tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/billy-hughes-16298/articlesBilly Hughes – The Conversation2018-11-08T19:36:53Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1061692018-11-08T19:36:53Z2018-11-08T19:36:53ZIt’s time Australia’s conscientious objectors of WW1 were remembered, too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244256/original/file-20181107-74754-jj5mbh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An anti-conscription rally in Melbourne, 1916.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Heritage Council of Victoria</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As we commemorate the centenary of the Armistice, it is appropriate that we pay tribute to the thousands of largely forgotten people who formed a significant social and political coalition at the time of the first world war: those who fought against conscription, and against the war, including a significant number of conscientious objectors.</p>
<p>Military registration and training for all Australian men aged 18 to 60 <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-new-conscientious-objection-9780195079555?cc=au&lang=en&">was compulsory from 1911</a>. But there was no provision in Australian law that required men to enlist for active service overseas. Signing up for such service was voluntary, and with the promise of a short war, there was no difficulty for recruitment officers finding their men.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/world-politics-explainer-the-great-war-wwi-100462">World politics explainer: The Great War (WWI)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, as news of the <a href="https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/gallipoli">horrendous losses at Gallipoli</a> from April to December 1915 and the <a href="https://anzaccentenary.vic.gov.au/westernfront/history/">slaughter on the Western Front</a> from mid-1916 filtered back to Australia, enthusiasm for overseas duties began to wane.</p>
<p>Australia was not meeting its recruitment target. Only about <a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/9812578?q&sort=holdings+desc&_=1541560154467&versionId=12034106">a third of eligible men</a> were volunteering.</p>
<p>Labor Prime Minister Billy Hughes determined that the only way to increase enlistment numbers was to impose conscription. He decided to hold a <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs161.aspx">plebiscite</a> (sometimes referred to as the “conscription referendum”) to carry out what he saw as his obligation to the Empire, and to do so with the consent of the Australian people.</p>
<p>But there were <a href="https://billyhughes.moadoph.gov.au/conscription">many vociferous voices</a> from the trade union movement, the Labor Party and an active women’s coalition campaigning for a “no” vote. Religious adherents, too, found themselves well represented in the “no” campaign, with many Catholics, Quakers, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/christadelphians_1.shtml">Christadelphians</a>, Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses in the forefront of the pacifist movement.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244231/original/file-20181107-74754-12ab43y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244231/original/file-20181107-74754-12ab43y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244231/original/file-20181107-74754-12ab43y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244231/original/file-20181107-74754-12ab43y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=738&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244231/original/file-20181107-74754-12ab43y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=928&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244231/original/file-20181107-74754-12ab43y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=928&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244231/original/file-20181107-74754-12ab43y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=928&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Archbishop Daniel Mannix.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Museum of Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/the_home_front/stories/daniel_mannix">Archbishop Daniel Mannix</a> was a leader in the Catholic Church in Melbourne. He took a strong stand against conscription, adding that the war was “just an ordinary trade war” driven by trade jealousy. <a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/19131099?q&sort=holdings+desc&_=1541560777283&versionId=32066188">Conscription, he maintained</a>, would simply reinforce “class versus class” social injustices.</p>
<p>Remember, too, that the British had, in April 1916, put down with force the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-caused-irelands-easter-rising-57159">Easter Rising in Ireland</a>. Almost 2,000 Irish were sent to internment camps. Most of the leaders of the Rising were executed in May 1916. Mannix was Irish-born.</p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.slq.qld.gov.au/ww1/2014/07/14/margaret-thorp/">Margaret Thorp</a>, a Quaker, was another strong voice in opposition to the war, and critical of the support for the war by the mainstream churches. A member of the Anti-Military Service League, she later joined others to inaugurate a branch of the Women’s Peace Army in Australia and, later, a branch of the Sisterhood of International Peace that supported the international No-Conscription Fellowship.</p>
<p>On October 28, 1916, Prime Minister Hughes put the conscription ballot to the vote. <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs161.aspx">It was defeated</a> by a margin of 3%.</p>
<p>The following year, Britain sought a sixth Australian division for active service. Australia had to provide 7,000 men per month to meet this request. But voluntary recruitment continued to lag behind requirements. On December 20, 1917, Hughes put a second conscription ballot to the people. It, too, was defeated, this time by a larger margin (7%). The war continued to the Armistice with volunteers only.</p>
