CPA - The Guardian

All around, the spirit of the Howard era lingers on. The government of the former PM used to fight dirty to make sure its viewpoint held centre stage. Appointments to the board of the ABC were made to help conservative forces in the media. “History wars” blazed in the pages of the broadsheet papers with the government siding with academics attacking what they derided as the “black armband” version of Australia’s history since European settlement.

Appointments to the judiciary were helpful to the cause, too. Heads of charities, including clergy members not known for their left leanings, were told forcefully to butt out of the public debate on poverty and dispossession or else. In 2006, aid monitoring organisation AID/WATCH was stripped of its charitable tax status and left to flounder as grants dried up. Three years later, the struggle continues.

AID/WATCH was and still is critical of the federal government’s “boomerang” aid policies and efforts to tie free trade agreements to aid for struggling nations in the region. It also criticises attempts to pass off military intervention and policing as “aid”. At the moment it is monitoring the rush for a Pacific Agreement for Closer Economic Relations (PACER) between Australia, New Zealand and several Pacific Island nation states.

In October 2006, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) moved to disqualify AID/WATCH as a charitable organisation on the grounds that it has as its objective to monitor rather than deliver aid. AID/WATCH appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In July 2008, the tribunal found in favour of the charity but the ATO struck back with an appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court.

On September 23, the Federal Court ruled in favour of the ATO. The judgement declared that AID/WATCH does have alleviation of poverty as an objective; it does set out to educate the public but also held that it has a dominant non-charitable, “political” purpose. AID/WATCH had reportedly fallen foul of England’s “Statute of Elizabeth” of 1601, which is still embedded in Australian legislation.

“The Federal Court ruled that, despite having a clear charitable purpose to alleviate poverty, AID/WATCH does not meet the definition of charitable because the organisation takes a ‘view’ on the government’s aid program and tries to influence government decision-making,” AID/WATCH spokesperson Dr James Goodman said at the time.

“This restrictive definition may be a bridge too far for many charitable and environmental organisations. This decision is a threat to public debate. Charities are involved in the broad array of social life, and address causes as well as symptoms of social problems. To do so they must be able to speak up without fear of penalty – they must be able to advocate. After this case, charities can no longer speak out and fearlessly take a view on political issues of the day,” Dr Goodman said.

The federal government had shown just how shallow its commitment to its “civil society” rhetoric really is. Other charities have criticised the outcome. A number have pledged to help AID/WATCH mount its next costly attempt to get justice. AID/WATCH is now seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court on the matter.

At the same time, the federal government’s Productivity Commission is moving to clarify definitions for charitable status. A recent draft report on the not-for-profit sector recommends that the federal government should make it clear that charities can engage in public debate.

For further information visit www.aidwatch.org.au

Next article – Socialism with Chinese characteristics – 60th Anniversary of the Chinese Revolution

Back to index page