts that those organisations that are covered by the amendment are:
“Medical or health organisations whose principal focus is preventative in nature, rather than providing direct relief of sickness or suffering. These organisations typically focus on particular types of ailments or health issues, for example asthma, cancer, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), arthritis, heart conditions, brain conditions, and paraplegia and kidney conditions "
4.3 We note firstly that this amendment refers broadly to “health issues” not just ailments; secondly, that the reference is to "preventative in nature", not specifically "disease prevention"; and thirdly, that the list provides examples rather than a complete inventory of particular ailments and health issues. We also note that three of the ailments and health issues listed (heart conditions, brain conditions and kidney conditions) are expressed not as specific diseases but in very generic terms covering; the whole range of anatomical, biochemical and physiological abnormalities (and even their precipitating genetic, infectious, traumatic, toxic, degenerative, etc factors) that may cause disease or malfunction in the organs listed. Similarly, paraplegia is not a single specific diagnosis but rather a condition that can arise from many causes, many cases of which arise as a result of an acute traumatic injury.
4.4 Consequently, given the apparent intent of this amendment, there seems to be acceptance of a broad definition of relevant preventive activities that can potentially have an impact on disease.
4.5 Disease prevention is part of the broader activity described as public health, and more latterly, as noted above, also health promotion. Conceptions of disease prevention since the 19th century have included the idea that the causes of disease are biological, genetic, behavioural and social and economic. It is also broadly acknowledged that the causes for any one disease are multi-facetted with complex casual pathways. All textbooks on disease prevention include a model of causation that includes each of these types of activities.
4.6 Within the discipline of health promotion there is a well known metaphor that describes the work of health services and hospitals as pulling sick people out of a river so that they can be cared for and restored to health from their diseased state. Health promoters, however, seek to promote health by going upstream and helping the people out of the river before they are so sick that they need care from a GP or hospital, say. To be even more effective health promoters try to go further upstream and prevent the people from falling in the river in the first place. Thus the basic tenet of disease prevention is upstream basic prevention. Thus any activities within the casual chain leading to a disease or diseased state (including the outcome of injury) is disease prevention, and; we believe, should logically and legitimately be regarded as such by the ATO.
4.7 We also note that there is a strong and growing evidence base, arising from rigorous research, to support the concept that apparently distant upstream factors do cause disease. For example, social support may seem very much removed from disease prevention, yet there is strong evidence that people with poor social support are approximately 2-4 times as likely to die of heart disease than those with good social support (see Attachment 2 for further details and references
PART F - the statutory provisions
40. It will be recalled that item 1.1.6 in s.30-20 of the Act reads as follows:
1.1.6 a charitable institution whose principal activity is to promote the prevention or the control of diseases in human beings
41. It will also be recalled that item 1.1.5 immediately preceding item 1.1.6 reads as follows:
… 1.1.5
a public institution engaged solely in research into the causes, prevention or cure of disease in human beings, animals or plants
…
42. The first and most important (and probably crucial question) is as to whether the reference to “disease” in item 1.1.6 includes “injury”. “Injury” is not a term defined in the Act; “disease” is defined inclusively in s.995-1 of the Act by reference to section 34-20(3) of the Act which has been set out previously in these reasons.
43. It was contended on behalf of the Applicant that s.34-20 appears in the Act specifically in relation to clothing and particularly protective clothing. This is of course true but nevertheless the section makes it clear that it refers to “disease” in the sense defined in s.995-1 of the Act (which cross-refers to s.34-20(3) of the Act whereas “injury” (not a defined term) is reflected in s.34-20 separately. “Disease” is thus through the inter-relation of sections 995-1 and 34-20 a defined term for all purposes under the Act. The fact that the relevant wording is contained in a section specifically related to protective clothing does not have the effect that its meaning is thereby confined.
