Submissions
(669 submissions in 34 pages)
Submission to the Inquiry
into the administration, transparency and effectiveness of the Register of
Environmental Organisations
I make this submission as someone who has been
actively protecting remnants of native biodiversity since 1978, and intensively
devoting all of my time and energy for the past 20 years in pursuing this goal
and imperative, to ‘identify, buffer, enhance and connect’[1] every last
remnant of whatever size, of intact old-growth native habitat, including old
re-growth, in Australia, focussing mainly on critically endangered ecosystems
in my own shire, eg the 1% remaining of Brigalow and the 2% remaining of Dry
Vine Rainforest.
I established a Nature Reserve on my own 40-acre
freehold property [2], including a Dry Vine Forest Restoration Project involving
innovative [3] techniques. All of this
(apart from the one-off $8,000 Envirofund grant) has been entirely voluntary
and paid for by myself.
Very little research into this Inquiry has been
needed for me to come to an inevitable conclusion that it is politically
motivated and a long-term agenda of the Liberal Party [4], targeting bigger
groups such as Greenpeace [5] and The Wilderness Society but also very poor
grass-roots ENGO’s who strive to protect the last remnants of native
terrestrial and marine ecologies [6] by advocating their cause and occasionally
raising awareness through activism addressing identified serious risks to them
of destructive, desecrating, degrading or polluting activities predominantly by
the mining industry.
I have many concerns with this Inquiry:
>that the
Chairman of the Inquiry, Alex Hawke, appears not to have any environmental
credentials whatsoever to be in the position of ascertaining the value of these
group’s activities, and further that his strong personal views on the subject
make him inappropriate for such a leadership position; [7]
>I have serious
concerns regarding member George Christensen [7] to be able to fairly
adjudicate on the actions of these groups;
>It has worried many people as to why this
Inquiry has been set up, given that there has been a legal precedent to
overturn a negative ruling with John Howard government’s unlawful removal of
the charity status of Aidwatch [8] - it
seems to reveal political naivety, at best, to believe that any NGO
environmental protection group, in these times of imminent widespread collapse
of many discrete ecological communities and species extinctions, [9] would not
appeal a decision to remove tax deductibility from what is often their only
source of revenue, having established this precedent in law. It is also brings
into question how much Australian tax-payers money will be wasted fighting any
such appeals – in fact it can be argued that setting up this Standing Committee
and Inquiry could be seen as a criminal waste of tax-payers money, as there is
already a perfectly good watchdog already doing this job of assessment for
charity status – the Australian Charities Commission. [10]
Our native ecologies are all in peril from numerous
threats, many species already having gone extinct. My current initiative
addresses this emergency with an Environmental Triage Program called the
‘Continental Connectivity Collaboration.[11]
This Inquiry has opened a can of worms that I can
only hope will eat it up, digest it and provide the good, decent, hardworking
environmental volunteer groups with plenty of beautiful fertilizer to grow and
flourish so they can carry on protecting and restoring what remains of our
planet’s ecology, on which every living thing is 100% dependant, and protecting
these precious islands of biodiversity from entities hell-bent on their
destruction, desecration, degradation and pollution.
Maureen
Brannan 905 Wilsons Road CLOYNA Q 4605 ph: 0427710523
PS: If any
organisation deserves to have their donation tax-deductibility status removed,
it is the unashamedly neo-liberal ideological extremist group IPA (who I am
given to understand was the main driver behind setting up this Inquiry) which
is supported by a host of extraordinarily wealthy people. “The Industry
Department should be scrutinising the IPA much more closely and look at whether
they really are producing what that tax deductibility status requires of
them." NGO academic and
vice-president of Environment Victoria, Joan Staples
[2] http://worldatpolarity.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/amended-cnr-report-for-innovations.html (Cloyna Nature Reserve Report for Envirofund)
[4] Advocacy by the ACF: Don’t let
them silence you – speak out! Egged on by the Minerals
Council of Australia and the Institute of Public Affairs, a handful of
politicians are attacking civil society. They want to revoke the charity status
of environment groups, your ability to give tax deductible donations and your freedom
to speak out. https://www.action.org.au/news/dont-let-them-silence-you-%E2%80%93-speak-out
[PS – It is not at all
surprising that your government has de-funded this brilliant scientific
organisation in the latest budget]
[5] One of the many activities of Greenpeace has
been to help the Laird State Forest blockade, which with the Aboriginal
custodians has been striving to stop the destruction of the last significant
grassy white-box woodland remnant in the
world from an unnecessary, unwanted coal mine – a 94 year old war veteran,
grandmothers and a large number of professional people who have protested here
would be labelled ‘terrorists’ by the Liberal government. If you go to google
maps and search: Laird State Forest, you can only be utterly shocked at the
huge gouge already taken out of this unique and invaluable last remnant,
surrounded by an ocean of cleared land. The Gomeroi people are currently
desperately trying to save a very important site in this forest known as
Lawlers Well. If this google image does not
shock members of this Committee into understanding why caring people are
fighting so hard to save this tiny last patch of unique ecology from
destruction - which can be correctly termed ‘attempted ecocide’ and taken to
the International Court for Crimes Against Nature - if you believe that it’s
perfectly OK to clear this forest for more coal, then I believe your morality,
or even your very humanity can be brought into question.
