Australia’s peak mining lobby is arguing environmental groups with a “track record of committing or promoting unlawful activities” – such as Greenpeace, Lock the Gate and the Wilderness Society – should be deregistered and denied tax deductibility for donations.



The Minerals Council of Australia also argues that groups campaigning to stop new coal mines or gas wells are working for an “ideological” rather than “environmental” cause.



Environmental groups fear changes to tax deductibility will starve them of funds and cause many to fold, silencing their advocacy while well-funded and “powerful economic interests” continue to be heard.



“Evidence suggests that some registered environmental organisations could be using tax deductible donations to fund activities that have only a tangential relation (if any) to natural conservation,” the MCA writes in its submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the register of environmental organisations.



“Their purpose is not to undertake practical action to improve the environment, or education or research that advances this aim. Rather these organisations appear to be pursuing an ideological agenda. Some of these organisations are listed in the ‘Stopping the Australian coal export boom’ manifesto, which sets forth a strategy for disrupting and delaying key coal projects,” it says, in a reference to a leaked strategy document.



“These organisations seem to be pursuing an ideological objective of stopping Australian fossil fuel projects.”



And it says some of the groups appear to be “encouraging supporters to engage in illegal behaviour”.



The MCA says the inquiry should recommend the deregistration of groups with a track record of committing or promoting unlawful protests, and dismisses arguments that this would constitute an assault on free speech. It says the Australian Tax Office should be able to audit environmental groups receiving tax-deductible donations to find any “prima facie evidence” that the donations are being used for purposes beyond “environmental conservation, education and research.”



“The right to free speech should not be conflated with an entitlement to taxpayer-funded political activity. Any assertions to the contrary should be dismissed as special pleading,” the submission says.



The NSW Minerals Council focuses its critique on Lock the Gate, saying it is “an activist group with a political, anti-mining agenda and not an environmental charity that undertakes on-ground environmental works that benefit the community or the environment”.



It argues Lock the Gate should not get the same tax treatment as “legitimate charities” such as the Salvation Army and Oxfam and recommends that the organisation’s tax-deductible status be rescinded.



This is part of a wider challenge to the legitimacy of NGO engagement in public debate Australian Conservation Foundation

The Queensland Resources Council says it “believe[s] that many non-government organisations do not meet the overarching requirement of undertaking practical environmental work, and submit that organisations who are listed on the register and do not fulfil that fundamental requirement, should either be disqualified from the register, or have their funding restricted.”



Queensland Liberal National party senator Matthew Canavan questions whether it is appropriate that organisations and individuals “protesting against political parties, philosophies and activities that offend them” should be “funded by concessions from taxpayers who do not share their views.”



The chair of the committee, Liberal backbencher Alex Hawke, told Guardian Australia the inquiry’s primary purpose was to look at the transparency and activity requirements for environmental organisations that are on the register and eligible for tax deductibility.



“I can’t pre-empt the inquiry’s considerations, but in my view environmental advocacy should be OK … developing ‘scorecards’ on the environmental policies of different parties should be OK, but the questions arise around obvious political activity, for example recommending for or against a particular party or a particular candidate in a seat,” he said.



Longstanding environmental organisations are concerned.



In its submission, the Australian Conservation Foundation said it was worried “there is political motivation behind this inquiry … ACF believes that there is sufficient evidence to warrant concern that the inquiry will be used as an attempt to limit the freedom of speech of advocacy-based environmental organisations; and to ban or restrict deductible gift recipient status for these organisations.”



“In particular, ACF is concerned [it] will be used to call into question activities of environmental groups that are not ‘on the ground’ and therefore the inquiry is intended to restrict environmental groups engaging in advocacy activities from accessing deductible gift recipient status.



“Unfortunately, this is part of a wider challenge to the legitimacy of NGO engagement in public debate across the whole not-for-profit sector. Recent funding cuts to organisations that are critical of government policy, and the reintroduction of ‘gag’ or confidentiality clauses in government funding contracts [provisions that an NGO must not speak publicly without first receiving approval from the relevant department] have been observed.”



“Environmental organisations rely heavily on these donations and in particular on the income of funds that are independent, untied, free from conditions of government grant contracts and unable to be taken away by politicians unsympathetic to environmental protection objectives.

“Many environmental organisations will shrink and many others will fold. This will deprive the Australian community of a voice for the protection of the environment in the public interest, a voice that provides critically important balance to the views of powerful and organised economic interests in Australian society. Further, it would serve to silence the voice for the environment only, purposively and unfairly,” the ACF argues.



The chief executive of the Australia Institute think tank, Richard Denniss, wrote in a recent blogpost “the fundamental problem with the mining industry’s attack on environment groups is the underlying hypocrisy of their position. The Queensland Resources Council and NSW Minerals Council argue that environment groups should only work on “on the ground” environmental issues. But the main task of the mining peak bodies is not to assist “on the ground” mining but to lobby for watered-down tax and planning laws.



“Needless to say, BHP and Rio Tinto’s membership fees to their various lobby groups and peak bodies are tax deductible, but those same peak bodies are arguing that contributions to environment groups should not be. The Minerals Council of Australia spent more than $120m over the past five years fighting for subsidies, fighting the mining tax and lobbying for mine approvals in communities that don’t want them.”

