The Hawke inquiry is long overdue given that most of the largest environmental groups are simply political lobby groups that do no on-ground work, as they are required to do to maintain their status as charities.

In fact, as most are engaged in ideological campaigns that are effectively opposing the management of natural resources by our democratically-elected governments, they are a considerable burden on society notwithstanding that in some cases their aims are worthy.

Looking into this has been done before. The Howard Govt attempted to overhaul the Charities Act, but ultimately failed in the face of arguments from the environmental lobby that their advocacy is a form of public education that ultimately improves on-ground outcomes if it results in policy change.

The question that needs to be seriously considered is the extent to which the environmental lobby are educating the public truthfully, or are using misinformation to create a populist tide for political change that is unwarranted, but fits their ideology as distinct from offering better environmental outcomes. There is strong evidence that the latter description best fits their activities and that they don't deserve charitable status.

I see nothing wrong with trying to prevent corporations doing things that existing legislation still permits them to. Ideally such campaigns would be unnecessary because such actions would be outlawed, but until that happens, putting pressure on corporations to do the right thing is a valid tactic.

The principal reason that environmental issues are controversial is the distortion attributable to corruption of evidence introduced by industries with vested interests and the politicians they have funded or duped.

The author of this article and all politicians, particularly Alex Hawke, the politician referred to and the one advocating strangling the funding of people trying to protect the Public Trust, should read the excellent book on this subject by law professor Mary Christina Wood titled, Nature's Trust. The following is an short extract,

"On February 8, 2011, a confidential letter came to light It was from EPA Administrator Johnson to President Bush himself Dated January, 31, 2008 (a month after the Bali conference ended), the letter urged action to find endangerment, arguing:
"The Supreme Court's Massachusetts v. EPA decision still requires a response. That case combined with the latest science of climate change requires the Agency to propose a positive endangerment finding. . . . [T]he state of the latest climate change science does not permit a negative finding, nor does it permit a credible finding that we need to wait for more research".
His appeal was in vain."

On page 25 of her book Prof. Wood stated, "...during the full course of the George W. Bush presidency, White House officials and agency heads doctored government reports, censored climate change scientists and changed agency testimony to Congress. A congressional investigation would find:
The evidence before the committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming... The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry's communications plan were its mission statement."

If the environmental groups are seen as political active then are they not entitled to charity status under that criterion?

I donate to a political party and to Getup and donations to both those groups are treated as charity tax deductions.

People opposed to the views exposed by either Johns nor Hawke are just as entitled to tax deductible status as the party that those politicians serve.

How much of this is sour grapes over the Australian Institute for Progress not having charitable status?

Foyle

You said: "The principal reason that environmental issues are controversial is the distortion attributable to corruption of evidence introduced by industries with vested interests and the politicians they have funded or duped."

From my perspective as someone who has worked as an academically-trained forester for 35 years, I see it very differently to you in relation to my own field of expertise which is still arguably one of the major focusses of Australia's ENGOs.

Largely, it is the distortion of public perceptions by dishonest eco-political campaigns which maintains controversy over forests (and I would presume many other things).

Using Victoria as an example, only around 6% of the public forests are now being managed on a long term wood supply cycle. Despite this equating to an 80% reduction in annual timber harvesting over the past 30-years, the major ENGOs continue to ascribe all manner of eco-disasters to it, including supposed animal extinctions. Sadly, these campaigns are in-part being supported by some elements of academia as the distinction between it and activism has become increasingly blurred.

The consequences of this incessant campaigning has been a tremendous growth in national park declarations, and the dismantling of former forest management structures that were very effective in managing fire. The recent increase in disastrous bushfires has been in large-part due to the weakened capacity to manage the fire threat - although perhaps an unintended consequence this is an example of worsening environmental outcomes resulting from simplistic 'save-the-forest' activism. Why should taxpayers be effectively subsidising such outcomes?