Compliance Guardrails — One-Pager

1. Company & charity status — what LWD can and cannot claim

2. DGR & tax-deductibility claims

DGR endorsement is a separate ATO process from ACNC registration. It typically follows ACNC registration by 3–9 months for a PBI. Until DGR is issued, no donation is tax-deductible.

2.1 Permitted pre-DGR

• “Donations are not currently tax-deductible.” Full stop. State it plainly on the donate page.
• “We have applied / will apply for DGR endorsement.” If true.
• “If our DGR endorsement is granted, we will issue tax-deductible receipts from that date — but not retrospectively.” This is factually correct: DGR is not backdated to gifts made before endorsement, per ITAA 1997 s.30-45 item 4.1.1.

2.2 Prohibited pre-DGR

• “Your donation is tax-deductible.” FALSE
• “Tax-deductible receipt provided.” FALSE
• “Give and get a tax break.” FALSE
• “Your donation qualifies for a tax deduction.” FALSE
• “100% tax-deductible.” FALSE
• “Applicable tax benefits available.” Ambiguous — still misleading in an Australian context.

2.3 The workplace-giving and PAF hard blocks

• Workplace giving programs (Good2Give, Benojo, employer payroll programs) require DGR endorsement to enrol. Room 7 (Matched Giving) content is drafted in Sprint 5 but not activated until DGR issues.
• PAFs can only distribute to DGR-1 recipients per ITAA 1997 s.30-25. Room 3 (Family Foundations/PAFs) content is drafted in Sprint 4 but not activated until DGR issues.
• Content is “drafted but not activated” means: the pitch decks, one-pagers, and MOUs exist as internal working documents; they are not sent to prospects until DGR issues.

3. Credit-services regulatory boundary (ASIC RG 96, RG 271)

Debt-hardship negotiation on behalf of a consumer can, in the wrong framing, cross into ASIC-regulated credit-related services under the NCCP Act 2009 and the debt-management-services regime (currently governed by RG 96 and the licensing regime for debt-management firms). LWD's structure and framing must keep it clear of that boundary.

3.1 The critical distinction

LWD does not provide credit-related services. LWD funds a qualified debt-negotiation professional (currently Laurence Hugo's Credit Mediation Pty Ltd, and post-transition, other appropriately licensed professionals) to negotiate on the beneficiary's behalf. The beneficiary is the client of the debt-negotiation professional; LWD is a third-party funder.

3.2 Language that keeps LWD on the safe side

3.3 The design internal-consistency principle

The Constitution (see constitution.html), the Direct-Relief Policy (see direct-relief-policy.html), and the ACNC application (see acnc-application.html) all consistently describe LWD as a funder of debt-negotiation on behalf of terminally ill beneficiaries. All marketing language must match. Any drift in marketing between “LWD is a funder” and “LWD does the negotiation” opens up ASIC regulatory questions the governance documents already answered.

3.4 References

• ASIC RG 96 — Debt collection guideline
• ASIC RG 203 — Providers of financial product advice
• ASIC RG 204 — Applying for and varying an Australian credit licence
• ASIC RG 205 — Credit licensing: general conduct obligations
• ASIC RG 271 — Internal dispute resolution
• NCCP Sch 1, ss.72–75, 88, 89A — Hardship provisions in consumer credit

4. ACNC advertising & External Conduct Standards

4.1 [ACNC Registration Pending] Charity Tick

• Cannot be used pre-ACNC registration.
• Once registered, LWD may use the Tick in marketing per ACNC brand guidelines.
• The Tick certifies LWD's registration status — not the quality of its programs. Never imply otherwise.

4.2 Governance Standards & External Conduct Standards

• All fundraising communications must be truthful and not misleading — ACNC Governance Standard 4.
• If LWD ever operates outside Australia (unlikely in Y1–3), the External Conduct Standards apply. Not currently in scope.
• Every fundraising claim must be capable of being backed by evidence — keep the evidence file.

4.3 State fundraising licensing

Fundraising is regulated at the State/Territory level, not federally. LWD will need to hold or be exempt from a fundraising licence in each State where donations are solicited. This is a Sprint 9 (launch) prerequisite — not a Sprint 0 compliance concern — but content shipped pre-licence must not solicit in unlicensed States.

5. Privacy Act 1988 & APPs 1–13

LWD is an APP entity once it exceeds annual turnover thresholds or holds health information (which it will, from day one — terminal illness is health information under Privacy Act s.6FA). Therefore LWD is bound by the Australian Privacy Principles from day one.

5.1 The five most-relevant APPs for marketing content

• APP 1 — Open and transparent management. LWD publishes a Privacy Policy (see privacy-policy.html). Every landing page links to it.
• APP 3 — Collection of solicited personal information. Every form (donation form, contact form, application form) must only collect what is reasonably necessary and state its purpose.
• APP 5 — Notification of collection. Forms include a plain-language collection notice.
• APP 6 — Use or disclosure. Marketing communications sent only where consent given or reasonably expected (donors, subscribers).
• APP 11 — Security of personal information. Beneficiary data (health status) is subject to elevated protection.