44. It is now clear that in interpreting a statute regard must be had to the purpose of the statute and that for this purpose extrinsic material may be relevant. In this context the extrinsic material is not of any particular assistance. Clauses 12 and 13 of the Respondent’s Outline of Submissions (and with which I agree) read as follows:
…
Extrinsic material:
12. The context of reform, according to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No.2) 2001 (the EM)23, was the Treasurer’s announcement on 22 June 2000 (Treasurer’s Press Release No. 55) that the Government would ensure that organizations whose main activity was promoting the prevention or control of disease in humans would continue to access the tax benefits available to public benevolent institutions24 (PBIs). The EM stated that these charitable institutions might have been PBIs in the past but, over time, their activities had changed such that they might no longer be PBIs and, therefore, no longer eligible for taxation concessions, such as exemption from FBT and sales tax; they would continue to be exempt from income tax and entitled to GST concessions under the current law. This involved a recognition that, in the case of PBIs, direct dispensation of benefits had become part of the concept of a public benevolent institution. It was also part of that concept that benevolence exercised at large and for the benefit of the community as a whole, even if it resulted in the relief of or reduction in poverty or distress, was insufficient for an institution to qualify as a PBI, so that the concept excluded an institution which, although concerned in an abstract sense with relief of poverty and distress, manifested that concern by promotion of social welfare in the community generally25.
13. The EM further stated26 that the charitable institutions to be covered by this amendment were medical or health organizations whose principal activity was preventative in nature, rather than providing direct relief of sickness or suffering. That is to say, it was intended to cover those which promoted the prevention or the control of diseases in human beings indirectly, rather than directly. Several organizations were arguably no longer PBIs, because, rather than providing relief directly to people suffering from disease through, for example, research into disease, their main activities had changed to those which indirectly did so, by promoting the prevention and the control of disease. Prevention or control activities include educating people about “lifestyle” factors, such as good nutrition and regular exercise, the absence of which play a part in causing disease, and the adoption of which, in peoples’ lives, could reduce the incidence or extent of disease. An inquiry was initiated, in September 2000, into the definition of charities, which reported in June, 200127, subsequent to the Treasurer’s June 2000 press release, and with notice of it28. There is, however, nothing in the EM to indicate that the change was ever intended to extend to institutions whose principal activity was to promote the health or well-being of the community generally. Rather, it noted that the organizations intended to be benefited, that is, to which this reform was directed, were typically focused on particular types of ailments or health issues, for example, asthma, cancer, AIDS, arthritis, heart conditions, brain conditions, paraplegia and kidney conditions. They were not, it should be stressed, and as admirable as the activities of such institutions might have been, institutions whose principal activity was to promote specific kinds of harm prevention29, such as child motor vehicle or driver safety, or the prevention of child drowning, or the prevention of motor vehicle or sporting injuries, nor to promote social welfare or well-being among the unemployed, the aged or indigenous Australians, nor to promote the prevention of harm to, or the protection of, the environment, nor, indeed, to promote generally public health or freedom from disease, or else to promote the general health or well-being of the Australian community at large, or any particular section of it.
Footnotes: 23 Para. 5.3
24 See, in relation to “public benevolent institution” , item4.1.1 of Table 4 in s78(4) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA 1936) applicable to the 1996-1997 income year or an earlier income year, and item4.1.1 of the table in s30-45 of the ITAA 1997 with effect from 1 July 1997.
25 See Australian Council of Social Service Inc v Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax (1985) 1 NSWLR 567, especially at 568F-569G and at 575C-576B. Also Marriage Guidance Council of Victoria v Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax (Vic) (1990) 21 ATR 1272.
26 Para. 5.20.
27 See Report of the Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and Related Organizations, June 2001 at See the material in parentheses in Appendix B under the heading Public benevolent institution.
29 There are provisions specifically dealing with certain kinds of harm prevention charities: see item4.1.1 of the table in s30-45 and 2230-288, 30-289 and 995-1, but not the kinds now mentioned.
…
45. That the Applicant is a charitable institution is as I have said not in dispute. The word “charitable” has a technical meaning in English law as a result of the Charitable Uses Act 1601 (Imp) (43 Eliz 1, c4) (the Statute of Elizabeth). The preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth specified a number of charitable purposes (including for the advancement of education, and for other purposes beneficial to the community) which were not charitable in the popular sense of the word; since the passing of the Statute, any purpose has been regarded as charitable in English law if it is amongst those referred to in the Statute, or if it could fairly be regarded as being within “the spirit and intendment of the Statute”. An element of public benefit is an essential condition of such purposes.
