Charity Lawyers
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Who we are
    • Our team
  • Expertise
    • At a glance
    • In depth
      • Tax & duties
      • Governance
      • Charitable Trusts
      • Structures: establishment & restructuring
      • Mergers, collaborations & strategic alliances
      • Gifts, charitable fundraising & promotions
      • Disputes & regulatory reviews
      • Workplace & People issues
      • Brand, information & reputation protection
      • Property
  • Insights
    • At a glance
    • View articles
      • Updated transparency requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act
      • Pastoral care services DGR category
      • Resignation of director notification
      • Permanent changes to the Corporations Act regarding meetings and documents to come into force
      • Global Alliance of Impact Lawyers Launch Week
      • Prolegis Lawyers ranked Band 1 by Chambers
      • Recent changes to the Corporations Act for electronic meetings, notices, minute books and e-signing due to the Covid-19 pandemic
      • Recent decisions in Australian charity law – update
      • New requirements for DGRs to be registered as charities with the ACNC
      • High Court rules on who is a Casual employee
      • Streamlining of regulation of charities undertaking fundraising in NSW
      • Changes to Charities’ Financial Reporting Obligations
      • Changes to Casual Employment
      • Women’s Life Centre – A recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding Public Benevolent Institutions (PBIs)
      • Final Report of the 2020 Review of Disability Standards for Education 2005
      • Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety - final report released
      • UPDATE 25 February 2021: Introducing ACNC Governance Standard 6 and changes to Basic Religious Charity eligibility
      • Treasury Consultation: Proposed changes to ACNC Governance Standard 3
      • Breaking: Charities to lose charitable status if they fail to join the National Redress Scheme
      • New Bill – Requiring DGRs to Register as Charities
      • Federal Budget 2020-21
      • NZ High Court finds Greenpeace NZ should be registered as a charity
      • A member of a charity has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the charity?
      • Key Changes- incorporated associations in Queensland
      • COVID-19 Work practice changes to keep our commitments to our clients and team
      • Bill for new DGR category for Community Sheds now law
      • UPDATE 2 June 2020: SME Commercial Leasing Principles During COVID-19 - what does it mean for charities and not-for-profits?
      • UPDATE 19 May 2020: COVID-19 – Information for Charities and Not-for-Profits
      • UPDATE 6 May 2020: COVID-19 - Ancillary Funds, Disaster Relief Funds and AGM for companies
      • Draft bill for new DGR Category: Men’s and Women’s Sheds
      • An Update: COVID-19 Australian government’s economic response – What’s for charities and not-for-profits?
      • COVID-19 Australian government’s economic response – What’s for charities and not-for-profits?
      • ACNC to review registered charities beginning with Public Benevolent Institutions in July 2020
      • Government response to the recommendations of the ACNC Legislation Review
      • Fundraising– considerations for charities, fundraisers and donors
      • Minute-taking post Banking Royal Commission
      • Taxation Ruling: 'in Australia' conditions
      • Key changes to the Victorian Fundraising Act
      • Religious Discrimination Bill- Update
      • New protections for whistleblowers – what does it mean for charities and not-for-profits? UPDATE
      • Significant Changes in Payment and Record Keeping Requirements for Clerical and Administrative Staff
      • New Tax Office Ruling - Fringe Benefits Provided to Religious Practitioners
      • ACNC External Conduct Standards - Update
      • Fair Work Australia decision will introduce changes in entitlements and record keeping requirements of clerical and administrative employees
      • Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability
      • National Redress Scheme Update
      • DGR reform proposals
      • Release of the ACNC Review Report
      • Not So Casual
      • ACNC External Conduct Standards - Public Consultation
      • Law on Advocacy by Charities
      • New ATO Draft Ruling on the fringe benefits tax: benefits provided to religious practitioners
      • Employment update - New numbers for key employment issues for a new tax year
      • Electoral disclosure & funding reform: why charities and NFPs should be concerned
      • Review of ACNC Framework
      • Reforming Administration of Tax Deductible Gift Recipients - a victory for common sense?
      • Righting Wrongs: Victoria takes lead on organisational child abuse legislation
      • Tax Deductible Gift Recipient Reform Opportunities
      • When may a charity board member be paid for their services?
      • #fixfundraising
      • Privacy Law Update: Mandatory Data Breach Notifications to come into force by the end of 2017
      • Good Things Come To Those Who Wait? ACNC releases Commissioner’s Interpretation Statement on Public Benevolent Institutions
      • Privacy Obligations - Lessons and reminders from the Red Cross Data Breach
      • Charities and the Australian Consumer Law - reducing duplication and confusion
  • Careers
  • Contact

