I think we all agree this blog gets an "F". Poorly thought through, and poorly excuted. I'm sure all the boys at the IPA thought it was great though.

You realy have to try harder to up yourself in other peoples shoes.

Green groups have been receiving direct subsidies and handouts as well as tax deductibility status for donations for decades. Ever since Senator Richardson as ‘environmental’ minister developed the ALP green preference strategy, by overturning the Helsham inquiry into Tasmanian forests, closing down the North Queensland timber industry and stopping the 1989 pulp mill, millions have been gifted to ENGO’s.

The rules seem pretty clear that the government funds and tax deductible donations are meant to save the environment but all sorts of instances have been raised from producing ‘how to Vote cards, to media advertisements during elections.

Yet it is not just the Institute of Public Affairs that raises concern at how the money is spent, the Fairfax Media environmental reporter Rosslyn Beeby reported how most the $70 million spent by just four of our biggest environmental groups went on lobbying, fundraising and ‘expenses’ see http://straightfurrow.farmonline.co.nz/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/green-groups-spending-hots-up-to-70m/1709996.aspx

The Canberra Times demonstrates that $42 million in funds given by donors or the government were spent on activities not directly linked to on ground conservation field work. In Tasmania this manifests itself into a campaign by the Wilderness society against the Government’s tax payer funded Regional Forest Agreement that reserves 97% of high quality wilderness and about half its forests including a million hectares of ‘pristine old growth’ never to cut down. Rather than funding the protection and promotion of this wilderness, the Society continues to attack the State’s native forest industry.
It s method of operation was recently exposed by another ENGO in an open letter to Bill Kelty about the Wilderness Society’s current campaign to end all native forest harvesting in exchange for a plantation based pulp mill:
“By no stretch of the imagination can it be accepted that the TWS/ET advertising campaign, said to be $600,000 through a front group Our Common Ground, promoting the agenda of the plantation industry, has the support of the public.” Open Letter to Mr Bill Kelty from Tap into A Better Tasmania February 27th 2011.

There must be an end to this political largesse to the Greens and their cheerleading ENGO’s.

Commentators appear to have missed the point of the article. Taxpayers are unknowingly funding advocacy groups that are opposed to activities supported by and employing many of those same taxpayers.

If business wants to fund environment groups or the IPA or whoever, that is their business and their money. If environment or advocacy groups wish to raise money by public or private donation for their activities they are entitled to do so. They should not be entitled to taxpayer funds to undertake political advocacy.

The article raises the valid point of taxpayer funds being used to fund political and advocacy activity by unrepresentative minority groups that otherwise do not enjoy broad-based taxpayer (or voter) support.

Max

I think you have got to the crux of the issue. As NGOs are increasingly involved in the delivery of government-funded services it is becoming more important to ring fence their advocacy from their service delivery.

I believe it’s ok for the government to fund green groups, trades unions, business associations, churches or charities to deliver goods and services such as training, job placement, community housing or environmental services. But it’s inappropriate for taxpayer funds to subsidise lobbying, whether by left or right, greens or industry lobbyists.

Who cares where the funding is coming from? I don't. Is the standard of knowledge emerging from these NGO's superior? Does the IPA believe that its arguments are being refuted too often?

Tet

I care where the funding is coming from. I don’t pay taxes to support people pushing ideological hobby horses, whether the advocacy is by green groups or think tanks like the IPA.

In my observation the “standard of knowledge” emerging from advocacy and interest groups varies enormously. In technical and practical terms they often have much to contribute. In policy terms, too, our pluralistic model means that public discourse is enriched by competing arguments between opposed ideologies and interests. But they are often strongly vested interests, and the media and government need to judge their arguments on that basis. We should not use taxpayer funds to support some groups over others.

The risk is that government uses funding as form of political advertising by stealth – for example if conservative governments are more inclined to give funds to business groups while labor funds trades unions.