5.2 Marketing-specific privacy risk points

• Retargeting and pixel-based tracking that follows donors around the internet requires clear consent under the Spam Act 2003 and the Privacy Act. LWD's default is opt-in for retargeting, not the industry-standard opt-out.
• Beneficiary applications collect sensitive information (health status, financial status). The intake form (see beneficiary-intake-pack.html) satisfies collection-notification requirements; marketing forms do not collect this.
• Email lists require Spam Act 2003 compliance — identifiable sender, functional unsubscribe, express-or-inferred consent.
• Overseas storage of donor personal information (e.g. Mailchimp US servers) requires APP 8 disclosure and reasonable steps to protect. Prefer Australian-hosted CRM where practical.

6. Financial & performance claims

6.1 Impact claims

• Numbers must be capable of being backed by evidence. If we say “LWD has helped 47 families,” there is a documented ledger of 47 families that meets the eligibility criteria.
• Composite / illustrative numbers must be labelled. A projection is not an achievement.
• “Every dollar goes to…” claims are prohibited unless the underlying accounting fully supports it. In practice, no dollar goes 100% to programs — there are administration, compliance, and governance costs. Say instead: “Y% of every dollar reaches beneficiaries; Z% funds the governance and compliance that keeps LWD trustworthy.” This is more truthful and easier to defend.
• Cost-per-outcome claims (e.g. “$X eliminates a beneficiary's debt”) require the accounting to support the calculation — Carla verifies before use.

6.2 CEO/staff salary disclosure

Under ACNC governance and the Board-Approved Remuneration Statement (Sprint 0.13), LWD publishes salary bands for the CEO and senior staff. This is proactive disclosure to counteract the “charity CEO paid too much” donor concern.

• The public salary statement uses bands, not exact figures (e.g. “CEO: $150–200k, board-benchmarked, publicly disclosed”).
• Never publish exact salaries in marketing content.
• Exact remuneration is disclosed in the annual financial report per ACNC Act 2012 reporting standards for medium/large charities once the size threshold is crossed.

7. Testimonials, endorsements & social proof

7.1 Rules

• Every testimonial is real, attributable, and consented. No fabricated quotations.
• Composite/illustrative quotations are labelled as composite per Sprint 0.4 §6.
• Beneficiary testimonials follow the full consent pipeline in Sprint 0.4 §3.
• Donor testimonials require signed consent too — a separate one-line donor consent form.
• Professional endorsements (e.g. “endorsed by Deen Sanders”) require the endorser's written approval of the specific words attributed.
• Award citations (once earned): quote the award body verbatim; do not embellish.

7.2 Board and advisor endorsements

Laurence, Lisa, Deen, and Carla appear in LWD materials in their governance roles. Their role descriptions are factual and permitted. Their personal endorsements of LWD's work require sign-off on the exact quotation each time.

• Correct role naming (repeat from prior Wave A cleanup):
  • Laurence Hugo — Founding Director, Co-founder, CEO
  • Lisa Hugo — Co-founder & Head of Philanthropy (donor-facing); Beneficiary Liaison Officer (operational)
  • Prof Deen Sanders OAM — Board-Appointed Legal Advisor (external, non-voting, not a Director)
  • Carla Oliver CPA CIMA — Board-Appointed CFO Advisor (external, non-voting, not a Director)
• Never describe Deen or Carla as “Directors” or “Board Members”. They are Advisors.
• Never omit Deen's post-nominals (OAM) or professional titles where used in institutional contexts — they matter for standing.

8. Australian Consumer Law backstop (misleading & deceptive)

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (ACL) s.18 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. Charitable fundraising has been held to be conduct in trade or commerce for ACL purposes (e.g. see ACCC guidance on charitable fundraising).

8.1 The three-fold ACL test for content

1. Is the impression conveyed by the content, taken as a whole, accurate? Not just each sentence in isolation — the overall impression is what matters. A page can be technically accurate sentence-by-sentence and still leave an overall impression that is misleading.
2. Would a reasonable member of the target audience be misled? For donor content the “reasonable audience” is a typical donor. For beneficiary content, someone in a vulnerable circumstance — a lower threshold, meaning we must be more careful.
3. Are all material qualifications visible? Fine-print carve-outs that contradict the headline are not compliant. Qualifications must be as prominent as the primary claim.

8.2 Common failure patterns to avoid

• Headline claim + small-print disclaimer (fails test 3).
• “Up to” claims without specifying typical outcomes (fails test 1).
• Case studies presented as typical when they're exceptional (fails tests 1 & 2).
• Selective statistics (fails test 1).
• Emotional imagery paired with claims that don't hold on their own (fails test 1).