Get In Touch


Sydney

Level 4, 107 Mount Street
North Sydney NSW 2060
Australia

   +61 2 9466 5222

  info@prolegis.com.au

Melbourne


5/197 Springvale Road
Nunawading VIC 3131
Australia

   +61 3 8672 2920

  info@prolegis.com.au

Insights

Law on Advocacy by Charities

   August 2018   |  Opinion   |  Mark Fowler

Prolegis partner Mark Fowler’s recent opinion piece in 'The Australian' Legal Affairs section considers the law on advocacy by charities. In it Mark argues that:

- Tax exemption sends the message to charities that your contribution to our common weal is sought, so much so we are willing to subsidise it.

- Conversely by tying exemption to a strict "no political comment condition" the State risks the allegation that, not only does it not want the comment of charities as to what comprises the common good, it will wield the threat of financial impost against any such offering.

- The role of charities in pursuing their vision of the common good is fundamental to the great contest of ideas that characterises a flourishing democracy - this requires competing visions, and at times, challenges to the State, especially in the name of charitable good.

- Setting the boundary at an organisational purpose of supporting or opposing a political party more adequately walks the line between inviting charities’ contribution on policy and protecting their legitimacy as independent, non-partisan players in a democratic polity.

There has been a lot of recent interest in the Australian Charity and Not-for-profits Commission’s ability to revoke a charity’s tax exempt status for its political advocacy. A law that can be wielded first against the environmental movement and then against Catholic Education Melbourne has almost unlimited entertainment potential. A law that can unite Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten in common outrage holds decidedly unique prospect for reform. However, for reasons beyond its pure entertainment value, I would like to argue the case against reform. In my view the debate could benefit from a small dose of reason, perspective and clarity.

First, reason – the reason why the law is in place is to stop the politicisation, and thus the delegitimisation, of charities. To allow groups with mere political motive to take charitable form would undermine confidence in the independence of the sector as a whole – our deconstructionist proclivities may have borne some fruit after all.

Second, perspective – if one accepts this correlation between charity and pure motive, then a boundary line between charity and partisan politics must be maintained. However, the threat of the loss of tax exemption can have a distinctly sobering effect on free speech. As charities exist to promote public benefit, precisely where the line is drawn can then have significant impacts on civil society freedom. Perhaps this is why the issue gives rise to such strong sentiments across all sides of the political spectrum.

Adopting an international perspective, a review of the law of Anglophone democracies reveals just how contentious this boundary line can be. During the height of World War One Lord Parker handed down the seminal English dictum that a charitable ‘trust for the attainment of political objects has always been held invalid … because the Court has no means of judging whether a proposed change in the law will or will not be for the public benefit’. More recently the English Charity Commission has declared a somewhat conciliatory position, recognising that, as ‘the independent nature of the charitable sector is of fundamental importance to society’, although ‘a charity cannot have a political purpose … political activity can be carried out by a charity to support the delivery of its charitable purposes’. Much then turns on the distinction between ‘purpose’ and ‘activity’.

