This bull's absurd consequences include preventing the acceptance of international donations, from organisations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, if that money goes towards advocacy. Buy all the medical-imaging machines you like but don't try to persuade governments to buy those machines in the first place. And definitely don't criticise the Australian government's position on foreign aid. Even Philanthropy Australia is bemused. It said: "We want to see more and better philanthropy in Australia, and that means welcoming rather than restricting international philanthropy. That's why this legislation is so concerning, because it cuts Australian charities off from an important funding source for their advocacy activities." Gates funding would be welcome when it supports research but knocked back when it funds non-partisan issues-based advocacy by Australian charities. The government is pretending this is about Chinese influence. I'm guessing it's mainly focussed on stopping any funding flowing to environmental organisations as they try to stop policies from destroying the climate. But the end result will prevent good organisations from speaking out on behalf of the poor, the sick, those with a disability and those who suffer from the effects of climate change. That's everyone. The government is making it as hard as possible to advocate work that saves lives. Here's an example. The Pew Charitable Trusts funded the Ngadju people of southern Western Australia to manage their lands. Its money delivered employment programs and conservation benefits. And the Nagadju people were able to do that by advocating their cause, a process that would be highly limited if this bill passes.

Pew says the bill would "lead to a poorer understanding within government of regional and remote priorities, and a lower capacity for Ngadju to build relationships". As if any governments could possibly do any worse with Indigenous people than they now do. The Coalition tried this once before under John Howard, who tried to remove the ability of charities to advocate. As a result, the Tax Office stripped AidWatch, a tiny not-for-profit, of its tax-deductible status. Charities, Howard said, should stick to soup kitchens and seedlings. Only big business should have the power to lobby. OK, he didn't actually articulate that – but that would have been the outcome until the High Court stepped in and put him back in his box. Yes, it was OK for AidWatch to speak out on foreign aid because "the generation, by lawful means, of public debate ... concerning the efficiency of foreign aid directed to the relief of poverty, itself is a purpose beneficial to the community". John Howard also tried to remove the ability of charities to advocate. Advocacy benefits the community. This government is trying a sneaky on us. If your charity of choice spends more than $100,000 over four years speaking out – advocating – on politics (and I have no idea what isn't politics), it will be punished.

Meanwhile, "big money" will be able to buy whatever influence it can and promote that cause day in, day out. Which it does. Big money corrupts our energy policy. It allows the sacrifice of our once Great Barrier Reef. It promotes the best drugs for profit instead of the best and most cost-effective drugs for consumers. This bill may limit any charity's ability to spend international money for a political purpose. Charities will be unable to tell you which party is more likely to entrench poverty, destroy the environment, protect workers, save refugees from banishment or shore up the interests of the richest. No wonder the Liberal Party wants to rush this through when we can't possibly be paying any attention. No wonder they introduced this on December 7, the day we were dazzled by rainbows. No wonder it wants to constrain public expression by any means on issues likely to come before electors in an election – no matter where we are in the election cycle. The chief executive of Women with Disabilities Australia, Carolyn Frohmader, whose organisation accepts money from the Global Fund for Women, says the changes could wreak havoc. Yet the charity has been extraordinarily successful in getting governments to change policy and legislation. Women with Disabilities' work helped ensure that allied health professionals could be incorporated into the national disability insurance scheme. Its work with other disability advocacy groups also contributed to an NDIS quality and safeguards commission. "Our role is to critique social policy and any health democracy should be open to that," she says. "Who else is going to stand up for women and girls with disability?"

The chief executive of the St Vincent Paul Society's national council, John Falzon, is equally appalled. "We are opposed to anything which is going to stifle advocacy from civil society organisations. Our position over the years has been that robust civil society helps create a strong democracy and civil society voices are absolutely essential ... Without advocacy, those voices would be left unheard and even silenced." Speak up for those who can't speak for themselves. Tell your local member that the government needs to stop those who harm our country. That's more likely to be a corporate giant like Adani than Women With Disabilities. Jenna Price is a Fairfax columnist and an academic at the University of Technology Sydney. Twitter: @JennaPrice Facebook: JennaPriceJournalist