<p>By the end of the war, <a href="https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwar/first-world-war">over 215,000</a> Australians had been killed, wounded or gassed. Only one out of every three Australian men who were sent abroad arrived home physically unscathed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244248/original/file-20181107-74772-7lri2j.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244248/original/file-20181107-74772-7lri2j.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244248/original/file-20181107-74772-7lri2j.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244248/original/file-20181107-74772-7lri2j.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244248/original/file-20181107-74772-7lri2j.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244248/original/file-20181107-74772-7lri2j.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244248/original/file-20181107-74772-7lri2j.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An anti-conscription poster.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Parliament of Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During the 20th century, Australian law developed a variety of positions on conscientious objection. Such status today relies on an applicant meeting the requirements of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004C03463">Defence Act 1903</a> as amended in 1939. Conscientious objectors need not have deeply held religious beliefs. But they must be able to ground their objection in moral beliefs, and be able to articulate them.</p>
<p>People who were not able to be officially recognised as conscientious objectors in Australia during the first world war were prosecuted when they failed to register. While historical records are impossible to collate accurately on this subject, some 27,749 prosecutions <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1490892">had been launched across the country</a> by June 30, 1915. Stories of the tragic social consequences for these men, and for conscientious objectors, are legion. Objectors particularly were often maligned as cowards and self-seekers. But the historical records illustrate that theirs was not an easy path. They did not lack courage. In many respects, the choices made by conscientious objectors required a greater determination and certainty of belief than was needed by the men who enlisted voluntarily.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/only-the-conscription-referendums-made-australias-great-war-experience-different-49876">Only the conscription referendums made Australia's Great War experience different</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There is a permanent memorial for conscientious objectors in <a href="http://www.for.org.uk/2018/08/10/co-stone-2/">Tavistock Square</a>, London, and one is planned for Edinburgh, Scotland. There is a tribute at the National World War I Museum and Memorial in Kansas City for the pacifists <a href="http://www.hutterites.org/history/world-war-1/">Joseph and Michael Hofer</a>, who died in Leavenworth Prison in 1918 while incarcerated for refusing military service.</p>
<p>It is regrettable that Australia has no public memorial to our forebears who campaigned against compulsory military service, and the war itself, for reasons of conscience and faith. As we commemorate the centenary of the Armistice, there is no better time to remedy that oversight.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106169/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rick Sarre receives funding from the Criminology Research Council. He is affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. </span></em></p>It’s time the Australians who voiced vociferous opposition to war in general and conscription in particular were commemorated as an important part of our history.Rick Sarre, Adjunct Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/851712017-11-09T19:21:43Z2017-11-09T19:21:43ZHow the ‘Warwick egg incident’ of 1917 exemplified an Australian nation divided<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193681/original/file-20171108-6753-1eq8mv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Billy Hughes worked hard to quash rebellion over conscription during the first world war.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://primeministers.moadoph.gov.au/">Australian Prime Ministers</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In an era of centenaries associated with the first world war, one that might slip under the radar is the Warwick egg incident.</p>
<p>The Warwick egg incident of November 29, 1917, occurred during the second conscription referendum campaign. Two Australians of Irish descent, Pat and Bart Brosnan, threw eggs at the prime minister, Billy Hughes, whose train had stopped at Warwick in Queensland’s Darling Downs. Hughes was there to speak in support of conscription at a meeting on the railway platform.</p>
<p>One egg hit the prime minister’s hat, starting a fight as Hughes’s supporters laid into the assailants, who were removed from the station. After order was restored, Hughes began his speech. But Pat had returned and started interjecting. Hughes jumped off the platform and into the crowd shouting: “Arrest that man!” </p>
<p>Pat was again removed. Later he would claim he threw the egg because <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/205423116/19723399">he did not want to be conscripted</a>.</p>
