CAFWAA

There is nothing new about governments trying to control the behaviour of their citizens.

However, it seems Treasurer Costello has devised a new approach to manipulating the behaviour of charities through recent draft legislation on the tax status of charitable bodies. He wants to exclude organisations that engage in advocacy from the definition of charities for the purposes of Taxation Legislation. This would effectively eliminate what is considered to be legitimate activity. It is an insidious form of control. It also risks undermining the many positive aspects of reform contained within the new Bill.

Australian charities have established an enviable record in advancing the well being of the community. They have achieved this through a mixture of direct provision of financial, emotional and material assistance to those in need, together with targeted and well informed advocacy. This advocacy has often included a focus on the need to change government policy for the benefit of our citizens. Such activity is as central to the purpose of charities as the provision of direct service, and should not, indeed must not be separated. For many charities, removal of this capacity would effectively undermine their very reason for existence.

Would it be appropriate, for example, for child welfare charities not to voice their concerns about treatment of children in detention, or the inadequacy of statutory welfare programs to keep children safe? The proposed legislation runs the risk of forcing charities to make the impossible choice between preserving their tax exemption status and exercising their duty of care and compassion by advocating for change. The ultimate losers will be our most vulnerable citizens.

Australia prides itself on its pluralism and robust democracy. Central to this is a culture of open public debate. The result is good public policy. A law that penalizes organisations for participating in such debate can only harm our clarity of decision-making. It is in itself bad policy that will in turn contribute to further bad policy as organisations with legitimate and well-founded perspectives are removed from public debate.

Many charities have already experienced the heavy hand of government control. Competitive tendering for community services, resulting in prescriptive contracts has blunted the unique contributions non-government providers could make. Many such contracts have contained clauses restricting organisations from speaking publicly on issues of concern without first receiving permission from the respective Minister. This is the thin end of the wedge of an endeavour to gain control over the activity of charities. In turn, it has limited informed public debate on issues of critical importance. The Treasurer’s introduction of the Charities Bill seems designed to drive the wedge further, unless the punitive reference to excluding groups involved in advocacy is removed.

This aspect of the Bill also seems likely to add the complexities of tax law and interpretation. How will judgments be formed as to whether lobbying and advocacy by a particular charity is ancillary to its prime business? What additional administrative expenses will be incurred by government and charities as a result? Perhaps it will only be those organisations that are critical of government policy that will ultimately have their charitable status threatened.

The Inquiry into the Definition of Charities report was right to recommend that charities be permitted to advocate on behalf of those they represent. It is imperative that the Treasurer reconsider his position on this matter and amend the Charities Bill by removing reference to exclusions based on the level of advocacy undertaken by organisations. Failure to do so will be to attack the autonomy and ultimately the effectiveness of charities across Australia