I would add here that I am personally not against
coal-fired power (or judiciously placed nuclear power stations for that
matter)– I have long advocated that they afford essential reliable base-load
power – but retrofitting all of them with as much diverse renewable power generators
as the landscape can accommodate (as China has been doing in the central
western province of Ningxia where wind turbines feed into the adjacent
coal-fired generation plant http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/chinas-patchwork-economic-growth/6489260) such as solar thermal mirrors heating the water
intake so far less coal is required and therefore negating the need to open up
the Galilee Basin or expand Abbott Point, and capturing and utilising the
emissions to grow algae for fuel. These technologies can then be exported to
all coal-powered countries. What is so very wrong and immoral, in fact obscene,
is destroying eco-communities on the brink of extinction for something that is
readily available elsewhere, such as with the Laird.
[6] I will be contacting every one of the groups
and individuals who have made a submission to this Inquiry to invite them to
contribute to my CCC initiative. I am especially impressed with Dr Sid French
BE PhD MIEAust RPEng, who strongly supports direct action to protect our
environment: “In summary, the tax deductibility of donations
to environmental groups is something that has been supported by taxpayers over
many years as an appropriate way of providing broad community support for those
supporting the environment so they have a voice against those aiming to make
money or “progress” at the cost of destroying the very planet we rely on for
life, now and in the long term. The activities of those supporting the
environment may range across a wide variety of actions from lobbying to
chaining themselves to bulldozers. Irrespective of those activities, the
support should be there so long as the organisation can show that it is using
the money to maximise its activities and effectiveness for the environment, and
that those involved are not achieving undue personal gain from their roles.”
I will be
advocating strongly for his highly commendable “Ocean Nourishment Foundation”
to be added to this list.
[7] Alex
Hawke interview transcribed in full below, with my comments in red: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/parliamentary-inquiry-into-environmental/6363758 FRAN KELLY: But if they’re
‘healthy parts of our democracy’, doesn’t it stand, as we do with any other
healthy parts of our democracy, there is
some government funding that goes to supporting elements that do these things
(protest) because as a democracy we
make that kind of decision.
ALEX HAWKE: No, it’s my
personal view no, I don’t think you should receive (charity status) to go and
do your own protesting or campaigning… (This
is exactly why Alex Hawke is demonstrably unsuitable for this leadership
position or even to be on this committee at all – his stated personal views are
completely antithetical making rational, fair and balanced assessments – he’s
already made up his mind on the issue, as many of his colleagues on this
committee clearly have, their past negative comments all on the public record.)
George Christensen is on record as having said that
environmental activism is “terrorism” http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/nationals-mp-george-christensen-calls-green-activists-terrorists-20140925-10lt5a.html “Nationals MP George Christensen is fighting
activists whom he calls "gutless green germs" opposed to the
expansion of the Abbot Point coal terminal in his electorate. In his speech to Parliament, the outspoken MP said "the greatest terrorism threat in North
Queensland, I'm sad to say, comes from the extreme green movement". and that
the register needs to be “cleansed” of politically active groups, amongst many
other such statements.
[8] Aidwatch
stripped of charity status by John Howard – a 2010 High Court ruling had this
reinstated, finding that ‘groups with tax-deductible status also have the right
to engage in political debate and advocacy’. http://www.aidwatch.org.au/stories/high-court-decision-a-win-for-charitiesao-freedom-of-speech/ “This decision overturns over 90
years of Australian law defining the role of charities. It brings the law up to
date with how charities work in the 21st century.”