<p>Although many incidents of political violence occurred during the conscription campaigns – meetings were disrupted and speakers attacked – this event stands out for three reasons. First, it involved an assault on the prime minister of Australia. Second, it led to the establishment of the Commonwealth police force – later the Australian Federal Police. More significantly, it was symptomatic of the deep divisions in Australian society, exacerbated by the hard-fought political campaign over conscription: Irish Australians versus British Australians; Catholics versus Protestants; labour versus capital; empire loyalists versus Australia-first nationalists; the Queensland government versus the federal government.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191261/original/file-20171022-14009-17vooqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191261/original/file-20171022-14009-17vooqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=832&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191261/original/file-20171022-14009-17vooqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=832&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191261/original/file-20171022-14009-17vooqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=832&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191261/original/file-20171022-14009-17vooqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1046&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191261/original/file-20171022-14009-17vooqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1046&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191261/original/file-20171022-14009-17vooqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1046&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A cartoon of the Warwick egg incident of 1917.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author supplied</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is difficult to comprehend the depth of those divisions today, particularly those along ethno-religious lines. Sectarianism, in the sense of the conflict between Protestants, then mostly of British descent, and Catholics, then almost exclusively of Irish descent, was a significant factor in social and political discourse in early 20th-century Australia.</p>
<p>When war broke out in August 1914, such differences were put aside, as Protestants and Catholics joined together in support of the war effort. But the uneasy truce was shattered during Easter week 1916, when Irish rebels <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/27/peace-easter-rising-centenary-dublin-gpo-honours-irish-rebels">seized the GPO in Dublin</a>.</p>
<p>At first, Australian Catholics deplored the rising. But when the British military declared martial law and began executing the rebel leaders and interning thousands of Irish men and women, Catholics began to criticise the British government, provoking a Protestant backlash.</p>
<p>The sectarian divide widened following the first conscription referendum in October 1916. Prime Minister Hughes and the mainly Protestant empire loyalists blamed the “disloyal” Irish Catholics for the referendum’s defeat.</p>
<p>Class divisions also emerged over conscription, as living standards declined as a result of wartime austerity. The failure of Labor governments to meet workers’ expectations led to industrial disputes that rose to levels not seen before or since.</p>
<p>Tensions rose during 1917, with the belligerent, Irish-born Melbourne Archbishop <a href="http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/the_home_front/stories/daniel_mannix">Daniel Mannix</a> criticising the war as an “ordinary trade war”. He engaged in a public slanging match with the prime minister, arguing that Australia had done enough, and that if Britain ended its occupation of Ireland it would not need Australian conscripts.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/only-the-conscription-referendums-made-australias-great-war-experience-different-49876">Only the conscription referendums made Australia's Great War experience different</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Another outspoken critic of the federal government’s war policy was the Labor premier of Queensland, Thomas Joseph Ryan, an Australian Catholic of Irish descent. Desperate to censor Ryan’s anti-conscription rhetoric, Hughes <a href="http://twistedhistory.net.au/wordpress/2016/11/26/government-printing-office-raided/">raided the Queensland Government Printing Office</a> to seize copies of Hansard containing parliamentary speeches opposed to conscription.</p>
<p>To Hughes, the perceived influence of the Irish in Australia was alarming. In August 1917, <a href="https://jeffkildea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Paranoia-or-Prejudice.pdf">he told the British prime minister, Lloyd George</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Irish question is at the bottom of all our difficulties in Australia. They — the Irish — have captured the political machinery of the Labor organisations — assisted by syndicalists and I.W.W. [Industrial Workers of the World] people. The Church is secretly against recruiting. Its influence killed conscription.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(The Industrial Workers of the World was a revolutionary left-wing union-based organisation.) </p>
<p>Speaking of the general strike then taking place in NSW, Hughes added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… [T]he I.W.W. and the Irish are mainly responsible for the trouble. In a sense it is political rather than industrial. … [T]hey are now trying to take the reins of Govt out of our hands.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It was against this background that Hughes found himself in Warwick, on his way back to Sydney, following the raid on the Queensland Government Printing Office. His worst fears were confirmed when a Queensland police officer, Senior Sergeant Henry Kenny, a Catholic of Irish descent, refused to arrest the egg throwers for breaching Commonwealth law, saying he answered to the Queensland government only.</p>
