Tycoon philanthropists line up against miners over charity reforms

Some of Australia’s wealthiest individuals and the powerful mining lobby are on a collision course over charity reforms.

The mining lobby supports moves to reduce advocacy efforts by groups like Greenpeace, which recently erected this protest banner in Sydney.

Some of Australia’s wealthiest private individuals and the all-powerful mining lobby are on course for a head-on collision, as both camps offer strongly opposing positions on key charity reforms now on the table in Treasury.

At the heart of Treasury’s new discussion paper are efforts to tighten up rules around tax-deductible charities, especially money spent on environmental lobbying, along with possible attempts to reveal the identity of anonymous donations to a range of causes.

In a move strongly supported by the Minerals Council of Australia, Treasury has suggested environmental activists — which are also registered as charities — should have up to 50 per cent of their entire budget restricted to “environmental remediation” (non-advocacy work).

Such a move would greatly reduce advocacy efforts by groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and The Wilderness Society.

Separately, reforms which clarify the identity of philanthropists — particularly if they are based offshore — would stamp out situations where wealthy philanthropists get tax deductions for anonymously bankrolling their chosen charities.

Arnold Bloch Leibler — the law firm known for representing some of Australia’s richest people including Frank Lowy, Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew — has come out heavily against the bulk of the potential reforms on so-called deductible gift recipients.

“These reforms would be a backward step for charities in this country and the right of donors to privacy is considered a very important issue by many philanthropists,” says Peter Seidel, public interest partner at the firm.

ABL has been backed by The Tax Institute, a staunch defender of private individuals in the tax system.

While cautiously welcoming some of the potential administrative reforms, the institute sharply criticises attempts to muzzle charities in any manner, suggesting advocacy contributes to “public welfare” and describing the attempt to cut back environmental campaigning as impractical.

Treasury has yet to formally publish submissions to the review — or signal what it may do from here — but it looks like substantial lobbying power is against most of the reforms at this stage.