That's politicians for you! Subsidize the rotters who would undermine the people who provide Australia's wealth, and cover the expense by putting up taxes.

Never mind that the much more powerful and influential dig it up and chop everything down as fast you can "charity", or more correctly propaganda factory, namely the IPA is also a registered "charity".

Which enables those who "donate" to it to claim their donations as a tax deduction. This probably includes the "donations" of powerful businesses and business groups too.

Which is also to say that the ordinary taxpayer is also funding and thus paying the salaries of the outfit that drafted much of the privatization (and much more) agenda(s) of the Abbott government, and probably the various Liberal party state governments too.
As far as I can make out Malcolm Turnbull has uncoupled his government from this nexus.

I reject vehemently religion and all it stands for. Does that mean religions should be taxed as well?

1. On the one hand a conservation charity feels all good, warm and fuzzy for doing "something about the environment". Such "charities" being populated by upper-middle class "bright young things" who aren't looking for mining-energy jobs.

2. On the other hand big mining and energy gets political decisions, tax right-offs, state and federal subsidies, now no Resources Tax and is big enough to exploit tax loopholes and send profits offshore.

Who is right?

ttbn, correct & the tip of an iceberg, there are 15 local charities for the homeless in my suburb. What are they all doing? are they competing with each other? are they duplicating services?

Daffy Duck, thank you for proving the point of the article, i propose closing down EVERY charity, now, except for traditional Christian Churches.

mikk, Christian churches gave you EVERYTHING that you hold dear & have been doing welfare, social work & community development for 2,000 years.

plantagenet, they are both wrong, corporate welfare is just as sick as upper, middle class welfare in the form of feel good jobs for the luvvies.

PS: Once upon a time the purpose of charities was to provide support services for all kinds of disadvantaged human beings. And for trying to stop or diminish cruelty to the non-humans. Hence the RSPCA - the R standing for Royal or the British Royal family.

By contrast we now have the situation, in the case of the IPA, of a "charity" which promotes the interests of big business corporations which are quite often predatory in their actions. And whose principal purpose under law is to maximize profits, which they used to, and still do, by externalizing the negative environmental and human costs on to society at large, with the tab having to be picked up by the ordinary tax payer.

And of course some/many small "charities" are more or less money making scams whereby the people that run them do very nicely - thank you very much.