<p>This led Hughes to draft a regulation establishing the Commonwealth police force. In advising the governor-general on the regulation, <a href="https://jeffkildea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Paranoia-or-Prejudice.pdf">Hughes wrote</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This will apply to Queensland where present position is one of latent rebellion. Police is honeycombed with Sinn Feiners and I.W.W … [T]here are towns in North Queensland where the Law … is openly ignored and I.W.W. and Sinn Féin run the show.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While in November 2017 we will rightly commemorate the centenary of the end of the <a href="https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/E104/">Third Battle of Ypres</a> (Passchendaele), in which the Australian Imperial Force suffered more than 38,000 casualties, the centenary of the Warwick egg incident is a timely reminder of the “war” on the home front. It was arguably the most divisive period in the nation’s history.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85171/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeff Kildea does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A little-known incident 100 years ago reminds us that Australia at the time was riven by class, religious and political divisions.Jeff Kildea, Adjunct Professor Irish Studies, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/729682017-03-14T19:13:54Z2017-03-14T19:13:54ZExplainer: why are donations to some charities tax-deductible?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160105/original/image-20170309-21047-1tidnuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Only about one-third of all registered charities are eligible for tax-deductible donations.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It costs Australians around <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/%7E/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2016/Tax%20Expenditures%20Statement%202015/Downloads/PDF/2015_TES.ashx">A$1.3 billion per year</a> to subsidise donations to charities, not-for-profits, and certain government bodies like public hospitals. This doesn’t take into account corporate gifts and sponsorships, which is estimated to increase the amount to $5 billion.</p>
<p>Some people may legitimately ask whether this is a good use of taxpayers’ money. So, what are the arguments for and against? And where did the tax-deductibility of donations come from?</p>
<h2>Why are donations tax-deductible?</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1915/19150901_reps_6_78/#debate-27">initial rationale</a> for making donations tax-deductible was that wealthy politicians thought it would encourage their friends to donate to worthy causes.</p>
<p>In 1915, the federal government enacted the first national <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/itaa1915341915267/">Income Tax Assessment Act</a> to raise funds for the war effort, and to deal with the economic difficulties arising from Australia’s participation in the war. </p>
<p>This law exempted from tax the income of religious, scientific, charitable or public educational institutions. It also granted a deduction for gifts exceeding 20 pounds to “public charitable institutions”. Twenty pounds roughly equates to $2,872 in today’s terms – so it was a relatively large amount.</p>
<p>During the <a href="http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1915/19150901_reps_6_78/#debate-27">parliamentary debates</a>, Attorney-General Billy Hughes expressed concern about the breadth of such a concession. The debates emphasised protection of the revenue, and indicated that a possible solution was to ensure a relatively high threshold for the deduction. They also highlighted the view that a deduction would motivate greater donations. </p>
<p>There was no articulation of real policy analysis or evaluation. But it does seem clear that donations to the traditional class of charities – poverty relief and assistance to the sick – were intended to gain the benefit of the concession.</p>
<p>The issue was <a href="http://www.bloomsbury.com/au/studies-in-the-history-of-tax-law-volume-5-9781849462242/">debated again in 1918</a>. The range of arguments then included that:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the 20-pound threshold discriminated against poorer donors;</p></li>
<li><p>removing the threshold would be too large a cost to revenue; and </p></li>
<li><p>the war had diverted money to patriotic funds, and therefore charities had suffered. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Others argued the provision did not motivate donations at all and should be abolished.</p>
<p>Around this time, the US introduced an income-tax deduction for gifts to charities. Australians <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/1662208?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FA%2Ftitle%2F13%2F1918%2F05%2F28%2Fpage%2F400133%2Farticle%2F1662208">used this development</a> as a lever to successfully argue in favour of keeping the deduction.</p>
<p>The US argument was also that of motivating wealthy people to donate to charity. Again, politicians there did not produce any evidence that the deduction actually motivated anyone to donate.</p>
<p>Although there was further strong opposition to the deduction provision over the years, it continued. In 1927, the legislation <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/itaa1927321927267/">was amended</a> to limit the range of eligible recipients. It was also changed to reduce the threshold for the deduction to two pounds which, with the advent of decimal currency, was reduced to $2. </p>
<p>Today the deduction continues, but eligible gifts <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/itaa1997240/">are restricted</a> to a range of not-for-profit entities. Just because an organisation is a charity does not mean that donations to it are tax-deductible.</p>
<p>The breadth of recipients is wide, and the criteria for eligibility are complex. There are <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/itaa1997240/">more than 40 categories</a> of eligible organisations.</p>
