Posts

A Private Line to the Minister

,

The Labor government is overriding our courts and regulators to hand-pick which advocacy groups get tax-deductible status.

In a recent Senate Estimates hearing, I questioned why Equality Australia was granted specific Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status in the 2025 Budget, despite being rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), and the Full Federal Court. All three bodies ruled that their work is political advocacy, not “direct benevolent relief.”

When I asked for the legal basis or the principles used to bypass these independent determinations, the government hid behind “Cabinet confidentiality.”

This isn’t just about one group; it’s about the integrity of our tax system. We cannot have a system where groups who lose in court simply lobby a Minister for a custom-made law.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are actually brief, but I have to untangle the acronyms. I have to give you some background first to set up my questions. Equality Australia applied for public benevolent institution status in 2020 and was rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission because its primary purpose was advocacy and law reform, not direct benevolent relief. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission found its activities were ‘too indirect’ to qualify as benevolent relief. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission’s decision. The Full Federal Court dismissed Equality Australia’s appeal in September 2024, confirming that advocacy and campaigning for law reform did not meet the statutory definition of a public benevolent institution.  

After losing in court, Equality Australia wrote to Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh in November 2024, seeking a specific listing for deductible gift recipient status under the Income Tax Act 1997. Cabinet approved the listing in early 2025 and the March federal budget included Equality Australia as a named deductible gift recipient entity for five years. Media commentary highlights concerns that this decision effectively overrode determinations by three accountability bodies, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court.  

My questions are: why did Treasury support a specific deductible gift recipient status listing for Equality Australia after the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission refused public benevolent institution status, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed and the Full Federal Court dismissed the appeal on 5 September 2024 all on the basis that Equality Australia’s activities are advocacy, not direct benevolent relief? What principles justify overriding three independent determinations?  

Ms Berger-Thomson: Decisions made on DGR-specific listings are decisions of cabinet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what principle justifies overriding three independent determinations?  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t have anything further to add to that. I’m not aware of it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Senator Gallagher: I’m happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did Treasury advise cabinet that a specific listing bypasses the ordinary deductible gift recipient pathway for a single organisation?  

Ms Berger-Thomson: Typically, we do provide advice on specific listings. Specific listings are only for those organisations that do not qualify for any of the other 52 DGR categories that are administered by the ATO.  

Senator ROBERTS: You did give advice?  

Dr Johnson: It’s not appropriate to talk about cabinet material in Senate estimates.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about Treasury advice?  

Dr Johnson: That’s Treasury advice for a cabinet process.  

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t provide it on notice?  

Dr Johnson: No, not in relation to things that relate to a cabinet process.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s pretty handy. I have two final questions: on what legal basis did Treasury rely to proceed where the courts found the activities did not meet the public benevolent institution test? Secondly, how does Treasury ensure consistency with the statutory meaning of ‘benevolent relief’ used by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court, when recommending by name a deductible gift recipient? What legal basis did Treasury rely on?  

Senator Gallagher: As to specific listings—there are a few every budget that the ERC or the government considers when other avenues have been exhausted. That reflects a decision of government.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what legal advice Treasury received.  

Senator Gallagher: Treasury provide advice on the listings that come before us. Ministers get briefed appropriately, but ultimately it’s a decision for government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did the government ignore or bypass three institutions with experience in this area and responsibility for this area—the Federal Court, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Australian Charities—  

Senator Gallagher: I’ve taken that on notice. I was just more generally saying how the decisions are taken. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide an answer to that?  

Senator Gallagher: I have undertaken to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: And also the basis for the decision?  

Senator Gallagher: Yes, I have taken that on notice.  

/0 Comments/by

De-Register the RSPCA as a charity

Available on these platforms:

In this podcast two guests join us to a discuss our modern-day RSPCA.  What might surprise you is that this isn’t a heart-warming story.