46. As to the words “principal”, “promote” and “prevention” (in the context of diseases in human beings) I refer to clause 17 of the Respondent’s submissions (and the relevant footnotes) , and with which I also agree, as follows:
…
Principal activity to promote prevention or control:
17. The ordinary meaning of the adjective “principal” is “first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost”37. Where a charitable institution carries on more than one activity, the activity or activities (if any) which promote the prevention or the control of diseases in human beings must outweigh its other activities, weighing those activities in some appropriate way, whether by number, extent, expenditure thereon, or some other appropriate means. The verb “promote”, in this context, means to “further the growth, development, progress, etc., of; encourage”38. The “prevention” of diseases in human beings is the “act of preventing; effectual hindrance”39 of such diseases. The ‘control” of such diseases is the ‘check or restraint”40 of such diseases. Control, like prevention, would extend to activities that are directed to limiting the incidence and spread of such diseases. In a particular case, a broad range of activities, including activities such as providing information about the prevention or the control of heart or sexually transmitted diseases, providing relevant aids and equipment, and coordinating health promotion activities of charitable institutions that principally promote the prevention of the control of such diseases, may all be activities directed to limiting the incidence and spread of such diseases, that is to say, treating those activities as directly doing so, when, formerly, under the law relating to PBIs, they may not have been so regarded. But if the activity which is, or the activities which are, relied upon as qualifying the institution is not, or are not, to promote the prevention or the control of identifiable diseases in human beings, and if the institution’s principal activity is not to promote those objects, or if the activity relied upon as constituting its principal activity does not relate directly, but only indirectly, to those objects, or is too remote to enable that activity to be properly regarded as promoting those objects, then the institution will not qualify, even if it may be a charitable institution.
Footnotes: 37 Macquarie Dictionary.
38 ibid.
39 ibid.
40 ibid.
…
47. In clause 18 of his submissions the Respondent contended that his interpretation is supported by the manner in which the provision could have been worded if the Applicant’s contention was correct. Clause 18 of the Respondent’s submissions reads as follows:
Diseases in human beings:
18. It is important to note at the outset that, although item1.1.6 is in a table which sets out general categories of health recipients, the item, itself, does not identify, as included, a charitable institution whose principal activity is to promote “health” or “well-being” in any general sense, but, rather, quite specifically, “the prevention or the control of diseases”, in human beings. This is so notwithstanding any connection or relationship which may exist in the fields of medicine or public health between health or well-being on the one hand, and freedom from disease on the other. These various concepts are not simply interchangeable, either in ordinary parlance or as a matter of construction. The word “health” has both a narrower meaning: “soundness of body; freedom from disease or ailment”, as well as a wider meaning: “the general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigour”41. The notion of health with which The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion is concerned, however, is, to a degree, idiosyncratic: it is much wider, perhaps even more so than the wider ordinary meaning of “health”: it is “a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities…but goes beyond healthy life-styles to well-being”42. This is not to deny the validity of, or to disparage, such a notion, or those who may seek to advance it, nor to deny that there may be an established relationship, in the fields of public health or medicine, between healthy lifestyles and freedom from disease. However, such a notion finds little, if any, support from the intent behind, or the language employed to advance it in, the present quite specific statutory context in issue here.
Footnotes: 41 ibid.
42 See The Charter under the heading “Health Promotion” and generally.
…
48. The Applicant contends in effect that the Respondent’s submission as contained in clause 18 is a matter of conjecture. While that contention is to some extent true it is nonetheless worthy of consideration in relation to the enquiry with which the Tribunal is concerned.
49. As to whether a particular condition is to be categorised as a disease will be in most cases a matter for expert medical opinion. An injury inflicted or suffered is not a disease but a disease may be contracted in response to or arising from an injury. A good example (cited by the Applicant in this context) would be paraplegia.
50. In my view s.34-20 of the Act is against the construction for which the Applicant contends. If a disease includes an injury then the separate reference to “injury” is altogether unnecessary and it is a rule of statutory construction that a statutory provision is not inserted without purpose. I refer in this context to my decision in Papacostas v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2006] NSWADT 57, clause 19 of which reads as follows:
“As a general principle, the courts have pointed out that they are not at liberty to consider any word or sentence as superfluous or insignificant. All words must prima face be given some meaning and effect.” This sentence appears in clause 2.22 of Statutory Interpretation in Australia 5th edition by Pearce and Geddes; see also the cases referred to in that clause. Clause 2.2 then goes on to state that the principle is more compelling “if the word in question has been added by amendment. Nor can a court declare a section of an Act void for uncertainty no matter how difficult it is to interpret. These matters are however subject to the overriding consideration that it may be impossible to give a full consideration to every word…. In such cases the duty of the court is to give the words the construction “that provides the greatest harmony and the least inconsistency”. Clause 2.2 contains references to a number of cases; a reference to Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 153 ALR 490 will suffice.]