<h2>Arguments for tax deductibility</h2>
<p>The main argument for tax-deductibility of donations is that it is a form of government assistance or subsidy for what are considered publicly beneficial causes. If the tax concessions were not available, society may not benefit from high levels of assistance for worthy causes.</p>
<p>Another strong argument is that it is a form of subsidy or payment for the delivery of goods and services that are of public benefit, such as medical services provided by not-for-profit hospitals. The hospital saves the government from paying for similar activities. </p>
<p>A third argument is that indirect support mechanisms, such as tax-deductibility of donations, facilitates choice. So, taxpayers can direct a certain proportion of their tax to causes they choose, rather than the government determining how it should be spent. Some counter, though, that many may choose charities that are more appealing or popular, like the arts.</p>
<p>Tax deductibility of donations can also be used to support private donations to politically sensitive causes that many consider provide a public benefit. This includes protecting refugees or the environment, or aid to Indigenous Australians.</p>
<p>Tax deductibility of donations is seen as promoting the ideal of redistributive justice. People who can afford to donate money should be encouraged to do this. </p>
<h2>Arguments for limiting tax deductibility</h2>
<p>There are also arguments for limiting the tax deduction for gifts to certain not-for-profits.</p>
<p>First, tax concessions for one group in the Australian community may place a larger tax burden on others. This is particularly so if a specific amount of money must be collected. If, however, the tax concession is in effect payment for the delivery of goods and services that are of public benefit, then it may be that there is no shift in the tax burden. </p>
<p>It may also be argued that the goods and services can be provided more cheaply than might otherwise be the case due to many charities using volunteer labour and donated materials.</p>
<p>Second, taxpayers who are earning higher incomes and therefore on a higher marginal tax rate (the highest for 2015-16 is 45 cents for every dollar over $180,000 plus a 2% Medicare levy), will gain a greater tax concession for donating to a charity than those on a lower marginal tax rate. </p>
<p>For example, a taxpayer who earned $200,000 in assessable income in 2015-16 and donates $1,000 is in effect out of pocket $530 ($1,000 minus $470). A taxpayer who earns $16,000 (and is therefore below the tax-free threshold of $18,200) who makes the same donation is out of pocket $1,000.</p>
<h2>Time for change?</h2>
<p>Only about one-third of all registered charities <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Publications/Reports/CharityReport2015.aspx">are eligible</a> for tax-deductible donations.</p>
<p>The current system of determining which organisations can receive tax-deductible donations and which cannot is overly complex and ad hoc. Some groups gain tax-deductibility through lobbying MPs.</p>
<p>A federal government working party <a href="https://www.treasury.gov.au/%7E/media/Treasury/Access%20to%20Information/Disclosure%20Log/2014/1447/Downloads/PDF/NFP%20Sector%20WG%20Final%20Report.ashx">recommended in 2013</a> that all charities be granted tax-deductible status. But, so far, the government has been silent on this issue.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>You can catch up on other pieces in our Charities in Australia series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/charities-in-australia-36414">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72968/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Fiona Anne Martin receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The current system of determining which organisations can receive tax-deductible donations and which cannot is overly complex and ad hoc.Fiona Anne Martin, Associate Professor, School of Taxation and Business Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/464582015-08-25T01:12:15Z2015-08-25T01:12:15ZPlaying the race card in the China trade deal debate<p>It’s not often these days that <a href="http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/hughes/in-office.aspx">Billy Hughes</a> gets a guernsey in political debate. But there was a time when this prime minister (1916-1923) was considered a national <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Equality_Proposal">hero in 1919</a> for his defence of the White Australia policy against the US and Japan.</p>
<p>These days Hughes is a national embarrassment for this same stance. Times change and Australia changes, and so does the nature of our political debate.</p>
<p>We can understand this by exploring Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s accusation last week that Labor was “channelling” Hughes and that notorious racial policy. According to Abbott, the opposition was <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-accuses-labor-of-peddling--racist-lies-on-free-trade-agreement-20150820-gj3yvo.html">peddling</a> a “racist lie” that the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-17/australia-and-china-sign-free-trade-agreement/6552940">free trade agreement</a> (FTA) with China would allow corporations from that country to replace Australian workers with Chinese workers. Abbott continued:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We know that the Labor Party played the race card prior to the NSW election and now it’s happening again.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gyrDGjWZ4Dg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Tony Abbott accuses Labor of channelling Billy Hughes and the White Australia policy.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I’m not asking you to agree or disagree with his assertion. There are issues to be resolved around <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-could-the-china-australia-fta-lock-out-australian-workers-43470">labour market testing</a> in the FTA and around foreign state-owned corporations <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-we-should-be-talking-about-chinese-interest-in-the-transgrid-sale-20150819-gj3boc">owning</a> critical infrastructure.</p>
