The government is clamping down on charities – and it could hurt protests

Federal and state governments have both introduced a number of measures in recent years that threaten fundamental rights to protests and freedom of speech in Australia.

As anti-establishment dissent becomes more prevalent, and as approaches become more innovative, authorities once again are looking for ways to clamp down.


These tools could be used to further obstruct those who exercise their right to protest, accelerating the degradation of freedoms, Krystian Seibert explains.
Another agenda at hand? Photo: QPO

The Australian government introduced new regulations last week that could have a major chilling effect across Australia’s diverse charities sector.

The government’s aim was clear: the regulations are intended to target “activist organisations”, and specifically crack down on “unlawful behaviour”.

Despite this rhetoric, there is no evidence unlawful behaviour by charities is a problem of any significance. By clamping down on charities in this way, the government is not only curtailing their ability to organise peaceful protests, it is imposing more unnecessary red tape on an already highly-regulated sector.


The regulations would give the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) new powers to take action against a charity if it commits, or fails to adequately ensure its resources aren’t used to commit, certain types of “summary offences”.

These are generally a less serious type of criminal offence, and can include acts such as trespassing, unlawful entry, malicious damage or vandalism.

If the ACNC commissioner believes a charity is not complying with the regulations, they would be able to take enforcement action, which may include deregistering the charity. This would lead to the charity losing tax concessions — one of the incentives for people to donate to them.

In effect, the regulations mean that if a charity organised a protest in front of a government department and initially refused to leave, this could be considered trespassing. And this could then be grounds to have the charity deregistered.


There is little, if any, evidence of a need for the regulations.

First, a comprehensive review of the ACNC legislation commissioned by the government in 2018 did not identify any issues with unlawful behaviour by charities.

In fact, the review recommended removing the ACNC’s existing power to take action against charities that commit serious breaches of the law. It pointed out that charities must already comply with all laws that they are subject to, and it is not the ACNC’s responsibility to monitor compliance or impose sanctions for breaches.

Despite this, the new regulations would extend the reach of the ACNC and expand its existing powers even further.

And importantly, there is no evidence charities — or their staffs or volunteers — are engaging in widespread unlawful activity. When questioned at a recent Senate Estimates hearing, ACNC Commissioner Gary Johns said the commission’s data did not indicate this was a problem.

Even the government’s own regulatory impact assessment asserts only a “small number” of charities have engaged in unlawful behaviour. However, even this claim is not backed up by solid evidence.


Charities in Australia are already highly regulated and subject to a broad range of obligations. They must also abide by any number of laws, for example, occupational health and safety and criminal laws.

And the ACNC already has extensive investigation and compliance powers. If charities breach any of the laws they are subject to, they can be sanctioned just like other organisations — and the same applies to their staff.

In addition, charities are already required to take steps to ensure their directors comply with duties, such as acting with reasonable care and diligence. This includes monitoring and managing risks arising from a charity’s activities.


Perhaps most concerningly, the proposed regulations are worded in a very vague manner, and although improvements were made in response to public consultation on a draft version, major problems remain.

First, they require a charity to “maintain reasonable internal control procedures” to prevent its resources from being used to promote unlawful activities.

According to the regulations, this could cover things such as who can access or use a charity’s funds, premises or social media accounts, and what kind of training charity directors and employees must undertake.

What is “reasonable” in this context involves making very subjective judgements. While the ACNC will provide guidance to charities on this, many organisations will still face considerable uncertainty.

Read more: Australian charities are well regulated, but changes are needed to cut red tape

Further, the regulations would not require a conviction, the laying of charges, or even a formal allegation of an offence being committed before the ACNC can take action. The wording only refers to “acts or omissions that may be dealt with” as a summary offence.

This is very open-ended language, but the crux of it is that a charity could be deregistered because it did something the ACNC commissioner thinks is a summary offence. The action itself, however, may not actually meet the criteria for a summary offence because that’s something only a court can determine.

The ACNC commissioner is the ultimate decision maker on these matters. The regulations do not include any factors or criteria that need to be considered when making a decision, other than saying the ACNC “may” (there’s that word again) consult with law enforcement or other relevant authorities.


Even if a charity is deregistered but then successfully appeals a decision, it may no longer have access to tax concessions, it may lose its donors and other supporters, and it may have its reputation tarnished within the community.

The ACNC seeks to implement the law as it understands it. Its focus is on providing guidance to charities rather than using strong enforcement powers straight away. But the vagueness and breadth of the regulations may lead to misunderstandings or regulatory overreach, and create a more uncertain environment for charities.

They will also impose yet another requirement that charity boards and management must consider. Given charities are already well-regulated, if anything, they need unnecessary red tape removed rather than having more of it imposed on them.

And the regulations will likely have a chilling effect. Charities will be more cautious when it comes to organising public advocacy activities such as peaceful protests — or steer clear of them altogether — in order to avoid falling afoul of the regulations. Such activities are an important part of Australia’s democracy.


Although the regulations have been made, they cannot come into force until they have been tabled in both chambers of parliament, and the disallowance period has passed.

If a disallowance motion is successful in the House or Senate, then the regulations will be invalid and will not take effect. Given the government does not have a majority in the Senate, this is a possibility.

Much is riding on the crossbenchers — not just the impact the regulations would have on individual charities, but also the kind of society we want Australia to be.

By Krystian Seibert, Industry Fellow, Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

4 comments on “The government is clamping down on charities – and it could hurt protests”

  1. Charities in Australia are NOT highly regulated and subject to a broad range of obligations; they are more like slush funds and tax dodges for the select few.

  2. Decisions left in the hands of MORE Bureaucrats, who are their OWN ‘Oversight’; Aka; ‘Interpreting’ THE LAW,[A Vague Set of Rules, For WIDE Encapsulation & ‘LEVERAGE’] as ‘They Understand it!’ – OR NOT! Business as usual = TGA INC./ & Codes OF Conduct attached to THE Usual Criminals – STILL, ZERO OVERSIGHT, AND NOT WORTH THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITTEN ON! Apparently ‘Regulations, would not require a Conviction, the laying of Charges, or even formal allegations of an offence being Committed before THE ACNC takes action!’ I think THE ANZAC’S call this a Kangaroo Court! [Didn’t THE Nazi State use the same M.O?] & I, am suppose to show any form of respect, to these new Jacked up Mini Emperors. I feel a Queen Mab Movement coming to/For THE Government! ENTITIES, GOVERNMENT OR NOT, DO NOT DEMAND RESPECT!
    Wellness to US – THE PEOPLE!

  3. The article is well written and I do agree with the comments here. However as I have stated in the past, absolutely all of this and the other narratives going on are part of the same agenda, which started 6000 years ago when Lucifer wanted to take the place of GOD.

    The whole purpose of it all is to create the kind of Kingdom that Satan wants. One where people are subservient and controlled into doing what he wants them. The only way he can get humanity to bow down to him and create a kingdom that resembles GOD’s kingdom is to enslave all of humanity and thereby forcing them to do so. In the end though, he only wants to destroy all of humanity.

    None of this or everything else going on with the agenda, will end until GOD has the final say. The battle will soon be over and the King of King will reign supreme. We are not going to be able to stop anything as the final showdown has to take place and people need to make an informed personal choice as to which side they are on. We simply need to brace for more and hang onto GOD until the end.

Leave a Reply