The nation has just participated in a federal election. As the regulator of almost 63,000 registered charities, the ACNC plays a part in this democratic process.
A key activity for us in the lead up to this election was our communications campaign to remind charities about the rules around advocacy. Perhaps you noticed some of our tips on social media!
Once the election campaign was in full swing we saw, as expected, a heightened focus on the sector’s advocacy activities, be that because of a letterboxed paper flyer or comments on social media and websites. With this greater visibility came concerns by some about the activities of a small number of charities. I wanted to share some insights with you about what we have done about these concerns.
As at 2 May, the day before polling day, we had received 63 political advocacy concerns. This number is considerably lower than the 445 political advocacy concerns made prior to the last federal election in 2022.
Also, the number of charities we received concerns about was less – 18 charities compared with 38 charities in 2022. This is even more significant noting there are more charities on our Register now ̶ almost 63,000 compared to around 60,000 previously.
Opposition to or the promotion of political parties were key themes this time, marking a shift from the previous election when concerns were more focused on the promotion of individual candidates.
So what was our approach to these concerns?
First our compliance team analysed the concerns, mostly from the public, and considered other sources such as our media monitoring and financial disclosures to the Australian Electoral Commission. The team considered current behaviour as well as looking for any patterns of behaviour over successive election campaigns, especially if a charity had previously received regulatory advice from us.
As is our usual approach, we prioritised engagement with charities. We spoke with the charity to get more information which, in some cases, clarified what had happened and even that the charity had already taken their own action. We followed up with guidance in writing or considered other regulatory action, as is proportionate.
Overall, I was pleased that there was a positive response from the charities we contacted. As we generally find, they were cooperative and keen to comply with their obligations to the ACNC when it was explained what was needed to stay on track.
One point worth sharing from this election is that sometimes it is not a charity but an entity connected to a charity that conducts advocacy work or campaigning on a charity’s behalf. It is important for charities to consider which organisation is doing what, as we saw examples where this lack of clarity caused confusion for the public and resulted in concerns.
We will continue to gather and analyse data on concerns relating to this federal election, and to promote awareness about how charities can conduct advocacy. As I have said previously, advocacy by charities is a key tool for achieving their charitable purpose, it’s just about staying within the guardrails we outline in our guidance.
Thank you to all those charities – to the overwhelming majority of you! – who followed the rules outlined in our campaigning and advocacy guidance. By doing so you have respectfully contributed to policy debates in various ways, enriching national conversations at a crucial time.
Warm regards,
Sue Woodward AM