Complaint Review: PUBLIC FUNDRAISING REGULATORY ASSOCIATION - melbourne victoria

Mr Paul Tavatgis, started Public Fundraising Regulatory Association in 2014. It is my opinion that the intentions were good. His earlier article was entitled, "protect face-to-face", and I can only hope that that is still the case. In my view, the PFRA Australia is a one man band under the guise of an association; amd has evolved over time amd is now money-minded, money focused and  the objective is now focuesd on manipulating small suppliers, under false pretences of "penalty fees"; suspending them, without due and fair process and then later "reinstating them" after payment of fees:

http://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2018/03/tougher-sanctions-send-warning-signal-fundraisers

The artcile, from the new CEO of the PFRA, Mr Peter Hills-Jones, indicating that penalty fees and suspensions against non-compliant members ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 send strong signals to fundraisers appear a serious miscariage of justice and is not charitable at all. The aim is to collapse small suppliers and damage their reputation, and it the "deterrent" had worked in the UK, then the revenues raised by PFRA in the UK that was headed by Mr Jones himself should not have sunk low in financial difficulties and merged concurrent to Mr Jones relocation to head PFRA Australia. Do your own due diligence regarding isssues confronting the PFRA in the UK, check out where the funds from, in my viewm inappropriate levies were being used and who was getting paid the highest salary at PFRA in the UK when it was impossing "punitive damages" to good members,

If the PFRA  Australia was committed to compliance, it should have suspended ASAP and notified Wesley Mission, Plan Australia and Amnesty International before the Fair Work Commission made a determinastion regarding the scandal; on the other hand, if it was a small supplier, "due diligence" reports or  emails would have been issued by Ms Meyer to charities; a serious malpractice;

Further, the PFRA has not impossed any fines or sanctions on current suppliers and charities listed on its website in connection with the ongoing Fair Work Ombudsman ibvestigation; in spite the fact, this is a serious reputational damage to the charitable sector, more serious than small suppliers, such as Live Force and othersIt is my opinion that the recently introduced fees, in addition to other fees and hidden costs the PFRA Australia is impossing will force smaller suppliers to shut down and impunity will continue to occur in the charity sector. Face-to--face managers cannot regulate or investigate themselves. In summary, what is needed is a strong independent regulator, headed possibly by a Judge or JP or Members of parliament or an equivalent to the Scottish Panel or the  Charity Regulator in the UK,

It is my view, that the face-to-face managers that sit on the PFRA Australia and the supplier companies listed on the website are simply giving legitimacy and credibility to themselves and all reports they issue to their respective charities should be thoroughly scrutinized by all stake-holders.If you are a fundraiser, or a member of the public having issues with the PFRA in Australia, lodge your complaint directly with the Office of Fair trading in your state and never use PFRA website online complaint forms.If you are a charity or supplier seeking to join the PFRA, then consider the risk and do your own due diligence,

Max