By far the largest donor to Oxfam Australia, notes Dalrymple, is
the Australian government, which contributed slightly more than 26% of its total income — almost enough to cover the nearly 29% of its income it expended on raising funds.
It spent $3m last year on
long-service leave of its senior employees. We learn that remuneration for ‘key management personnel’ (number unspecified) rose by 16% between 2014 and 2015, from $821,000 to $952,000. (The head of Oxfam UK is paid somewhat over $200,000 a year.) No explanation for the rise is offered.
Explaining why remuneration is so relatively lavish at what is supposed to be a charity, Oxfam states:
The performance of the Group depends upon the quality and commitment of its senior management. To prosper, the Group must attract, motivate and retain highly skilled and committed executives.
A State-dependent racket that exists for its staff
Dalrymple comes across an advertisement for a job at Oxfam. The ‘charity’ indicates certain selection criteria:
- experience in defining use cases and business rules and processes with a strong engagement of customer groups
- experience in successfully mapping and documenting business and technical requirements, process diagrams, scenarios, and test plans based on conversations with the technical team and customers
The successful candidate will be paid $75,783 plus superannuation and
access to generous NFP tax concessions (specifically, a salary packaging scheme offering up to $18,450 of your salary tax-free).
Could this, asks Dalrymple, be
tax avoidance? Surely not. I may be behind the times, but Oxfam doesn’t sound much like charity to me, more like a government-subsidised scheme for those who work in it.