The Royal Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, known as the RSPCA, dates to 1871 when a public meeting was held in Victoria in response to the ill treatment of horses.  The QLD RSPCA was formed in 1883.  The RSPCA is a household name and many consider it a beacon of respect and care for animals.

Today, the RSPCA has capitalised on its branding of animal welfare with producers and brand owners being able to use the RSPCA logo to reflect their shared vision for animal welfare.  Today we can buy RSPCA approved meat in our supermarkets.  Typically, we don’t question the integrity of the claimed “animal welfare” standards as we take for granted that this iconic brand is squeaky clean.

Several QLD constituents contacted my office recently with extraordinary stories about how the RSPCA were conducting themselves.  Since asking questions at Senate Estimates about the RSPCA, their methods and the legitimacy of their not-for-profit status, we’ve been flooded with more calls and emails.  Their stories share many similar themes and the overall message is that there is something rotten in the state of the RSPCA.

The concerns being raised are varied.

The RSPCA’s charity status means that they are not-for-profit and enjoy a tax-free status.  Looking closely at the recent annual report it shows revenue was $58 million and included in that is a $4 million Federal Govt grant.  The hefty surplus of $8.7 million is what prompted Senate Estimates questions of the Commissioner for Charities and Not-For-Profits.  My questions were about whether the RSPCA should continue to enjoy charitable status? We’re waiting for that answer as no-one could provide one on the day.

The RSPCA appears to be leveraging its charity branding to become heavily commercial.  I have already mentioned the RSPCA approved meat and today RSPCA pet shops are being set up in the suburbs.  On the face of it there is no problem.  It is when we understand how the RSPCA is conducting itself under its Inspectorate powers, that we see the problem.

The RSPCA’s Inspectorate of RSPCA QLD, has power to investigate and confiscate animals that are poorly treated.  That is the heart of what we expect from them.  What we don’t expect is seizure of animals based on lies.  We have dozens of examples where Inspectorate officers have entered properties and confiscated with no prior notification or investigation.  All this is based on an anonymous tip off that is never disclosed to the property owners.  The warrants JPs sign sometimes use photographs of animals in poor conditions, which do not match the animals to be seized.  This is only the beginning.  Some pet owners have then seen their animals online for sale within days.  This is the problem when the RSPCA have a commercial arm alongside their charitable arm when they can confiscate and sell based on misuse of powers and lies.  This is a clear conflict of interest.

Many pet shop owners, registered breeders, private pet owners, animal rescuers and veterinarians have experienced the full force of the RSPCA’s misuse of power.  Many have spoken out against this strong arm approach and suffered the consequences.  Pet shop businesses have been sabotaged when the RSPCA advises their suppliers to blacklist them based on false accusations of animal cruelty.  Veterinarians who have spoken out against this behaviour have also suffered from the RSPCA spreading false accusations regarding their standards of animal care.  Business have been decimated through this belligerent behaviour.

My two guests, who both own pet stores, join us to share their experiences with the RSPCA.  Their stories are confronting.

‘Shell’ and Nicole’s stories are extraordinary and not what we expect of a charity that is supposed to champion care and respect for animals.  This unconscionable conduct is exploiting its charitable and tax-free status to create a multi-million dollar business.  Its strong-arm approach is clearly outside of acceptable conduct under both the Acts.

The RSPCA have become a law unto themselves, issuing warrants based on lies, not going through due process to investigate before seizing animals, extorting money out of people for housing their stolen animals and then annihilating local private businesses through negative media and malicious lies.  It’s quite a rap sheet for the warm and fuzzy RSPCA we all grew up with.

This belligerent and intimidatory behaviour must stop. Their exploitation business model must be stopped.

I am calling for the RSPCA to be de-registered as a charity.  I urge everyone to take your complaints to the ACCC and to the Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission for investigation.  Everyone who donates to the RSPCA, think again.  Any RSPCA employees, past or present, are invited to call my office and share their stories.

This behaviour has gone under the radar for too long.  We need to bring the RSPCA back to the animal welfare organisation it is supposed to be.

/3 Comments/by