Global Citizen Ltd applied to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission for registration as a Public Benevolent Institution, and was declined because, in the view of the ACNC, its activities did not fit within the definition of a PBI. Global Citizen Ltd then appealed this decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The ACNC argued that Global Citizen Ltd has independent purposes of education and/or advocacy that prevent it from being a PBI, and that it does not provide relief directly, or through related entities, to those in need. The Tribunal found that Global Citizen Ltd had only one purpose – the relief of global poverty – and that it engages in educational and advocacy activities to achieve that purpose. It added that even if education/advocacy were purposes, they were incidental and ancillary to the main purpose of the relief of poverty. The Tribunal also accepted that advocacy, awareness-raising and educational activities were common methods employed by entities tackling global issues, including global poverty. It therefore found that Global Citizen Ltd was entitled to be registered as a PBI charity.
The decision:
- Gives guidance to the sector and regulators to adopt an approach that the common or ordinary understanding of the expression PBI at the relevant time, not a mechanical application of past judicial authority nearly a century old;
- Means that a PBI is not precluded from having other objects or purposes, provided the benevolent purpose is predominant;
- Confirms that relief can be provided by a PBI indirectly, and that it is not necessary to require proof of the link between the activities of the entity and the provision of relief; and
- Shows that advocacy, awareness-raising and educational activities were common methods employed by entities tackling global issues, including global poverty.
To view the Philanthropy Australia article and analysis in full, click here