Charities vow to keep up the fight against electoral advocacy clamp

The controversial legislation, which the government has claimed is designed to restrict billionaire donors and introduce reasonable limits on fundraising and spending, was given the green light last week following a last-minute deal between Labour and the Coalition.

Despite months of intense lobbying behind the scenes – and an open letter signed by 30 charities to Special Minister of State Don Farrell – the new laws were passed containing what the Stronger Charities Alliance claimed were critical drafting errors which adversely affect charities' right to advocate.

Much of the attention on the implications of the reforms has centred on their alleged benefits to the major political parties at the expense of the "Teal" independents.

The sector has been particularly frustrated, however, that even though the adverse effect on charitable advocacy contained in the reforms was unintended, the government has ignored charities' concerns and failed to resolve the issue.

Charities have been particularly vocal about changes that prevent the use of untied or general donations from being used for electoral advocacy.

Under the new legislation – which won’t come into force until after the upcoming federal election – charities would only be able to incur electoral expenditure using donations received specifically for that purpose.

The changes mean charities will in effect need permission from each individual donor to use their donations for electoral advocacy – even when the advocacy is in line with their charitable purpose that donors have given money for.

Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie was particularly vehement in her assessment of the new legislation, describing it as a blatant attack on democracy and climate action.

“The new laws – pushed through Parliament just before midnight – rig the system in favour of fossil fuel lobbyists and major parties whilst silencing climate advocacy,” she said in an update to members.

McKenzie said charities such as the Climate Council would be prevented from using general donations to power communications about “electoral matters.”

“That means most of your donations can’t be used to publicly advocate for climate action during elections, gagging charities from speaking out on climate at the exact moment Australians are deciding our future.”

McKenzie claimed that under the new legislation, fossil fuel lobbyists such as the Minerals Council would receive special treatment.

“They can receive much larger individual donations (up to $250,000 per member) compared to a $50,000 cap for Australians who want to fund charities fighting for climate action,” she said.

McKenzie issued a call to arms for Climate Council supporters to fight back against the changes.

“We can’t stop this law right now, but we can fight to get it changed by the next Parliament – stopping it from ever taking effect.”

Other sector leaders also joined in condemning the legislation’s passing.

Australian Democracy Network executive director Saffron Zomer described the restrictions on charities participating in public debate as a blow to democracy.

“This will mean Australian charities are less able to keep the public educated and informed on key issues; less able to represent the causes and communities we serve; less able to hold the government of the day to account,” she said.

Zomer said this would result in worse policy outcomes, less robust debate, less transparency, and less accountability for the nation’s leaders.

“There was a simple way to avoid this outcome – the Government has chosen not to do so,” she said.

“This government has always said it values the role of charities in public life and welcomes our advocacy – but it didn’t prioritise those values today. It is a deeply disappointing outcome for our sector, for our communities, and for our democracy.”

Australian Council of Social Service CEO Cassandra Goldie said her organisation was deeply disappointed that the major parties had passed the electoral reform bill while ignoring stakeholders' clear request for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny.

“Charities are a critical part of Australia's civil society. We support improved transparency and fairness in election funding,” she said.

“While there have been some modest improvements to donation disclosures, this Bill has been rushed through by both major parties, and as a result there will be negative consequences hindering our democracy.”

Baptist Care Australia CEO Dr Robyn Sampson said the public deserved better.

“As a charity, we have to remain independent of political parties and candidates. The role of charities like Baptist Care Australia during elections is to help people make informed choices on key issues like housing, cost of living and aged care.

“By restricting our ability to speak up, the government has made it harder for people to understand these issues.”

Human Rights Law Centre CEO Caitlin Reiger said the strength of Australia’s democracy depended on everyone’s voices being heard.

“This deal by Labor and Liberal will silence every person’s right to speak on issues, be it through charities or local community groups,” she said.

“While these changes will stop independent, non-partisan charities from spending untied funds during elections, they do nothing to stop big mining, tobacco and gambling peak bodies exploiting the loopholes of corporate membership fees to spend on election advertising.”

It is not only the charity sector that has rung alarm bells about the unintended consequences of the electoral reform legislation on charitable advocacy.

In an update to its members published on Facebook, the Australian Services Union expressed solidarity with the sector.

“Charities are vital voices for our communities, and we’re proud to stand with our members in the sector who do incredible work every day.”

After raising its concerns about the Electoral Reform Bill with Canberra, the union shared a response from Special Minister of State Don Farrell in which he committed to ensuring charities can continue their essential advocacy.

Farrell said the government’s bill was intended to introduce “once in a generation, progressive reform” to the electoral system by restricting billionaire donors and introducing reasonable limits on fundraising and spending.

“It is not our intention, nor the intention of the reforms, to prevent charities from engaging in the genuine advocacy that has benefited Australians for generations,” said Farrell.

“To this end, we will continue to engage with you and your [ASU] members in good faith regarding the implementation of these reforms, including working through any implementation issues for charities, and working to resolve any unintended consequences.”

More information

Sector launches last-ditch effort to protect advocacy rights

Charities' advocacy under threat

Win for charities in electoral donation law reform