<p>Rather, I want to look at how we discuss race now compared to our past and how a speaker uses the available means of persuasion with an audience of a particular time and place. That has been known as the study of rhetoric for the last 2500 years.</p>
<h2>Racism was once a political positive</h2>
<p>Abbott’s indictment would not have worked during Hughes’ time. To call someone a racist would have elicited, in effect, the response “Yes, and your point is?” On that score, shame was the furthest thing from our ancestors’ minds.</p>
<p>Instead, <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=yTKFBXfCI1QC&pg=PA46&dq=the+australian+people+an+encyclopedia+eugenics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAGoVChMIxpivibHAxwIVoeKmCh1wkQma#v=onepage&q=the%20australian%20people%20an%20encyclopedia%20eugenics&f=false">eugenics</a> girded the thinking behind the White Australia policy as one of the first acts of parliament in 1901. This rubbish pseudoscience placed races in a hierarchy of significance with the Anglo-Saxon race on top of an array of “lesser” races stretching all the way to so-called “Hindoos”, Chinese and other “Asiatics”. At the very bottom were Aboriginals. </p>
<p>Somewhere in between were Italians and Greeks. Although European, they were considered barely white because of their olive skin and were <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=yBTMi_XXCgYC&pg=PA71&dq=greasy+flood+of+the+mediterranean&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMIyq2JrLHAxwIVYuemCh2vOwfm#v=onepage&q=greasy%20flood%20of%20the%20mediterranean&f=false">referred</a> to as “the greasy flood of the Mediterranean scum that seeks to defile and debase Australia”.</p>
<p>This jumble of beliefs justified the “natural” superiority of the empire of the so-called British race to its beneficiaries. Newspapers of the 1920s were awash with exhortations to maintain <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/21087949?searchTerm=%22white%20supremacy%22&searchLimits=requestHandler=%2FtextSearch%7C%7C%7Cl-decade=192">“white supremacy”</a>. Parliamentary debate of 1901 aired <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Search?ind=0&st=1&sr=0&q=intermingling+mongrel+breed&expand=True&drvH=0&drt=2&pnu=1&pnuH=1&f=09%2F05%2F1901&to=01%2F03%2F1904&pi=0&pv=&chi=2&coi=0&ps=10">disdain</a> for the “intermingling” of races that may create a “mongrel breed”.</p>
<p>This is an alien world of thought, which was rightfully kicked into the dustbin of history by numerous events between the second world war, when the Nazis elaborated a horrific form of eugenics, and the 1970s, when an eruption of social movements and actions of governments permanently changed our political landscape.</p>
<p>I am not so naïve to think this upheaval banished racism from our midst. Rather, it transformed the nature of public debate. Our language reflects our post-1960s world and demonstrates why Abbott’s line of attack was literally inconceivable for Australians living in the first half of the 20th century.</p>
<p>As most people believe anti-racism is good and racism is bad, these beliefs were elevated into the rank of social values suitable for the cut and thrust of public debate. That is, in line with one of the basics of rhetoric, a speaker must appeal to what is commonly believed and treasured by an audience in order to win it over. So “racist” joined fascist, communist and Nazi as socially abhorrent things.</p>
<p>Once elevated, the terms are widely applied to numerous people and events. Whether this is valid or not is part of further debate and is in accordance with the judgements of people. But here I must spell out the political connections to those judgements.</p>
<h2>Adversarial politics goes over the top</h2>
<p>We have had an adversarial political system since the 19th century, which has had two increasing effects on our language as the institutions and franchise developed. First, politicians and pundits have sought to mobilise voters behind parties and causes. Second, they have sought to warn voters of the consequences of a wrong choice.</p>
<p>At times this system has been a continual stimulant of hyperbolic and exaggerated language, including <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/23/1093246439313.html?from=storylhs">character assassination</a> of others with “fascist” and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-nazi-taunt-backfires-sparking-questions-over-his-judgment-20150319-1m3ahp.html">Nazi</a> references.</p>
<p>In the early 19th century “Jacobin” was an insult in <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=jacobin&l-decade=182">Australia</a> and in <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=HN5hzTRJAooC&pg=PA34&dq=robertson+language+of+democracy+jacobin&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMItZb6hsDAxwIVpJ6mCh14xwOq#v=onepage&q=robertson%20language%20of%20democracy%20jacobin&f=false">Britain and America</a>. After the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, it had the insinuations of a revolutionary overthrowing the established order, much like communist did a century and more later. </p>
<p>It must be said, however, that “communist” has lost its potency due to historical changes affecting language usage, and that is also why we don’t use Jacobin anymore.</p>
<p>Given our adversarial political system and the importance that we assign to our beliefs, Abbott’s attempt to corner Labor with the accusation of racism was not surprising.</p>
<p>What was more disappointing, however, was the failure of journalists to critically analyse rather than just report this attack. They seemed to lack knowledge of our political history since 1901 to compare and contrast the situations.</p>
