PoliticalClaims.au

**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:** 1. **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]. 2. **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. 3. **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. 4. **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].