Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCA 42.
2.
For the purposes of this article, advocacy is defined as ‘promoting or opposing a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another country’, as per the Charities Act 2013 (Cth) section 12(1)(1).
3.
Charities are a subset of a larger group known as not-for-profit organisations. Many of the arguments in this article apply to organisations in this broader group, although the focus is intended to be primarily on ‘charities’ as defined in the Charities Act 2013 (Cth).
House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment, Parliament of Australia, Inquiry into the Register of Environmental Organisations, (2015).
ChiaJoyceHardingMatthewO'ConnellAnn, ‘Navigating the politics of charity: Reflections on Aid/Watch Inc v Federal Commissioner of Taxation’ (2011) 35(2) Melbourne University Law Review353, 365.
20.
Ibid.
21.
See Bowman v Secular Society Ltd [1917] AC 406, 442 (ParkerLord). In New Zealand, although the Supreme Court in Re Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc ([2014] NZSC 105) also recently found that ‘political purpose exclusion should no longer be applied in New Zealand’, the approach to determining whether advocacy is charitable still involves the regulator assessing ‘the intended result of the view that is being advocated, the means of achieving that result, and the manner in which the result is achieved’ (see above n 11).
22.
ChiaHardingO'Connell, above n 19, 375.
23.
Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCA 42, 45.
24.
ChiaHardingO'Connell, above n 19, 362–368.
25.
Shughart, above n 4.
26.
OlsonMancur, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Harvard University Press, 2nd ed, 1971).
27.
Ibid2.
28.
Ibid134.
29.
Ibid165.
30.
Ibid35.
31.
Ibid167.
32.
Ibid165–166.
33.
Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCA 42.
34.
Aid/Watch Incorporated v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCA 42, 6.
