This seems strange because when the Federal Government first canvassed the idea of cracking down on charities, they commissioned one of the think tanks to look into it. The think tank said it wasn't a good idea, mainly because donations to think tanks are tax deductable and all they do is political. Maybe charities should form small separate groups and call them think tanks and keep them at arms length from the charitable side and still allow them a say.
Political advocacy organisations have never been considered charitable as far as the law is concerned. That doesn't mean that a charitable organisation cannot engage in political advocacy, but the advocacy cannot be the core or dominant activity. Obviously there is a range, but Greenpeace, for example, should never have been treated as a charity by the ATO in the first place, since lobbying is its core activity.
Now you might argue that the law should include political advocacy organisations as charities, or that they should have the same tax benefits as charities, but that is different to suggesting the ATO is doing something wrong here. They have been very lenient about this for a long time now, and it is well within the bounds of reasonable conduct for them to start cracking down on this.
That doesn't mean that what the ATO is doing is a good thing - just that this is an area of policy where people can reasonably hold a different point of view as to what is appropriate.
Graeme Finn
This seems strange because when the Federal Government first canvassed the idea of cracking down on charities, they commissioned one of the think tanks to look into it. The think tank said it wasn't a good idea, mainly because donations to think tanks are tax deductable and all they do is political. Maybe charities should form small separate groups and call them think tanks and keep them at arms length from the charitable side and still allow them a say.
May I invite you
This is not really anything new
Political advocacy organisations have never been considered charitable as far as the law is concerned. That doesn't mean that a charitable organisation cannot engage in political advocacy, but the advocacy cannot be the core or dominant activity. Obviously there is a range, but Greenpeace, for example, should never have been treated as a charity by the ATO in the first place, since lobbying is its core activity.
Now you might argue that the law should include political advocacy organisations as charities, or that they should have the same tax benefits as charities, but that is different to suggesting the ATO is doing something wrong here. They have been very lenient about this for a long time now, and it is well within the bounds of reasonable conduct for them to start cracking down on this.
That doesn't mean that what the ATO is doing is a good thing - just that this is an area of policy where people can reasonably hold a different point of view as to what is appropriate.