<p>But I’ve noticed this before. For years Abbott pursued the self-interested charge against Julia Gillard that minority governments were unstable. Journalists replayed this line without realising the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/a-political-history-of-leadership-chaos/6073558">first eight years</a> of federation (and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-westminster-can-learn-from-minority-government-in-australia-41239">last 30 years</a> in at least one house of federal parliament) and <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/1011/HungParliaments#_Toc320017743">large slabs</a> of more recent state history featured minority governments. </p>
<p>Journalists have also never critically examined the Coalition claim that, in opposition, John Howard helped the Hawke and Keating governments with their reforms. <a href="http://www.afr.com/opinion/columns/paul-keating-i-didnt-need-the-liberals-help-to-change-australia-20150817-gj0tx2">Paul Keating</a> partially belled that cat, although more can be said about the <a href="https://theconversation.com/identity-crisis-who-does-the-australian-labor-party-represent-25374">role of government</a> in advancing reform.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46458/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Rolfe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Charges of racism against Labor for querying aspects of the free trade deal with China are a mark of how much Australian attitudes have changed and how adversarial politics fuels hyperbolic attacks.Mark Rolfe, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/405652015-04-23T02:58:50Z2015-04-23T02:58:50ZAnzac Day is also about the right to democratic dissent and those who fought for it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78789/original/image-20150421-9032-h51rw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C20%2C600%2C386&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Activists trying to bring attention to the issue of rape in war were arrested for protesting at Anzac Day services in the 1980s.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ACT Heritage Library</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In response to foiled plans for a terrorist attack at an Anzac Day commemoration service, Prime Minister Tony Abbott <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/20/uk-police-arrest-14-year-old-boy-over-links-to-alleged-anzac-day-attack-plan">said</a> that interfering with such an event is “utterly alien to Australians”.</p>
<p>But Abbott is wrong. While any attack resulting in deaths would be reprehensible, and quite different to interruptions to services in the past, interfering with an Anzac Day service has been a very Australian way of drawing public attention to an issue. </p>
<h2>Protests against abuses in war</h2>
<p>In the 1960s and 1970s, anti-Vietnam War protests were <a href="https://books.google.co.za/books?id=dGJkUQxieygC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=anzac+day+protest+australia+vietnam&source=bl&ots=nFAeFhytFE&sig=9HqOz7xW26P3uuPTY648n9uQZlc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Whc2VdDuKMiy7QbDoICwDQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=anzac%20day%20protest%20australia%20vietnam&f=false">common</a> at Anzac Day events.</p>
<p>On <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=mVHA9YVC6GQC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=anzac+day+protest+rape+1982+australia+vietnam&source=bl&ots=9An9k4bsL9&sig=8TB1LLPmJjEhxFgAkVMlXjmhsRw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4RE3VfvWGcPWmAXylIAo&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=anzac%20day%20protest%20rape%201982%20australia%20vietnam&f=false">Anzac Day 1982</a>, 750 women stood on the hill overlooking the War Memorial in Canberra during the official wreath laying. They held a large banner, which read:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In memory of all women of all countries raped in all wars. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This important action drew attention to the gender-specific effects of war long before the UN Security Council adopted <a href="http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/wps/">Resolution 1325</a> on Women, Peace and Security.</p>
<p>The then minister for the capital territory, Michael Hodgman, had tried to prevent the raising of this kind of issue on Anzac Day for the two previous years. On Anzac Day 1981, 65 women were <a href="https://books.google.co.za/books?id=ZWaDjVPUjXoC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=1980+anzac+day+canberra+arrest&source=bl&ots=rBEcown8Yz&sig=0ysCchmGPmFIdqiNDCpkLwBEZIY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-Rk2VZr8Aeq17gbVhoDYCA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=1980%20anzac%20day%20canberra%20arrest&f=false">arrested</a> for trying to join the march to recognise women raped in war.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78784/original/image-20150421-9012-167zv75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78784/original/image-20150421-9012-167zv75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78784/original/image-20150421-9012-167zv75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78784/original/image-20150421-9012-167zv75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78784/original/image-20150421-9012-167zv75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78784/original/image-20150421-9012-167zv75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1196&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78784/original/image-20150421-9012-167zv75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1196&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78784/original/image-20150421-9012-167zv75.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1196&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Michael Hodgman tried to prevent protests from taking place at Anzac Day services.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Two days prior, Hodgman had <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F1981-04-28%2F0093%22">gazetted</a> an ordinance making it an offence to engage in conduct “likely to give offence or cause insult to” persons taking part in an Anzac Day parade. He <a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19810512&id=ETRVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w5QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1788,5789334&hl=en">claimed</a> to have information that representatives of Marxist and lesbian groups would attempt to sabotage the Anzac ceremony. </p>
