The Claim
“Tabled law amendments which would result in charities losing their tax deductible status if they tweet in support of public protests, or display their logo at a protest where the commissioner suspects an unaffiliated protester has or might commit a minor offence such as blocking a sidewalk.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core facts of this claim are TRUE [1][2]. The Morrison Coalition government did table amendments to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) Regulations in June 2021 that would have expanded the grounds for charity deregistration [1][2].
Specific regulatory change: The amendments sought to extend Governance Standard 3 of the ACNC Regulations by lowering the threshold from requiring charities to avoid conduct punishable as an "indictable offence" down to conduct that could be dealt with as a "summary offence" [3]. Summary offences in the proposed regulation specifically included: (i) entering or remaining on real or personal property; (ii) destroying or damaging property; (iii) appropriating property; and (iv) causing personal injury [3].
Practical impact: Under these regulations, charities could theoretically be deregistered for staff members blocking a footpath at a public vigil, or for tweeting in support of a protest [1][2]. The regulations gave the Charities Commissioner "subjective belief" authority to act even if no charge had been made [1].
What actually happened: The regulations were never implemented. On 25 November 2021, the Senate voted 24-19 in favor of Independent Senator Rex Patrick's disallowance motion, preventing the regulations from ever coming into effect [4][5].
Missing Context
However, the claim requires significant context to be fully understood:
1. The regulations never became law. While the claim accurately describes what was tabled, it could mislead readers into believing these rules were implemented. They were defeated in the Senate and never came into effect [4][5].
2. The government's stated rationale. Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar defended the regulations as targeting "activist organisations masquerading as charities" and preventing charities' resources from being directed toward "unlawful activities" rather than charitable works [2]. The government stated the regulator would take a "proportionate" approach to enforcement [2].
3. The charities regulator (ACNC Commissioner) said the problem didn't exist. The head of the ACNC itself confirmed that "very few charities are acting illegally" and questioned the necessity of the regulations [6]. This significantly undermined the government's justification for the changes.
4. Sukkar's office clarified the regulations were aimed at "sustained illegal activity." In response to charity concerns, Sukkar's office clarified that the regulations were not intended to result in deregistration for a single staff member's tweet, but rather sustained illegal activity [2]. However, charities remained skeptical about whether such safeguards would actually protect them in practice.
5. Precedent was limited. The only recent example cited was the 2019 deregistration of Aussie Farms Inc., an animal rights group that had organized protests [2]. This single case hardly justified sweeping regulatory overhaul.
Source Credibility Assessment
Original sources: Amnesty International Australia and SBS News are both credible, mainstream sources [1][2]. Amnesty is a human rights organization that operates globally and is generally regarded as reliable, though it does advocate for specific policy positions. SBS is a public broadcaster and mainstream news source.
Supporting sources: The Stronger Charities Alliance (a coalition of 100+ charities) and the Human Rights Law Centre are both reputable advocacy and legal organizations [4][5]. The Tax Technical article provides a detailed legal analysis based on parliamentary records [3].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
The Labor government under Anthony Albanese (elected May 2022) did not pursue comparable restrictions on charity advocacy. When the Labor government came to power, the 2021 regulations had already been defeated and were not in effect. Labor has not proposed similar measures to restrict charitable deductibility based on protest advocacy [7].
However, it should be noted that government regulation of charity spending and advocacy—to prevent misuse of tax concessions—is not unique to the Coalition. Both major parties have supported maintaining some oversight of charities' compliance with governance standards. The difference is one of scope and implementation.
Balanced Perspective
The Coalition's position: The government argued these regulations were necessary to prevent charities from abusing tax-deductible donation status by directing resources toward unlawful activity rather than charitable purposes. The rationale was that donors fund charities expecting their money to support charitable work, not illegal activities [2].
However, several factors undermined this justification:
Lack of evidence of widespread problem: The ACNC Commissioner himself stated there were very few charities engaging in illegal activity, undermining the claim that new sweeping powers were necessary [6].
Scope was overly broad: The regulations would have caught minor summary offences (like blocking a sidewalk) rather than targeting serious illegal conduct [3]. This made the measure appear punitive toward advocacy rather than genuinely addressing fraud or serious illegality.
Chilling effect on legitimate advocacy: Critics across the political spectrum (including Senator Fierravanti-Wells, a Coalition member) argued the regulations would deter charities from lawful advocacy activities that charities exist to perform [4]. Unlike most western democracies, this seemed designed to silence rather than regulate.
Subjective test was problematic: Giving the Commissioner power to act based on "subjective belief" that a minor offence "may" occur created uncertainty that would burden charities with excessive compliance costs [1][3].
Key context: This is not unique to the Coalition—governments globally sometimes seek to regulate charitable activity. However, Australian charities pointed out that no parallel restrictions exist in the business sector or for political parties (making the analogy to deregistering the Liberal Party for a member jaywalking apt) [1].
The unanimous opposition from 100+ charities across the political spectrum, and the defeat by the Senate, suggests this measure fell outside mainstream Australian political consensus [4][5].
TRUE
7.0
out of 10
The regulations as described were tabled and would have had the effects claimed. However, the claim omits the crucial fact that the regulations were defeated and never came into effect. A reader might believe these are current law, which is false.
The claim accurately describes the scope of the proposed regulations (tweeting about protests, displaying logos at protests where minor offences might occur) but without noting the Senate rejected them after sustained cross-party and charity sector opposition.
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The regulations as described were tabled and would have had the effects claimed. However, the claim omits the crucial fact that the regulations were defeated and never came into effect. A reader might believe these are current law, which is false.
The claim accurately describes the scope of the proposed regulations (tweeting about protests, displaying logos at protests where minor offences might occur) but without noting the Senate rejected them after sustained cross-party and charity sector opposition.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (7)
-
1
Charities Condemn New Federal Laws That Threaten To Shut Them Down
An alliance of Australia’s most well-established and respected charities, including Anglicare, UnitingCare Australia, Baptist Care Australia, St Vincent
Amnesty International Australia -
2
Australian charities say tough new restrictions are an attempt to 'muzzle' their advocacy work
Charities say tough new federal rules are an attempt to muzzle advocacy work and will detract from pandemic relief efforts.
SBS News -
3
ACNC regulation disallowed in Senate - because it exposed charities to deregistration for lobbying
The Senate has disallowed the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Amendment (2021 Measures No 2) Regulations 2021 after passing a disallowance motion moved by Senator Rex Patrick on 25 November 2021. This was because the new regulation exposed charities to deregistration, for advocacy – involving civil disobedience, even in pursuit of their charitable objects. The amending Regulations,…
Tax Technical -
4
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) Regulations 2021
In 2021 the Government introduced new regulations that would have given the charities regulator sweeping powers to deregister charities for speaking out on behalf of the communities they serve. This was despite unanimous opposition from the charity sector and a confirmation from the charities commissioner – the head of the regulator – that the supposed ‘problem’ that... Read More
Stronger Charities Alliance -
5
One down, one to go: Dangerous anti-charity regulations scrapped
The Human Rights Law Centre has welcomed the news that the Senate has voted to disallow the Morrison Government’s proposed new anti-charity regulations.
Human Rights Law Centre -
6
Charities Still Wary of Updated Plan to Change Governance Standards
Probonoaustralia Com
Original link unavailable — view archived version -
7
Laws regarding charities that engage in unlawful activity to change
Acnc Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.