Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Give eco-charities a check

By Gary Johns - posted Wednesday, 8 April 2015


Using his House of Representatives environment committee, Liberal MP Alex Hawke has started to scrutinise the use of tax-deductible donations to ­environmental groups.

More than 600 such groups are deductible gift recipients, which allows them to ­access tax-deductible donations to fund work to “advance the natural ­environment”.

Hawke has said, “We need to ensure tax-deductible donations … are used for the purpose intended and expected by the community.” That should be fun. Although the committee wants to scrutinise the extent to which group activities “involve on-ground environmental works”, it will find many do no such thing.

Advertisement

What is more, the definition of an environmental organisation under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 states that its principal purpose must be the protection and enhancement of the natural environment, or education, or research about the natural environment.

DGR status through the government’s register is separate from an organisation’s status as a charity; eligibility for income tax and other exemptions are administered by the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission and the Australian Taxation Office.

The key is whether a charity is beneficial to the community in a way the law regards as being charitable. To substantiate an entity’s charitable purposes, its activities may be considered. It is the role of its activities and the extent to which they further the entity’s purpose that is relevant.

Take a case study. The Worldwide Fund for Nature Australia is a charitable institution on the environmental register. It has started to receive funds from the Thomas Foundation, a private ancillary fund endorsed for DGR, for a political campaign.

In 2013, the Thomas Foundation, established by Cellar-masters founder David Thomas, switched from funding research to politics.

It announced, “This is … the first time the foundation has funded an advocacy program.”

Advertisement

As reported in The Australian last month, the advocacy program, aimed at the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO, is setting out to discredit the government’s alleged lack of protections for the Great Barrier Reef. Thomas has pledged to match two for one every dollar raised by WWF Australia in the Fight for the Reef campaign.

Using this case study, my advice to Hawke and his committee would be to start with first principles. First, tax-assisted donations contradict the voluntary nature of charity. Second, government should be reticent about tax assistance to organisations that seek to promote viewpoints on issues where there is reasonable disagreement in the electorate.

WWF Australia chief executive Dermot O’Gorman was reported in The Australian as saying, “When people overseas find out about the state of the reef and the industrial threat, they are often outraged just as much as Australians.”

In the WWF case, taxpayers are supporting donors to campaign to stop businesses operating lawfully within existing legislation. The more controversial the cause, the less generous should be the privilege afforded to the charity and its donors.

Environmental organisations have described Hawke’s inquiry as an attack on their efforts to protect the environment.

It may well be, but it is more likely an inquiry that will question taxpayer support for non-charitable purposes in matters where many taxpayers would disagree with a charity’s actions.

Charities must be allowed to do their work, but the taxpayer should not be forced to support highly contentious disputes.

Hawke should question the presumption of public benefit in environmental charities. The committee needs to inquire into the charities not only for their practical activities but the extent to which they are publicly beneficial and indeed charitable.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published in The Australian.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Gary Johns is a former federal member of Parliament and served as a minister in the Keating Government. Since December 2017 he has been the commissioner of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Gary Johns

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Gary Johns
Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy