"Stopping development is against the public interest." You lost all credibility after that statement and it was your second sentence!

Most times Development is good but sometimes it isn't.

I don't think any organisation should be tax exempt.

You want corporations to be the only ones allowed to speak and corporate development to be regarded as the only future. This is despite its record of the destruction of the earth and the creation of a world so unjust that the richest 85 people own more than the poorest 3.5 billion. The traditional checks and balances of our society have been destroyed.

Governments now promote corporate power and profit. Many old governmental activities are now outsourced to commercial in confidence agreements that the taxpayer pays for and has to live with the results but is denied knowledge of the contracts.

Corporate media does nothing to investigate this, in fact the opposite, note how they go after the very moderate ABC and SBS. The public live in a circular madness of mainstream media group think.

Universities now have 'public private partnerships' so really free inquiry, discussion and discovery is damaged.

We've had 35 years of neo-liberal garbage that has infected the civil service and politicians. The police are used as shock troops to defend corporate plunder, ie coal seam gas drilling.

The only people left standing are miserably poor and badly financed groups trying to protect the fragments of democracy and civil society we have left. You want to TAX them on donations from people that have already paid tax. Amazing.

Why not tax News Corp? They pay 5% tax on their profits. The Australian tax payers recently gave them a refund of $840 million. In return we get propaganda and climate change denial. We could tax Google that paid $75,000 tax in Australia on their $1 billion turnover. We could tax the mining industry that is 83% foreign owned.

We live on a planet that gives us for free clean air, drinkable water, fertile soil and food. Our economic system, aided by our political and legal system and the fantasies of the global media, is destroying the planet. All you want to do is harm the people trying to stop this madness. Can you see that what you want is suicidal?

>> lest the world leave Australia behind <<

I do pray for that to happen, as where the world is heading is not a good place at all!

---

Nevertheless, I agree with the author and with Cobber the Hound that advocacy should not be tax exempt.

---

Dear Lillian,

Government should support neither corporations (as it currently does) nor advocates: government should stick to its minimal role of providing security to its citizens and it should have nothing to do with the economy. In my view, corporations should not be recognised to begin with as legal entities - only the individuals who own them, who should pay their taxes regularly like anyone else. Similarly, payments to Google should not be tax-deductible both because the recipient does not pay tax in Australia and because advertising is harmful and should not be recognised as a legitimate business expense.

OLO claims to be an e-journal of political and social debate. It is hard to see how this rubbish fits into that definition?
People who want to read this stuff should go to The Australian.

I appreciate this is an opinion, but can Gary Johns really believe the opening statement “Stopping development is against the public interest.” As in stopping all development is against the public interest. Can he not envisage any proposed development that should be stopped. A marina at Bondi? A hotel on top of Uluru? Is there nothing he would oppose immediately next door to his home?

Perhaps this is just loose, sloppy writing. Like some of the loose, sloppy ideas that follow.

He is critical of the work of the EDO, particularly their legal work supporting community groups who oppose coal mining. The world needs coal, he opines. Not everyone agrees.

I have a strong belief that people, individually or collectively – which includes governments – make their best decisions when they take information from a wide range of sources, not just from those that agree with them.

Our legal and political systems are stacked in favour of the powerful and wealthy and heavily restricts the ability of individuals or community groups to be heard, to have their point of view heard and considered. To be taken fully into account in the decision making process.

This is where the EDO comes in. The vast majority of EDO work is helping individuals or small communities on local planning issues, very little of their work gets to court. When it does it attracts attention, criticism from coal miners and others who believe the current system is fair and equitable. Advocacy, and giving voice to those without power and wealth, is an important role that the EDO fills. This is a marker of a civilised society.

I have written extensively about this elsewhere http://nofibs.com.au/2014/03/27/whose-interest/

Speaking of activists who pretend that they are not activists, paying (or not paying) taxes why not Google:
IPA and Waubra Foundations Charitable Tax Status Rorts.

Then of course there is the situation in the USA where the new Senate and Congress will be actively trying to abolish as much legislation as they can in the important areas of worker health and safety, environmental protection, food safety regulations, etc etc.
All with the background support ALEC the propaganda/legislative factory of the Koch brothers and similar "libertarian" and corporate propaganda factories. All of which probably rort the USA tax system to the MAX.

Never mind too that world-wide there are countless thousands of social-activist groups working behind the scenes to counter the inevitable abuses of both corporate and government power.
This world-wide peoples activist movement is described by, and simultaneously provides a catalyst for, by Paul Hawken in his book Blessed Unrest
http://www.blessedunrest.com

Unfortunately of course there is oft-times very little difference, because corporations and big capital now rule the world. They always did of course but it is now in-your-face obvious.
See When Corporations Rule the World by David Korten, The Captive State by George Monbiot, Who Will Tell the People by William Greider, Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann, and the work of both Henry Giroux and Tom Engelhardt.

Lillian, Wow! Agree with most of what you say.

This bloke seems to be talking out of his back pocket or somewhere very adjacent! All very smelly and shoveled by the shipload?

Perhaps he should try talking from a little higher up; or declare a political allegiance, to say, he who must be Obied!?
Rhrosty.

Many of the commentators have missed the point entirely. If the various groups mentioned want to engage in political activity or activism or whatever, they are free to do so. But should donations to those organisations be tax free as they are with the Catholic church or St Vincent's? This doesn't seem fair. Commentators have mentioned skeptical organisations that have got DGR status (deductible gift recipient - donations are deductible for tax). Oh sure. It all depends on what they are doing, but there are many, many more green NGOs with DGR status than there are skeptical orgs.. Don't believe this? Try counting up NGOs and skeptical orgs..

The ones I object to are the full time activists on Centrelink befits, who seem to spend their time either in the southern ocean with Sea Shephard, protesting logging by camping in a tree for months, or cutting drum lines to stop the shark cull. What ever happened to having to turn up at a centre link office occasionally to prove you were actively seeking work?

"Stopping development is against the public interest." Says who? I say lets develop another asbestos mine that'd be in the public interest. How can the author expect to be taken seriously with a statement like that.

I have not often seen so many comments which do not agree with the author of the article (except for articles by John Pilger).
Gary Johns seems to want to move us towards 1984 at an even faster rate than we are already moving in that direction. The corporate section will end up paying no tax and the rest of us will just do as we are told by the corporate media.
It is hard to see why a corporation destroying our natural environment should pay no tax and that we should tax those who try to prevent the destruction.