You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
It is clear that ACMA are very confused as to the difference between a "not-for-profit" entity and making a surplus.
In every Australian state it is clear that there is a difference between making a profit i.e. an amount of surplus funds distributed to individuals who hold an pecuniary interest in an entity and "making a surplus" which is used for the ongoing growth and well being of an organisation, i.e. held over by the organisation.
To set up a not-for-profit entity, you need to have a not-for-proft clause in your constitution. If ACMA licences stations knowing there is a not-for-profit clause then as long as stations operate within the bounds of the clause it is actually none of their business how a board conducts its affairs.
The guidelines also suggest that paying large salaries (what's large by the way??) is a means of distributing surpluses. Interesting thought, I wonder what the industrial relations commission would think about this assertion?
There seems to be an underlying assumption that holding a community licence means that you need to NOT be successful in any way, you need to pay low wages, don't employ any sales staff and struggle in every way possible.
I don't think this issue is going to go away quietly.