CheckMate August 25, 2023
This week, we investigate a claim that the No campaign in the Voice to Parliament referendum was delayed in receiving tax deductible donations due to a government "fumble".
We also look at whether Labor is censoring public feedback over the draft wording of its proposed online misinformation bill, and reveal which erstwhile US presidential hopeful fell for an old hoax — hook, line and sinker.
Is the government to blame for No campaign tax 'fumble'?
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has taken to social media to assert that the No campaign for the Voice to Parliament referendum, in which she is a key leader, had been treated unfairly over its finances.
On Facebook, the senator claimed that while the Yes campaign had been granted tax-deductible status last year, the government had "fumbled and only just recognised and awarded the No campaign [the same status] last month".
But is the government to blame for the delay?
While the Yes campaign has indeed been eligible to receive tax-deductible donations for months longer than the No campaign, the delay appears to be principally the result of decisions made by No campaign leaders, rather than by the Albanese government.
Furthermore, it took eight months from the date of application for the Yes campaign to have its deductible gift recipient (DGR) status approved, while the process for the No campaign took only 12 weeks.
As the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) explains, organisations endorsed as DGRs are eligible to receive tax-deductible donations from supporters.
In most cases, DGR status applications are handled by the Australian Tax Office (ATO).
However, in cases where an organisation does not fit into a predefined category, a proposal must be submitted to the assistant minister for competition, charities and treasury (currently Andrew Leigh) to be granted DGR status as a "specific listing".
Intended to be used by exception only, this approval process "involves consideration by the government through the budget process, followed by consideration by the Parliament through an amendment to the tax law," the ATO explains on its website.
Both the Yes and No campaigns are required to be specifically listed.
According to a spokesperson for the Department of Treasury, the Yes campaign, led by Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition (AICR), first applied for DGR status via Mr Leigh on June 20, 2022.
A measure in the October 2022 budget outlined the government's plan to grant the Yes entity DGR status, with the required amendments to tax law passing the parliament in February 2023 and coming into effect on April 1, 2023 — eight months after the initial application.
On the No side, however, an application for DGR status did not reach Mr Leigh's desk until March 6, 2023, according to the spokesperson. The request came from the "Voice No Case Committee, campaigning as the Warren Mundine-led group Recognise a Better Way".
Another DGR application for a yet-to-be-established No campaign vehicle was lodged on March 23 by Advance Australia, which is affiliated with Senator Price. Additional information supplied to the department in April identified a new group, Australians for Unity, as the campaign vehicle.
In May, the government's budget made provision for DGR status to be granted to Recognise a Better Way. However, a merger between that group and Fair Australia (the No campaign division of Advance Australia), under the banner of Australians for Unity, saw Mr Mundine withdraw the original application at the eleventh hour.
Following parliament's passing of the relevant changes to tax laws, Australians for Unity was granted DGR status in June, three months after the initial application was lodged and around two months after the group was specified on the application.
According to the Treasury spokesperson, DGR endorsement would apply to the Yes campaign (AIRC) from July 1, 2022 through to June 30, 2024, and for the No campaign (Australians for Unity) from May 31, 2023 through to June 30, 2024.
Importantly, the discrepancy is largely the result of Australians for Unity first registering as a charity in April 2023, while AIRC has been registered since October 2019.
Mr Leigh told parliament in June that DGR status for Australians for Unity would be backdated to its charity registration date (April 13).
Despite requests, a spokesman for Senator Price's office did not provide evidence to back up her claim, but told CheckMate it was "an opinion held by" the senator.
"The government gave the Yes campaign an inside running on DGR status from the get go, whereas the No campaign was frustrated at every turn," the spokesman said.
Is Labor censoring feedback on its misinformation bill?
Opposition and former crossbench politicians have taken aim at the federal government over the consultation process for draft legislation designed to stop the spread of harmful information on social media.
Under Labor's proposed Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, social media platforms would be required to develop an enforceable code of practice to combat harmful information.
The legislation would also empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to enforce its own code if the industry version proved ineffective.
But despite conducting a two-month public consultation process over the draft bill, on August 21, the day after submissions closed, the government was being accused of a cover-up.
On X (formerly Twitter), Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman issued a statement criticising what he claimed was Labor's plan to "selectively release misinformation bill submissions".
