Language, like life, is ever-changing. New words emerge, old meanings shift, and familiar terms take on new life when presented in new circumstances.
Take the word ‘text’, for example. Once used to refer to a book or written passage, it now more commonly describes a message sent via mobile phone.
This evolution isn’t just linguistic—it reflects changes in society.
Similarly, how laws are interpreted can change over time as well. Law adapts and evolves to reflect the needs and values of the community. One of the ways this happens is when a court highlights an issue with how laws operate in practice.
That’s why we’ve recently updated our Commissioner’s Interpretation Statement on Public Benevolent Institutions (PBIs).
After extensive consultation and analysis, this refreshed guidance continues to recognise that the definition of a Public Benevolent Institution is not fixed and will change over time.
It’s evolving and shaped by how charities respond to need—and how society defines benevolence.
Interestingly, the term Public Benevolent Institution isn’t defined by legislation, which makes our interpretation especially important. Frankly, it’s quite tricky to pin down and there will always be grey areas – we look at each application on its particular facts and take a holistic view of the circumstances.
Historically, benevolent relief was often delivered through direct aid —think soup kitchens, clothing drives, or the distribution of food parcels.
But for some time now, charities have been broadening their approach.
Benevolent relief still includes direct aid, but increasingly encompasses other activities such as advocacy, education and systemic reform. We are seeing instances of charities working together and using innovative (and sometimes more indirect and preventative) methods to address disadvantage.
Some PBIs might be working with communities ‘at-risk’ of experiencing benevolent need. For example, this could be an organisation addressing youth homelessness through early intervention programs supporting young people to build resilience, wellbeing and complete their schooling.
Similarly, a PBI might invest in or provide capacity building support to organisations that are led by people with experience of disadvantage and who understand what works in their community. Capacity building approaches like this can be an effective way to strengthen an organisation’s ability to deliver benevolent relief and achieve its mission.
Our updated statement recognises this shift within the parameters of the law we have.
It considers how charities may deliver benevolent relief collaboratively or through programs that tackle root causes, not just immediate needs.
The language in our statement has also been updated, to better reflect modern terms because we understand that people living with a particular medical condition don’t want to be called ‘sufferers’, for example.
Guidance for the ACNC on PBIs comes from case law, much of which is quite old, with limited direction from senior Australian courts. In 2024 the Full Federal Court issued its decision in Equality Australia Ltd, and our updated Commissioner’s Interpretation Statement published recently, takes that decision into account.
We hope that through this updated Statement, would-be applicants can more accurately assess if they are likely to be eligible to be registered under this charity subtype and it will also assist those who provide professional advice to charities.
It includes some examples of how we will apply the Statement in practice and incorporates feedback from sector and adviser consultations on this topic.
Thank you to everyone who provided input during the consultation process.
Sector feedback is a key component of what we do at the ACNC. Other key issues that we’ve consulted on in the last year include our template constitution for companies limited by guarantee, and our guidance on advocacy.
We have a range of processes in place to support engagement with charities, and we continue to see the impact of this consultation reflected in our work.
In the last financial year, we conducted 58 meetings or forums that involved charities, sector representatives or peak bodies. We also convened a specific forum with the non-government school sector to better understand their operating environment, including risks and issues.
Meeting with, and hearing from the sector, all helps us to understand the real-world challenges and opportunities charities face, as well as the impact of our work.
To return to my earlier theme of evolution: language, law, and the lived experience of how charities deliver on their purpose are all dynamic. We’ll continue to listen, learn, and adapt—because benevolence, like language, is shaped by the society it serves.
Warm regards,
Sue Woodward AM