Charitable Lobbies

The Treasurer has assured charities that the Charities Bill 2003 Exposure Draft, does not attempt to restrict criticism of public policy by recognised charities.  There is no change from existing practice.  But should there be?

Charities used to help the poor, now they want to overcome inequality.  Russell Rollason of Anglicare said on Thursday, "Is the role of charities and churches simply to apply band aids to the victims of our competitive society or should charities actively contribute to a fairer more just Australia?"  Why not just run for Parliament, Russell?

Charities, and other public beneficial organisations, argue that times have moved on.  Charity is not all soup kitchens, it is advocacy work.  To the layman, that means lobbying.  It means lobbying government to change the law and/ or provide programs for the purposes that the organisation argues are beneficial.  Should other lobbies be similarly tax-advantaged -- business, for example?  I am not proposing it, but if one organisation is granted a tax-advantage for lobbying, why not another?

Should a government not inquire from time to time if a group has changed the way it does business?  At present, the ATO does not have the resources to audit tax-advantaged organisations.  At present, and until 2004 when the law changes, it is not even possible to ask the ATO if an organisation is a charity!  This is not to say that funds are improperly used or that organisations are not audited under State legislation, but the department that gives them Commonwealth tax status does not test it.

Then there is the question of the lobbying arm of charities.  For example, the Australian Council of Social Services does not undertake charity work, it is a policy and political lobbyist.  Should such organisations have tax-free status?  Indeed, ACOSS receives direct government funding for these purposes.  This is hardly a government that is about to quieten the welfare or other lobbies.  The Commonwealth funds just about every peak lobby group in the charity, environment, migrant, arts, indigenous, human rights -- ad infinitum -- sectors.

What if the government were to fund the ATO to run an audit on a range of organisations and found that they were spending more time on lobbying than charity?  It could remove their status.  In doing so, it would have to argue a case of what is too much lobbying.  It may even follow the US path of specifying how much lobbying may be undertaken by charities.  Governments have the right to test the credentials of charities, and they do not have to accept the shift from amelioration work to policy-work.  However, it is probably unwise to be too specific about how much policy-work is acceptable.  After all, governments want policy work from NGOs.

A way through this, the need for public scrutiny and the insistence that charitable work involves lobbying, is to let the donors decide.

If charities were required to publish how much money they spent in raising their funds, and how much they spent on policy work, then donors could decide whether or not to give.  The donor market would be better informed, not just of "the cause" -- the pictures of felled trees, and hungry children -- but the efficiency with which the funds are gathered and applied to the purpose, and how much is spent on the conferences, education, propaganda and lobbying.

In 2004 it would be good to be able to check the ATO website for an annual form lodged by these organisations that told the story not only of charity status, but how efficient they were, and whether they preferred to be policy people, or help out in the old way.

ADVERTISEMENT