Although imbibing the English common law, our revolutionary dissenting friends across the Atlantic have taken a vastly differing position, choosing to disqualify mere activity. In the US charities must ‘not participate in, or intervene in … any political campaign on behalf of…any candidate’. Although the bureaucracy has declared it will look to the percentage of a charity’s turnover, in the lead judgement Branch Ministries v Rossotti a charity lost its tax exemption for placing two newspaper advertisements critiquing Bill Clinton’s policy.

Notwithstanding the bureaucracy’s position, US law thus imposes a strict activity test, which renders even individual acts of critique liable to disqualification. Not having the numbers in the Congress to amend the law, earlier this year Trump signed an executive order prohibiting Treasury from taking ‘adverse action’ against charities. How curious that the nation born of the revolution against non-representative state autocracy, what Tocqueville called the ‘most democratic country on earth’, should limit its civil society through such a blunt mechanism.

The contagion of contention has also spread to Canada, where as recently as last month the Supreme Court ruled that a tax agency imposed advocacy cap of ten per cent of resources unconstitutionally burdened free speech. In doing so, the Court upheld the prohibition on partisan activities. Thus perspective can be gained through an international lens.

In Australia the High Court has provided the final value - clarity. Perhaps exercising its own revolutionary spirit, in the 2010 Aid/Watch decision the Court wielded the constitutionally protected ‘freedom of political communication’ to overturn Lord Parker’s dictum. In Australia charities can have a purpose of critiquing government policy, provided such is done in furtherance of their public benefitting charitable purpose. There is a boundary line now enshrined in the Charities Act: a charity cannot have a ‘purpose of promoting or opposing a political party or candidate’.

Although the boundary must always be determined with regard to the whole circumstances of a charity’s operation, one-off or incidental activities (like those in Branch Ministries) are unlikely to amount to a purpose. Furthermore, the principles directing this boundary line are not novel – they are found in a longstanding and developed tradition in the common law of charities that guides the identification of independent non-charitable purposes.  

Setting the boundary at an organisational purpose of supporting or opposing a political party more adequately walks the line between inviting charities’ contribution on policy and protecting their legitimacy as independent, non-partisan players in a democratic polity.

Tax exemption sends the message to charities that your contribution to our common weal is sought, so much so that we are willing to subsidise it. Conversely by tying exemption to a strict ‘no political comment condition’ the State risks the allegation that not only does it not want the comment of charities as to what comprises the common good, it will wield the threat of financial impost against any such offering. US Chief Justice Marshall’s claim in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) that ‘the power to tax is the power to destroy’ comes to mind, to the extent he might be channelling that quintessential American (and distinctly Bostonian) loathing of tea.

The role of charities in pursuing their vision of the common good is fundamental to the great contest of ideas that characterises a flourishing democracy - this requires competing visions, and at times, challenges to the State, especially in the name of charitable good. In my view, while there may be a case for reform elsewhere, in many respects we lead the world on the question of advocacy by charities.

Mark Fowler is a partner at Prolegis Lawyers and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Notre Dame Law School in Sydney.





Quick Links

⇢    Our Team
⇢    About Us
⇢    Expertise
⇢    Insights
⇢    ACNC

Latest News

  • March 2022
    Updated transparency requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act
  • March 2022
    Pastoral care services DGR category
  • March 2022
    Resignation of director notification
  • March 2022
    Permanent changes to the Corporations Act regarding meetings and documents to come into force
  • February 2022
    Global Alliance of Impact Lawyers Launch Week

Latest News & Insights

  • Updated transparency requirements under the Commonwealth Electoral Act March 2022
  • Pastoral care services DGR category March 2022
  • Resignation of director notification March 2022

Useful Links

  • Our Team
  • About Us
  • Expertise
  • Insights
  • ACNC

Sydney Office

Level 4, 107 Mount Street
North Sydney  NSW   2060
Australia

+61 2 9466 5222

info@prolegis.com.au

Melbourne Office


5/197 Springvale Road
Nunawading  VIC  3131
Australia

+61 3 8672 2920

info@prolegis.com.au

Copyright © Prolegis Lawyers. All Rights Reserved.

  • Privacy Policy