Pelican
You’re right that the ALP is funded by unions, but unions are also often funded by government to deliver particular services – OSH training, for example. My comment was based on the observations that Labor governments are more inclined to fund services from unions than conservative ones, while business groups are more likely to be contracted to deliver services by conservative governments. This is not purely ideological and partisan however - Labor governments also contract services from business groups, and conservative ones from unions.

King Hazza
Many organisations are both service providers and advocates, and in practice it’s hard to ring fence the two functions and fund only one. However, by specifying clearly the outcomes government is paying for, on a fee-for-service basis, government can use NGOs to deliver services without appearing to endorse or promote their ideological agendas.

I believe it’s in the interests of both NGOs and government that NGOs’ advocacy is seen to be independent of government, including financial independence.

That is absolutely correct Rhian; personally I am happy with the arrangement of governments paying NGOs to act on their own behalf (it's cheaper and more efficient);
(and must admit, as an SOS voter, a counter-lobby against contentious construction projects is something I am more than happy to be funding).

But the fact remains that it is up for us/our government to decide whether:
1- we allow the excess that if we rely on NGOs to act on our behalf, we also accept that they may also use the money we give them to promote their own agendas
2- we cut the services the NGOs endorse to rule out the specific groups we (majority) don't want (which gets difficult for bush regeneration and reforestation).
3- we maintain these services but hire contractors- which is vastly more expensive because they aren't volunteers- or get the government to pay for screening and interviewing of its own volunteers- which is just as expensive.

In my view it is entirely appropriate for governments to fund organisations whose main role is to evaluate and when they deem it appropriate, to criticise the policies of those governments. Otherwise the public debate is dominated by the few media organisations and business and other organisations with the money to buy advertisements. From time to time, too, the TV channels and some of the papers refuse to publish advertisements by organisations whose arguments they cannot answer.

As for being over-taxed, who are you kidding Asher Judah? Australians are grossly undertaxed.

Ozbib
There are hundreds of organisations who see their role as to to evaluate and when they deem it appropriate, to criticise the policies of governments. Some of these are fringe and flaky and I would strongly object to my taxes being used to finance their propaganda. Others I happen to agree with, but will support with my own voluntary donations, not via government.

Would you confine such funding to green groups, or extend it to minority religious cults, the gun lobby, the Council For The National Interest, Australians Against Further Immigration, the Refugee Action Coalition, the Australian Republican Movement, Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Anti-Vegetarian Society of Meat Eaters, the Australian Family Association, the Gay News Network ..