<p>In 1982, Hodgman produced a <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/num_ord/pao1982225.pdf">further ordinance</a> intended to stop the women.</p>
<p>These repressive ordinances helped galvanise a much larger number of organisations concerned with civil liberties and freedom of assembly, including the Labor opposition. They ensured nationwide media coverage for the women’s actions. </p>
<p>There was widespread controversy over whether dissenting voices had the right to participate in a national ceremony or whether such ceremonies should be limited to honouring the fallen.</p>
<p>As the centenary of the Gallipoli landing approaches, memories of such dissenting actions seems to have disappeared from public consciousness. This is despite the <a href="http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/349358/news/nation/australia-calls-on-asean-to-play-greater-role-in-resolving-wps-disputes">priority</a> that Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop has been giving to the issue of sexual violence during armed conflict.</p>
<h2>Protests against conscription</h2>
<p>Yet if Gallipoli was about <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-great-war-shaped-the-foundations-of-australias-future-38860">defining</a> the nation, shouldn’t Australians be celebrating the value of democratic dissent? A team of social scientists has been preparing to mark the centenary next year of the <a href="http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs161.aspx">first conscription referendum</a>, a truly distinctive democratic event. </p>
<p>Australia was not only a nation that voted itself into existence in the referendums of the 1890s. It was also the only country in the first world war to provide the opportunity to vote on the issue of conscription.</p>
<p>Despite the censorship and restrictions under the <a href="http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C1914A00010">War Precautions Act</a>, the 1916 conscription referendum was a sufficiently democratic exercise for the result to be an unexpected win for the “no” vote. The “no” vote was even stronger in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_plebiscite,_1917">1917 referendum</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78782/original/image-20150421-9021-w022yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78782/original/image-20150421-9021-w022yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78782/original/image-20150421-9021-w022yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78782/original/image-20150421-9021-w022yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78782/original/image-20150421-9021-w022yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=695&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78782/original/image-20150421-9021-w022yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=874&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78782/original/image-20150421-9021-w022yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=874&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78782/original/image-20150421-9021-w022yv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=874&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">James O'Loghlin, the only senator to see active service in WWI, opposed conscription.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">NLA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the arguments against conscription was that it represented the kind of militarism that the Allies were fighting against. As a result, it was the antithesis of the “British liberties” central to Australian democracy. This argument was reinforced by the increasingly authoritarian behaviour of the prime minister, Billy Hughes, arrests under the War Precautions Act and the breaking up of public meetings by uniformed soldiers.</p>
<p>Anti-conscriptionists were able to pre-empt accusations of disloyalty to Britain by arguing they were defending British liberties against “Prussianism”. James O’Loghlin was the <a href="http://biography.senate.gov.au/index.php/james-vincent-ologhlin/">only senator to be on active service</a> overseas during the first world war. On his return to the Senate in 1917 he was expected to support conscription. Instead, he <a href="http://labouraustralia.anu.edu.au/biography/ologhlin-james-vincent-7905">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am opposed to Kaiserism, whether that Kaiserism comes from Billy Hughes or William Hohenzollern.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The conscription referendums are often remembered for leaving a legacy of political bitterness and division. But perhaps we should also remember them, like the dissent events around Anzac Day, as embodying the value of democratic conflict – perhaps the central democratic value.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40565/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marian Sawer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Protests on Anzac Day, rather than being ‘utterly alien to Australians’, have a long tradition and embody the democratic right to dissent for which the troops fought.Marian Sawer, Emeritus Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.