The Albanese Government has used legislation to grant Equality Australia special tax-deductible gift recipient (DGR) status, overriding decisions by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the Full Federal Court – all of which found the organisation did not qualify.

The provision was buried in an omnibus Treasury bill that passed both Houses this week. DGR status makes donations tax-deductible, functioning as a public subsidy. Australia has well-established DGR categories so that eligibility is determined by neutral, purpose-driven criteria – not political preference.

Having exhausted the normal channels, Equality Australia applied directly to the Assistant Minister for Charities Andrew Leigh. The government responded by inserting the organisation into the bill’s schedule.

Senator Claire Chandler, who moved amendments to remove the provision, put the concern plainly:

The debate around these issues is not one where government should be picking a winner by selectively applying a tax advantage to one side and not the other. That is exactly why Australia has a set of principled, well-established DGR categories, so the eligibility for taxpayer support is based on neutral, purpose-driven criteria not political preference or alignment with the government's ideological agenda.

This agenda is not friendly to religious freedom. Equality Australia campaigns against exemptions that allow religious schools to employ staff who share their faith. It supports the expansion of “conversion therapy” laws that already carry severe penalties and a documented chilling effect on medical professionals. It has directly targeted HRLA client Lyle Shelton, who endured years of vilification proceedings for expressing his views on matters of public interest.

The concern is not that Equality Australia advocates for its positions. That is the right of any individual or organisation in our democracy. The concern is that the government has used the tax system to confer a financial advantage on one side of contested public debates, after the regulator and courts said no.

HRLA will continue to advocate for a regulatory environment in which the rules apply consistently, without political favour, in which religious individuals and organisations can operate freely and faithfully.