51. Support for the Respondent is found in the use of the word “disease” in item 1.1.5. It is not likely that the legislature intended that “disease” included injury in item 1.1.6 but not in item 1.1.5. And as the Respondent contends, it is hardly conceivable that the legislature intended to confer DGR status on a public institution engaged solely in research into the causes, prevention or cure of injury as distinct from diseases in human beings, animals or plants. As the Respondent (correctly) points out, one does not speak about the cure of an injury; even more the term “cure” relates most relevantly to a disease; it is more apposite to use the word “heal” in the context of an injury. Nor is it likely that one would speak of an injury to plants.
52. Although there may be some degree of overlap in certain instances, “disease” and “injury” are in my view clearly different concepts. The dissenting judgment of Callinan J in Kennedy Cleaning Services Pty Limited v Petkoska (2000) 200 CLR 286 was referred to in the Respondent’s written submissions as follows:
Firstly, His Honour held, the mere fact that there were two definitions (of “disease” and of “injury”) meant that the legislature obviously intended that there be a real distinction between them; secondly, the definition of “disease” did not use words apt to describe an injury ; thirdly, in ordinary language, one would regard an ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition as something quite different from an injury, the use of the word “development” being quite significant, since people do not “develop” injuries; and fourthly, an injury is something quite different from a disease, not only in ordinary, everyday terms, but also by reference to the definitions in the Act there under consideration, the context in which they appeared and the elaborately different regimes that that Act required as a condition for them. In the High Court in Kennedy (supra) at 298 para 35 Gleeson CJ and Kirby J expressly rejected mutually exclusive classifications between “injury” and “disease” claims as being contrary to earlier authority, which had recognized that a sudden or identifiable physiological change could qualify as an “injury”, even though internal to the body of the worker; they held that the mere fact that such a change was in some way connected with an underlying “disease” process did not, of itself, prevent the classification of the change as an injury. Gaudron J at 304 para 53 and McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ at 308-309 paras 68-70 adopted a similar approach. In other words, these judges did not regard the dichotomy between the two, in the statutory context there under consideration, as strictly as Callinan J did.
53. It is relevant that Callinan J delivered a minority judgment and that in Kennedy (supra), other judges did not treat the dichotomy so strictly. But I agree with the Respondent’s contention that in this particular context and in relation to this particular legislation the judgment by His Honour Callinan J is both of assistance and correct.
54. It is always necessary to have regard to the context; the juxtaposition of item 1.1.6 and item 1.1.5 is such that the two concepts (“disease” and “injury”) must be construed as different from each other.
55. I conclude then that item 1.1.6 applies to disease and not to injury and that these concepts are (relevantly) different. I do not consider it necessary to refer to other dictionary definitions with which I was furnished.
PART G - the principal Activity of the applicant
56. The Applicant carried out and carries out a very wide range of activities. There can be no doubt that some of them relate to disease and its prevention in the relevant sense. This is so for example in respect of aids and also to the promotion of smoke free zones. The prevention of passive smoking must be related to the prevention of disease. There are other activities in the same category. Nor do I think it necessary that in relation to the concept of disease, a specific disease be referred to or identified. Smoking can cause a range of diseases. So too can pollution; the range of possible diseases which might result might relate mainly to diseases of a respiratory nature but the range might well be wider.
57. The Applicant carried out and carries out at least as many and probably more activities designed to prevent injury. Seat belts for children prevent injury. So too do safety devices in homes. So too does instruction in safe traffic behaviour and the wearing of protective helmets. In the context of beach safety for non-English-speaking people drowning is not a disease. And there was and is a wide range of activities which could be said to be of a general welfare nature. Concern for underprivileged people such as aboriginals or care of the aged falls into this category. So for that matter does care for the environment generally.