Meanwhile, sharing his statement, United Australia Party national director Craig Kelly — who, months earlier, shared a link to the submissions page and directed his followers to "Tell Albanese what you think of his Ministry of Truth" — accused the government of "censoring" debate.
"Albanese is now censoring public submissions into his Misinformation Bill aimed at giving the government power to order social media to censor political debate," he wrote. "YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP."
So, why the outcry?
According to Mr Coleman's statement, the government's plan was revealed in an update made to the website of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, which stated:
"Submissions on the draft legislation have now closed. Public submissions will be uploaded on this page in several tranches from early September 2023."
An archived version of the page shows that this staged approach had been flagged from as early as July 10.
In a statement to CheckMate, a spokesman for the department said this approach to "large consultation processes reflects longstanding practice of ensuring compliance" with how it was expected to handle information.
He said the department planned to publish submissions according to when they were received, and "will not selectively release submissions in tranches on the basis of the views of the submitter or [their] identity".
As for whether any would be withheld, the spokesman said the department's usual process was to publish any submissions intended to be made public, unless prevented by "legal considerations" such as the risk of defamation.
"Redactions or non-publication would only relate to such considerations."
Notably, the department confirmed it had received "over 23,000 responses" to its public consultation process. (The figure includes "comments and submissions", of which the "overwhelming majority" were comments.)
To put that in context, the former Coalition government's independent review of the public service received just over 750 submissions and 800 comments.
The 2020 Senate inquiry into media diversity in Australia received just over 5,000 submissions — which the inquiry's final report described as "one of the largest ever number received by a Senate inquiry".
Labor's draft misinformation bill has been criticised by some groups representing journalists and lawyers for, among other things, adopting an overly broad definition of misinformation, though the wording is subject to revision.
A similar proposal was put forward by the former Coalition government, which went to the 2022 election promising to give ACMA "the ability to hold platforms to account should their voluntary efforts prove inadequate".
US senator duped by old online hoax
As Tropical Storm Hilary (downgraded from a hurricane as it moved north) bore down on California this week, Republican senator Ted Cruz found himself swept up in a years-old online hoax after he shared a shocking photo of a shark on a highway.
Posted to X by US sports podcaster Dan Katz, the photo purports to show a shark swimming down a highway in Los Angeles (Interstate 405, according to Katz), with the podcaster granting permission for news outlets to share the image.
Reposting the photo, Senator Cruz stated simply: "Holy crap."
But the photo is a fake, and has circulated frequently during natural disasters for more than a decade.
According to fact checkers at Snopes, the edited image originally appeared online in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene in Puerto Rico in 2011.
"Since then the same image has been recirculated several times over, typically localised to some big city in the United States that has just experienced a hurricane or other weather event producing heavy rains and floods," Snopes stated in a fact check first published in 2011 and updated and shared often since.
"Then and now, the photograph is a digital hoax."
The shark seen in the image, as Snopes found out, was lifted from a 2005 photograph of a kayaker being stalked by a Great White.
Posting to X again just minutes after sharing the photo, Senator Cruz wrote that he had been "told this is a joke".
"In LA, you never know… π€·π»♂️," the senator added.
Edited by Ellen McCutchan and David Campbell
Got a fact that needs checking? Tweet us @ABCFactCheck or send us an email at factcheck@rmit.edu.au
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiUmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFiYy5uZXQuYXUvbmV3cy8yMDIzLTA4LTI1L2ZhY3QtY2hlY2stbm8tY2FtcGFpZ24tZGdyLXN0YXR1cy8xMDI3NzA5OTjSAShodHRwczovL2FtcC5hYmMubmV0LmF1L2FydGljbGUvMTAyNzcwOTk4?oc=5
2023-08-24 22:08:32Z
CBMiUmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmFiYy5uZXQuYXUvbmV3cy8yMDIzLTA4LTI1L2ZhY3QtY2hlY2stbm8tY2FtcGFpZ24tZGdyLXN0YXR1cy8xMDI3NzA5OTjSAShodHRwczovL2FtcC5hYmMubmV0LmF1L2FydGljbGUvMTAyNzcwOTk4
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Jacinta Nampijinpa Price says the government 'fumbled' the No campaign's deductible gift recipient status. What are the facts? - ABC News"
Post a Comment