9. Related-party disclosure (Laurence & Credit Mediation)

Laurence Hugo is Founding Director and CEO of LWD, and also currently the sole director of Credit Mediation Pty Ltd — the ACL-licensed business that has historically provided the debt-negotiation service. The plan is to wind down Credit Mediation (Sprint 0.12) and for LWD to fund similar negotiation services either through Laurence's employment or through independent qualified professionals under contract.

9.1 The current disclosure position (pre-wind-down)

While Credit Mediation Pty Ltd remains active alongside LWD's formation:

• All content clearly identifies Credit Mediation Pty Ltd as a separate entity where relevant.
• The Register of Interests (see register-of-interests.html) discloses Laurence's directorship and financial interest in Credit Mediation.
• Any transaction between LWD and Credit Mediation follows the Conflicts Policy (see conflicts-policy.html) — Chapter 2E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act ss.208–229) related-party approvals may apply once LWD is incorporated.
• Marketing content does not conflate Credit Mediation with LWD. Credit Mediation's historical case results are not attributed to LWD as though they were LWD's own achievements.

9.2 The transition position (during wind-down)

• Marketing may reference Laurence's professional experience (30 years' debt negotiation) as a fact about the CEO.
• Marketing may reference outcomes achieved by Laurence's practice in illustrative/composite form (Sprint 0.4 §6 rules apply).
• Marketing must not present Credit Mediation's revenue-generating client outcomes as though they were charitable outcomes of LWD.
• The wind-down plan is documented at credit-mediation-wind-down-plan.html (Sprint 0.12).

9.3 The post-wind-down position

• Once Credit Mediation Pty Ltd's ACL is surrendered (ASIC Form FS02) and any residual client obligations discharged, Laurence's debt-negotiation activity is fully performed as CEO of LWD (employment relationship — Sprint 0.7).
• Marketing may then attribute outcomes directly to LWD.
• The related-party disclosure remains (Laurence still had a prior interest in Credit Mediation and its wind-down financials are disclosed in LWD's transition year financials).

10. Pre-publish compliance checklist

Every asset the Compliance desk reviews (Charter §5.1) is walked against this checklist. Any “NO” on a hard-line item blocks publication. “NO” on a soft-line item requires redraft or escalation.

11. Escalation to Deen — when

The Compliance desk (Lisa BD Director as default owner, Laurence as CEO sign-off) resolves most compliance calls without escalation. Deen's Legal Advisor time is precious — used for the calls that genuinely need external legal judgement.

11.1 Automatic escalation triggers

• Any Sprint 0.4 §4 stop-sign is triggered and someone wants to publish anyway.
• Any Chapter 2E related-party transaction (LWD paying money to a Director or their close relative, or to an entity a Director controls).
• Any content that would name or depict Deen personally beyond the standard role/bio description.
• Any regulator correspondence (ACNC, ATO, ASIC, State fair-trading authority) that requires a response.
• Any complaint or takedown request from a beneficiary, family, or third party under threat of legal action.
• Any content that involves privacy, data-breach, or beneficiary-consent-integrity issues.
• Any content that could be characterised as credit-related advice under RG 96/RG 271.

11.2 Discretionary escalation

• New content types not covered by this document.
• Content that could be politically sensitive (e.g. commentary on a Federal budget or regulatory reform).
• Contracts with third parties LWD hasn't dealt with before (media partners, agencies, tech vendors).
• Anything the Compliance desk isn't sure about.

11.3 Escalation cadence

Under Q-C = C1 (Deen single-bundle review), non-urgent escalations wait for the next Deen bundle. Urgent items (regulator correspondence, legal-threat takedowns) go to Deen directly by phone. His contact: +61 412 559 588 · deen@thinkknowdo.au.

Governance & version control

Adoption

1. v0.1 — Draft (this version). Circulated to Deen (Legal), Carla (CFO), Laurence, Lisa.
2. v0.2 — Post Carla's CFO review (§6 & §9 in particular).
3. v0.3 — Post Deen's Sprint 0 bundle review. Legal-cite refinements incorporated.
4. v1.0 — Board resolution to adopt at first Board meeting post-ACN issue.

Related documents

• Sprint 0.1 — Brand & Editorial Charter
• Sprint 0.4 — Beneficiary Depiction Guardrails
• Sprint 0.9 — Founder Remuneration Benchmarking Memo (pending)
• Sprint 0.12 — Credit Mediation Wind-Down Plan (pending)
• Sprint 0.13 — Board-Approved Remuneration Statement (pending)
• Constitution, Direct-Relief Policy, ACNC Application, Conflicts Policy, Register of Interests, Privacy Policy, Compliance Calendar, Compliance Plan

Version history

v0.1 (this version) — 2026-05-17. Initial draft under delegated authority. Awaits Deen (Legal Advisor) and Carla (CFO Advisor) review.