58. Once I conclude that “disease” and ‘injury” are different concepts, and in my view the statutory wording does not permit any other view, it is necessary for the Applicant who bears the onus to demonstrate that its activity in the area of disease prevention constitutes its principal activity. As to how the various and numerous projects in which the Applicant participates or has participated are to be weighted for this purpose is not clear. Weighting could relate to the time involved; it could relate to the expenditure involved; again the number of employees (and the time utilised by each of them in respect of each specific project) who took part, might be relevant. It is likely that these (and other) factors are relevant for this purpose. The Applicant has not furnished the Tribunal with any relevant specific evidence in this context and thus cannot discharge the onus. The Summary indicates in the clearest possible terms that the range of relevant activities and which can, in broad terms, be categorised as beneficial to the community, is very wide. Some are directly linked to the prevention of disease; others, at least as important are activities designed to prevent injury; yet others are more generally categorised, not by reference to either of disease prevention or injury prevention, but rather as referable to the general welfare of the community. Despite the length of the annexures to these reasons, there is no concrete or specific evidence before me which would permit me to treat the second and third categories or either of them, as subsidiary to the first category and indeed it is likely that either of the two latter categories is at least as important as the first category. The Applicant has despite its limited funding spread itself over a very wide range and the most that can be said is that it is a charitable institution whose activities are, in a general sense concerned with the welfare of the people of its community, and that some only of those many activities can be categorised as referable to the prevention of disease. Those last-mentioned activities do not bring the Applicant within item 1.1.6.
PART - conclusion
59. There is no doubt at all that the Applicant is a charitable institution and that its activities are beneficial. Put in colloquial terms, it is clearly “on the side of the angels”, but it does not fall within item 1.1.6.
60. This being so, the decision under review must be affirmed.
I certify that the 60 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of JULIAN BLOCK, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Signed: Associate
Dates of Hearing 29, 30 and 31 May 2006
Date of Decision 15 June 2006
Counsel for the Applicant Mr M Brabazon
Solicitor for the Applicant Deakins
Counsel for the Respondent Mr SW Gibb SC
Solicitor for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor
ANNEXURE A
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No NT2004/130
TAXATION APPEALS DIVISION ) Re HEALTHY CITIES ILLAWARRA INC Applicant
And
COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent
CLAUSES 1 to 46
RESPONDENT’S AMENDED STATEMENT of FACTS and CONTENTIONS
Dated 20 December 2005…
Part IFACTS
1.With effect from 27 April 1990 the Applicant was incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act 1984 (NSW) as Healthy Cities Illawarra Management Committee Incorporated. On 30 October 1996 the Applicant changed its name to Healthy Cities Illawarra Incorporated.
2.By letter dated 1 September 2003 the Applicant applied to the Respondent pursuant to s30-20 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Clth) (the ITAA) to be endorsed as deductible gift recipient (DGR) on the basis that it was a fund, authority or institution described in Item1.1.6 of the table in s30-20, being, “ a charitable institution whose principal activity is to promote the prevention or the control of diseases in human beings.”
3.By letter dated 12 November 2003 the Respondent notified the Applicant that it had been refused endorsement as a DGR.
4.By letter dated 6 January 2004 the Applicant objected to the Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s endorsement as a DGR.
5.By letter dated 10 March 2004 the Respondent notified the Applicant that the Respondent had disallowed the Applicant’s objection.
6.By application for review dated 30 March 2004 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Respondent’s objection decision.
7.The Applicant, in its Charter (revised edition, June 2001), provides that it “promotes and supports actions to establish a social, economic and physical environment conducive to health. We share in the development of local policy to effect change. In our work the needs of disadvantaged people are especially recognised.” The Applicant states that it values and supports the following:
·Diversity of people
·Biodiversity
·Every individual’s right and responsibility to participate in creating better health in their community
·Every individual’s equal right to his or her optimum level of health
·Cooperative relationships that create positive change
·Partnerships with indigenous Australians toward achieving health and reconciliation.
8.The Applicant further states that it is committed to improving the health of the people of the Illawarra by:
·Working together cooperatively
·Supporting community action
·Developing personal skills and worth
·Ensuring effective health advocacy
·Protecting the physical environment
·Recognising the right of the individual to work and contribute.
9.The Applicant is engaged in a number of activities, falling within the sphere of public health. The Applicant’s activities can be divided according to its Taskforces and projects.
