Corporate law Brisbane

Governance standards for not-for-profit organisations

HomePrivate: BlogCommercial lawCorporate lawGovernance standards for not-for-profit organisations

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–4 minutes

The vagaries of corporate governance is a regular and sometimes controversial topic of discussion in Australian business circles.  It is also the subject of much judicial interpretation.

On 1 July 2013, the Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1) (Cth) (Regulations) came into effect by amending the Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission Act 2013 (Cth).

One of the principal effects of the Regulations is to insert Division 45 – Governance Standards into the Regulations – creating what has become known as the “Governance Standards”.  In order for a charity to be registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) it must comply with the Governance Standards.

The ACNC is the government regulator created by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 (Cth) charged with monitoring compliance with the Governance Standards.

Simplified outline of the Governance Standards

The simplified outline contained at section 45.1 of the Regulations provides that:

The governance standards support registered entities in fulfilling their objectives by providing a minimum level of assurance that they meet community expectations in relation to how a registered entity should be managed”.

The variable nature of governance

The simplified outline contained in the Regulations provides that the steps that a registered entity must take to comply with governance standards will vary according to:

  • its particular circumstances;
  • the sources of its funding;
  • the nature of its activities; and
  • the needs of the public.

Who must comply with the Governance Standards?

Section 45.1(1)(a) of the Regulations provides that the object of the governance standard is to commit a registered entity, its members and its responsible entities to the registered entity’s purposes.

What is a registered entity?

Registered entities are those that are registered with the ACNC as a charity.

Is registration with ACNC mandatory?

Registration is voluntary, however only registered entities are eligible to receive charity tax concessions.

The ACNC governance standards

The ACNC Governance Standards are comprised in five (5) parts contained in subdivision 45 B of the Regulations.

Governance standard 1 (GS1) – purposes and not for profit-nature of registered entity

GS1 provides that charities must be working towards their charitable purpose and must provide information about their purpose to the public.

Governance standard 2 (GS 2) – accountability to members

A registered entity that has members must be accountable to its members.  In addition, the members must have an adequate opportunity to raise concerns about the governance of the registered entity.  The notes to GS2 provide examples of steps which registered entities could take to ensure that they are accountable.

Governance standard 3 (GS3) – compliance with Australian laws

GS3 aims to provide members of the public trust and confidence that a registered entity is governed in a way that complies with Australian laws.

Governance standard 4 (GS4) – suitability of responsible entities

Registered Entities must ensure that their responsible entities comply with Australian law and must check that their responsible persons are not disqualified from managing a corporation under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Governance standard 5 (GS5) – Duties of responsible persons

GS5 provides that a registered entity must take reasonable steps to ensure that responsible persons comply with their duties as described in the Governance Standards.  Further GS5 describes duties which are akin to the common law duties of a director of a company.  The words “care and diligence”, “fiduciary” and “disclose material conflicts” attempt to imply a statutory duty of care to the controllers of the registered entity.  Most notably, section 45.25(2)(g) of the Regulations provides that reasonable steps must be taken not to allow the registered entity to operate whilst insolvent.

Links and further resources

Legislation

Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 (Cth)

Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1) (Cth)

Other links

Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission

ACNC media release introducing the Governance Standards.

Further information

If you need assistance to ensure you comply with the Governance Standards, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about corporate governance

  • Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case

    Drag-along provisions challenged in Mobile Asset Case

    The case of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd [2026] ATP 7 (Mobile Asset Case) concerned a proposed special resolution to insert drag-along and tag-along rights into the company constitution of Mobile Asset Holdings Ltd ACN 614 791 043 (Mobile Asset).[1]  Ultimately, the Australian Takeovers Panel (Panel) decided that Mobile Asset could not hold a general meeting…

    Read more …

  • Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels

    Breach of duties as oppression – Our Jim & Felicja Superfund v Lindenfels

    The case of Our Jim & Felicja Superfund Pty Ltd as trustee for the Jim & Felicja Superannuation Fund v Lindenfels Pte Ltd [2026] FCA 307 (Superfund v Lindenfels) is a reminder that shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth) (Corporations Act) must be established on its own terms, particularly where a…

    Read more …

  • AML/CTF compliance at Dundas Lawyers

    AML/CTF compliance at Dundas Lawyers

    From 1 July 2026, Australian law firms providing “designated legal services” must comply with expanded AML/CTF obligations. Read about the changes at Dundas Lawyers.

    Read more …

  • Benefits of properly prepared contracts

    Benefits of properly prepared contracts

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created opportunities for a quantum leap forward. It’s a shame that the same can’t be said for AI-generated legal contracts (AI Contracts). Dundas Lawyers has noticed an increase in the number of AI Contracts that our clients have been presented with from the ‘other side’ purporting to have been prepared by…

    Read more …

  • What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    What ASIC’s new DIN laws mean for Australian directors

    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has announced that, from 1 July 2027, obligations surrounding director identification numbers (Director IDs) will change.  The amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) which are set to commence will require that companies provide Director IDs to ASIC.  This article will briefly explain the function of…

    Read more …

  • Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Prime Minister) announced by media release an expansion of the Federal Government’s (Government) existing artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework, including the establishment of a new Office of AI as well as plans to legislate national standards governing large-scale data centres, AI training and the use of Australian…

    Read more …

  • What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?

    What amounts to use of a trade mark outside of Australia?

    The case of Lamont v Malishus & Ors (No 4) [2019] FCCA 3206 (Lamont v Malishus) involved an action for infringement of a registered trade mark in Australia under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA).  This case raised several issues, including, whether using a word as part of a domain name constituted “use” as…

    Read more …

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend