Taken for granted: how tax dollars are helping to fund green agendas

Research by the Institute of Public Affairs has found taxpayers are unwittingly helping to fund green groups and fuel their political agenda

Hazelwood protest

WHEN accosted by a giant, benign-looking koala on a city street, rattling a tin and seeking a donation for the Wilderness Society, you may slap a few of your hard-earned dollars into the fake marsupial paw to help the environment. Or you may walk on by, keeping your money, because you believe the Wilderness Society has become an extreme-left, anti-development organisation.

Regardless, you may be disturbed to learn some of your tax dollars already support that koala suit and the society's causes.

As the political debate is becoming increasingly polarised between an anti-development, zero-emissions push on one side, and an economic growth, climate-sceptic view on the other, the government funding of green groups is bound to be sensitive. Australian taxpayers are likely to be surprised at the extent to which they are funding green causes.

Investigations by Inquirer, together with research by the Institute of Public Affairs, have found many of the most prominent and radical green activist groups are funded, in part, by taxpayers.

No taxpayer can have missed the growing green agenda and its influence on government priorities. Certainly few will have failed to notice the billions of dollars of public money wasted on green policy failures such as the home insulation handouts and the botched solar panel rebate scheme. The green agenda broadly affects government spending, from an emphasis on bike lanes over new roads to mandated levels of expensive renewable electricity. Much of this receives adequate public scrutiny and debate, but many of the green grants dispersed by governments across Australia occur away from the public gaze.

Groups such as Friends of the Earth, the Wilderness Society, the Environmental Defender's Offices and the Australian Conservation Foundation are well known to the public for campaigning against developments such as dams and industries such as coal mining, and engaging in robust debate about government climate change policies. What the public won't be aware of is these groups all receive taxpayer funding.

In effect, taxpayers are unwittingly funding political campaigns that unswervingly support a green, anti-development and, many would argue, anti-jobs agenda. Free market think tank the IPA started out looking at the extensive range of green grants dispersed by the Victorian government. But in concert with Inquirer, it has now focused on green grants more widely, discovering a wide range of politically active green groups have been subsidised to the tune of more than $10 million during the past five years.

Take the Total Environment Centre in Sydney, which styles itself as a hub and resource centre for environmental groups. It was active in the successful campaign against the Hunter Valley's Tillegra Dam, refers to "explosive growth" in pollution as it campaigns for climate action and opposes coal-fired power stations. It has received more than $450,000 in state government funding during the past five years.

The Tillegra Dam was supported by the NSW government to ensure water supplies for the Hunter Valley, a region that, incidentally, heavily relies on the coal industry. Yet NSW (and Hunter Valley) taxpayers have funded this group actively opposing the dam and the area's main industry.

The TEC doesn't shy away from party politics either. It has ventured into the present NSW election campaign, arguing that by supporting Sydney's urban growth a Liberal government will "worsen global warming on multiple fronts".

In Melbourne, the Environment Victoria organisation has received more than $4m during the past six years from state and federal governments. Describing itself as "green action personified", it is the peak non-government environment organisation in Victoria. It organises Walk Against Warming events and claims credit for forcing an increase in landfill charges. Environment Victoria urges people to lobby against the coal industry and encourages them to take legal action, with advice on what to do and where to go for free legal advice.

Despite claiming to be non-partisan, it was publicly supportive of the former Brumby government's environment policies and advocates in favour of the Gillard government's water policies. The organisation says government grants account for about half of its funding and stresses most of the grants relate to specific projects, such as teaching people to use less water and energy, or producing videos of people recounting "their personal connection to significant wetlands". A spokesperson says no grant money is spent on campaigns and that Environment Victoria advocates only a "healthier, safer" environment.

Even what many see as the more radical green groups, such as Friends of the Earth and the Wilderness Society, receive funding from taxpayers. Since 2009 the Victorian and NSW governments have allocated $125,000 to the Wilderness Society, which has openly supported the Greens politically and declared that the onus should be on the proponents of any development to prove they won't have an impact on the "environment, a community, or existing industries".

Friends of the Earth campaigns against coal, nuclear, nanotechnology, multinationals and chemicals, among other things. While its website says it receives "no government or corporate funding", the organisation received a $55,000 grant from the Victorian Department of Sustainability and the Environment, and accepts an annual grant of $10,000 from the federal government. When the Victorian election result was hanging in the balance, Friends of the Earth spokesman Cam Walker expressed "grave concern", saying a "Coalition victory could set the climate agenda back years".

Walker now confirms the annual grant, stressing it's for administrative costs and is not spent on advocacy. He claims the funding represents only a fraction of annual funding of almost $800,000, raised mainly from private donations. Yet he justifies taxpayer funding on the grounds that democracy needs strong "third voices" to hold governments and corporations to account. "Society as a whole benefits from having accountable government and good social and environmental policy," he says.

This argument is critical to many of the green groups because they claim money from government grants is quarantined from campaign work. But given the fungibility of their budgets, this appears disingenuous. Any organisation that can rely on a grant for administrative or other costs is obviously more easily able to use donated money for campaigning. If taxpayers underwrite crucial aspects of the organisation, they effectively support the whole.

The Australian Conservation Foundation is perhaps the more conservative face of the conservation movement. However, it promotes a green left policy prescription and is not coy about entering political debates. The ACF campaigns for a price on carbon, increased mining taxes, reduced population growth and against new dams, and has suggested increased taxes on fuel to fund recovery from the Queensland floods, which it has linked to climate change. It has received $2.9m from the NSW and Victorian governments in the past five years. A spokesman stresses most of the ACF's grants have funded community education programs focusing on reducing household energy and water consumption. The ACF says its campaigns are environmental, not political.

The federal government has provided three years of annual funding at $87,000 each to conservation councils in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. This has been supplemented by state governments in South Australia ($100,000 a year) and Queensland ($150,000 a year since 2008). Typically, funding is provided on condition it is used for administrative purposes. The federal government also funds green groups in Tasmania and the Northern Territory.

All of the grants highlighted come on top of a wide range of other environmental grants that fund things such as revegetation projects or community conservation initiatives. Those grants may or may not be worthy of further scrutiny but this research has focused only on support to politically active and prominent groups.

Many of the green grants are issued in annual rounds by the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water; the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment; and the federal Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Grants applications are usually assessed by bureaucrats, with final decisions taken by ministers. The NSW grants, for instance, are allocated by an Environment Trust, chaired by the minister.

There are many implications from these funding revelations. They help to explain how and why the green agenda is run so prominently in our public debates. With Labor governments predominant across the states during the past decade, green groups have been widely funded. Whether they feel beholden to government is one question but, regardless, government funding has helped them promote their views.

The alternative viewpoint usually comes from businesses or industry groups that generally are not government-funded. Stuck in between are taxpayers. Many of the green groups style themselves as anti-industry or anti-corporation, so taxpayers are funding groups to stymie actively and persistently the projects and plans of the entities that generate our jobs and prosperity. Of course, this in turn can hurt governments because projects they support or even propose themselves become the targets of the green groups they fund. The Tillegra Dam and Queensland's Traveston Dam are two cases in point.

Importantly, there is also the question of transparency and accountability. It would seem reasonable, at the very least, that taxpayers are made aware of this funding of green organisations.

While the information can be found on the public record, there is little attempt to draw attention to it. Those in receipt of the funding are aware of it and appreciate it; most others would be unaware.

Questions need to be raised about whether this is an appropriate use of taxpayers' funds. No doubt these groups have every right to take any position they like on environmental and development issues. But should we subsidise their efforts, especially when their protests, legal challenges and other advocacy often affect critical investment, infrastructure and policy decisions?

The IPA says its examination of these grants shows governments have demonstrated a lack of rigour on behalf of "overtaxed" Australians. Research fellow Asher Judah says his study details how taxpayers' funds have been used by environmental and political action groups against the interests of taxpayers. He argues policies pursued by green groups, if implemented, would destroy jobs and increase the cost of living.

"The funding has been poorly targeted, politically biased, weakly monitored and operationally ineffective," he says. "Victorian taxpayers have helped pay for home vegetable gardens, art projects about climate change and campaigns against the Coalition."

The IPA says government is trying to enhance the lives of its citizens and these groups are intent on thwarting progress.

"While the official objectives and emphasis of each organisation varies, their overriding philosophical motivations are the same: to fundamentally change the way Australians consume, behave and act," Judah says.

He lists positions adopted by these groups that could have a detrimental effect on taxpayers, such as: higher taxes, curtailed mining, carbon pricing, reduced population growth, tougher business regulation, limited urban growth, reduced coal exports and anti-development campaigns.

The IPA is calling for a review by state and federal governments into what it calls a "colossal waste of money".

It shouldn't have to wait long. NSW opposition spokeswoman for climate change and environmental sustainability Catherine Cusack was not aware of the specific grants and didn't want to comment. However, with a change of government in NSW anticipated next weekend, a review of NSW's grant priorities ought to be expected. Victorian Environment Minister Ryan Smith hasn't committed to a review but says any grant applications will be assessed "on their merits".

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke says the grants are a longstanding program to support community environment organisations. However, his predecessor, Peter Garrett, initiated a review of the scheme, which is due soon. Burke says: "I have my own views about the direction this program should be going in and I will be making my decision shortly."

All this may strike taxpayers as strange, with some government departments having their foot on the accelerator for economic growth and development while others are funding groups intent on hitting the brakes, opposing development and slowing the economy. Others may see this as anti-democratic, with developers or businesses that are looking to invest having challenges against their plans subsidised with taxpayers' money. The silent majority, who expect economic development to occur sensibly, may not take kindly to their taxes being used in this way. And as we watch or engage in the debate over a carbon tax, we also may be interested to know our tax dollars are being used to amplify one side of the debate.

MONEY GIVEN TO ENVIRONMENT GROUPS

• Environment Victoria: $4.04 million (from Victorian and federal governments)
• Australian Conservation Foundation: $2.9m (Victoria and NSW)
• Environmental Defenders Office: $1.2m (NSW, Victoria and South Australia)
• Total Environment Centre: $450,000 (NSW)
• Wilderness Society: $125,000 (NSW, Victoria)
• Conservation Council of South Australia: $850,000
• Conservation Council of Western Australia: $280,000 (federal)
• Queensland Conservation Council: $870,000 (Queensland, federal)
• Friends of the Earth: $65,000 (Victoria, federal)
• Total: $10.78m

Approximate figures since 2006 Source: governments