10.The Applicant has five Taskforces, these are:
·the Aged Taskforce;
·HIV/AIDS Prevention Taskforce;
·Illawarra Tobacco Control Coalition (also called the QUIT Action Committee on the Applicant’s web site);
·Child Injury Prevention Taskforce; and,
·the Transport and Environment Taskforce.
11.The Applicant describes the activities of the Aged Taskforce as follows:
“To maintain and improve the health of Illawarra’s aged community
·Lobby for improved health service delivery for the aged including aged accommodation issues;
·Increase community awareness and understanding about the issues affecting the aged through special events and the media;
·Facilitate greater communication between local aged service providers.”
12.The Applicant’s HIV/AIDS Prevention Taskforce conducts the following activities with the aim:
“To minimise the incidence of HIV/AIDS in the Illawarra community
·Increase community knowledge and awareness about HIV/AIDS;
·Develop and maintain cooperative partnerships with agencies/services whose primary focus is not [sic] HIV/AIDS;
·Foster supportive environments for people who are HIV positive by reducing the level of discrimination within the community and the workplace;
·Improve coordination of HIV service providers through increased communication.”
13.The Applicant’s QUIT Action Committee (also known as the Illawarra Tobacco Control Coalition) is a joint committee with the Illawarra Health Service, Drug and Alcohol services. It seeks to achieve the following:
112 Letter to the Respondent Employees Employee details Community Environmental Health Officer – works 18 hours per week:
· Coordinates projects on tobacco control including environmental tobacco smoke which involves medical practitioners and other health professionals assessing children with respiratory illness, for example, asthma/bronchitis and educating parents on the risks of smoking around children in cars and indoors;
· Plans and coordinates a community awareness campaign about illness caused by pollutants in the indoor environment and ways these problems can be minimised;
· Provides advice and general information to the public on a range of health problems which may have an environmental cause, for example air pollution and asthma;
· Prepares funding applications for environmental health projects aimed at improving the local environment;
· Writes submissions to government on local environmental health issues.
Only the activities described in dot point two qualify – those in relation to tobacco smoke. The other activities are considered to be too far removed from the direct prevention or control of diseases in human beings. 113 Letter to the Respondent Employees Employee details Community Safety Coordinator – works 15 hours per week performing the following:
· Coordinates projects which aim to reduce injury in the community. Current areas of focus include drowning prevention, road safety, safety around the home and sports safety;
· Conducts awareness raising campaigns about safety issues which includes distribution of educational materials and resources and conducting seminars for parents;
· Coordinates the meetings of the Illawarra Child Injury Prevention Taskforce which has representatives from local government, the health department, other non-government organisations, the emergency services and the general community.
No. 114 Letter to the Respondent Employees Employee details Community Development Officer (since receipt of the letter containing this information, it would appear that this position has been renamed the Community Programs Coordinator) is employed 18 hours per week to perform the following:
· Work with local community organisations and neighbourhood centres in disadvantages areas to plan and implement projects which will improve health and access to health and other services. Some current local projects include smoking cessation programs, physical activity classes for older adults and establishing a support group for Aboriginal mothers;
· Obtain funding and oversee the Illawarra Nutrition program for children in disadvantaged areas. This program provides breakfast for over 800 children per week who would not otherwise receive breakfast and potentially suffer the effects of mal-nutrition;
· Coordinate the meetings and activities of the Illawarra Aged Taskforce which advocates for improved access to health/welfare services for older people with a particular emphasis on isolated elderly. Also conducts projects aimed at improving the health and well being of older people through such things as healthy walks.
This officer’s activities in relation to the breakfast program and smoking cessation programs qualify. Those activities related to the Aged Taskforce, physical activity programs and the support group for Aboriginal mothers do not qualify. Possibly half of this person’s time, if not more, is spent in activities which are not within the scope of item1.1.6 (but it isn’t possible to be certain from the material provided). 115 Letter to the Respondent Employees Employee details Healthy Cities Shoalhaven Coordinator – employed 24 hours per week to perform the following:
· This position represents Healthy Cities in the southern part of the Illawarra (Shoalhaven). It undertakes a wide range of health promotion and environmental health projects including:
Ø Development of a local directory of health and social services in the Milton/Ulladulla region;
Ø Developing of a number of walking tracks and booklets which promote safe healthy walking throughout the Southern Shoalhaven;
Ø Obtains grants and then oversees bush regeneration projects to improve local environments. Projects involve numerous volunteers who are more physically active.
No. 116 Letter to the Respondent Employees Employee details Administrative officer – employed 38 hours per week to provide administrative assistance to the office of HCI. Given that most of the staff activities do not involve the prevention or control of disease, this role does not either; at least in the sense of principal activity. 117 Agreement between the Applicant and Kiama Municipal Council Contract for services Services provided by the Applicant to Kiama Council The Applicant was engaged by Kiama Municipal Council to perform the following:
· Review the previous Municipal Health Plan;
· Attend Steering Committee meetings to discuss details about the contract work;
· Consult with specific community groups and organisations and prepare a consultation review paper;
· Prepare epidemiological and demographic profiles of the Kiama Municipality; and
· Prepare briefing papers on the project.
No. There is no evidence that the review of this health plan is directed specifically at prevention or control of disease. 118 Agreement with NSW RTA Contract for services Services provided by the Applicant to the RTA The Applicant was engaged by the RTA to perform the following:
· The “Helping Learner Drivers Become Safer Drivers” Workshop Manual;
· Workshop promotional material including newspaper advertisements, School Newsletter inserts, posters and fliers;
· A workshop evaluation and registration proforma;
· Workshop handouts for parents supervising drivers;
· A colour copy of workshop presentation overheads;
· Electronic version of Work Schedule Report and Workshop Summary Report.
No. 119 Agreement with Illawarra Health for the period of 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2007 Receipt of funding grant Functions and services the Applicant must provide in order to receive funding from Illawarra Health The Applicant is required to perform the following in order to continue to receive funding:
· Objective 1, to increase the level of knowledge and awareness in the Illawarra Communities about living with HIV/AIDS and related emerging issues:
Consult on PDHPE school curriculum programs;
Conduct programs in partnerships with schools on HIV/ AIDS and related issues;
Conduct community education forums;
Conduct media campaigns, including the development of media protocol policies;
Conduct local research activities;
Convene meetings with regional sexual health workers and jointly develop strategies;
Conduct in-services for teachers and youth associations;
Involve communities in facilitating World AIDS Day campaigns;
Coordinate World AIDS Day;
Liaise with NSW World AIDS Day committee;
Increase the profile and public recognition of World AIDS Day including the Australian AIDS Memorial Quilt.
· Objective 2, to develop and improve cooperative partnerships with agencies and services to ensure that HIV/AIDS remains high on their agendas:
Take a lead role in promotion of the Sexual Health Action Group (SHAG);
Create and develop collaborative research opportunities;
Attend community forums to ensure that HIV/AIDS and related issues remain an important priority;
Ensure that minutes and newsletters from various organizations and inter-agencies are received and opportunities found for community development and education;
Maintain a high level of organisational effectiveness and efficiency to be responsive in supporting clients, partners and stakeholders.
· Objective 3, to increase supportive and empowering workplace, community and family environments for people who are living with and affected by HIV/AIDS:
Support and encourage community development approaches in working with the HIV affected community;
Provide educational sessions to various communities about issues of living with HIV/AIDS;
Work with and improve public speaking opportunities for the Positive Speakers Network.
· Objective 4, to improve access to services and peer networks for people who are living with HIV/AIDS and affected communities:
Collaborate on projects, with key stakeholders, such as the Men’s Sexual Health organisation;
Facilitate development of peer support networks to increase adherence to antiretroviral treatments;
Maintain and develop the Shoalhaven AIDS Taskforce focusing on outreach for isolated people.
· Objective 5, to advocate and lobby on regional HIV/AIDS related issues as necessary:
Utilise the expertise of the SHAG to effectively respond to HIV/AIDS and related issues as, and when, necessary;
Maintain high public awareness and profile of HIV/AIDS and related issues through effective utilisation of the media, educational opportunities and active representation on a range of committees;
Inform community debate about socially contentious issues relating to HIV/AIDS by collating relevant research and information.
Yes. This funding agreement deals with funding for the HIV/AIDS taskforce only. Therefore, it falls within the scope of item1.1.6. 120 Agreement with Illawarra Area Health Service for the period 2001/2002 – 2003/2004 Receipt of funding grant Functions and services the Applicant must provide in order to receive funding from Illawarra Health Substantially the same function as described above at number 114. Yes. nb: heading rows added to original annexure
1
4
0