[9] http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclookupcommunities.pl When perusing this list, please
keep in mind that these are entire ecosystems that are at imminent risk of
going extinct on the continent, not just individual species – when they
disappear, innumerable species go with them. This list, where you will see the
Brigalow and dry vine thickets in crisis in my shire, listed as nationally
critically endangered, is why I and all the people on the Environmental
Register work so hard and are so driven to save the pathetic remnants that this
uncaring rapacious Western civilisation has left in its wake.
There are
innumerable reports of individual species on the brink, and more coming in each
day, but this one will suffice for the point made: http://theconversation.com/australias-critically-endangered-animal-species-11169
[11] Continental Connectivity Collaboration
Initiative http://worldatpolarity.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/continental-connectivity-co-operative.html
------------------------------o0o-----------------------------------
[10] Parliamentary inquiry into environmental
organisations' donation spending
(My transcript…mb)
FRAN KELLY: Environmental groups
could soon be facing a fight to hold on to their tax deductible donations. A
parliamentary inquiry will be held into the Register of Environmental
Organisations to make sure that donations made to almost 600 conservation
groups are being spent on their intended purpose – that is environmental
projects - and not being used for political advocacy or activism. In a moment
Lyndon Schneiders, the National Director of the Wilderness Society will join
us, but first we’re joined by Alex Hawke – he is a Liberal member of parliament,
the chairman of the Federal Parliament's Environment Committee, which will be
holding this Inquiry. Alex Hawke, thanks very much for joining us on Breakfast.
ALEX HAWKE: Good morning, Fran.
FRAN KELLY: Is this Inquiry a thinly-veiled attack on the
environment groups?
ALEX HAWKE: No, not at all. (Volumes of evidence easily demonstrate that
it is indeed an attack on environmental groups who engage in political advocacy
or activism.) The committee’s been asked to look at the issue of tax deductibility
of gifts to environmental organisations and I think that’s in line with all of
the scrutiny that’s been applied to charities more generally in today’s day and
age (Again, volumes of evidence that this
close ‘scrutiny’ just on environmental groups is exceptional, ie
discriminatory.) I think the community has an expectation that if you’re
going to give a gift to any form of charity, and the environmental charities
sit separate to the other forms of charities, (Why?) then you are going to get value for money (‘Value’ is subjective but in every case
should only be ascertained using the triple-bottom-line
social/environmental/economic considerations, as the accountancy and finance
fields are currently in transition into and which governments and multi-nationals
will soon be forced to transition into or their social contracts will be
revoked: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/how-accountancy-is-changing-the-world/6425068 The Accountancy Revolution http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/extra/jeremy-balkin/6473536 Finance for Good) and it’s going to go to the
intended purpose that you want it to go for, that is practical help for the
environment, (And it can be argued that
preventing more unnecessary environmental destruction IS ‘practical help’)
and the terms of reference we’ve been given by the minister allows us the scope
to look at all of those issues and where those groups are doing good work for
the environment I don’t believe the committee is going to have any concern. I
think the only thing is they are going to have to meet their obligations under
the Act and that is ‘the protection and enhancement of the natural environment’
(There you have it: ‘the protection’ of
critically-endangered ecosystem is fully sanctioned, so why hold this Inquiry?)
FRAN KELLY: So, good work for the
environment… that could be subjective couldn’t it?
ALEX HAWKE: O well, sure, that’s just a colloquialism,
but the Act specifies particular things that these organisations must meet…
FRAN KELLY: And what are they?
ALEX HAWKE: Things like the protection and enhancement of
the natural environment…that’s straight out of the Income Tax Assessment Act or
the provision of information or education or carrying on research about the
natural environment, as well as a few other bits and pieces. And so our Inquiry
will look at those sorts of issues – we expect to get submissions from all
sides of this discussion. But you know wherever you come from on this issue I
think people want to see that if you donate to a charity that the money is
being spent exactly for the purpose intended by the Act that the money is given
to the organisation for.
FRAN KELLY: Can we just get a handle on the scale of the
issue we’re talking about here. I think there are close to 600 environmental
groups on that register involved in land, wildlife and rainforest conservation
– how much is that tax-deductibility status across those 600 groups costing the
tax payers?
ALEX HAWKE: It’s a good question – there are 600 groups and they’ve been
expanding in recent years so the Register has been growing exponentially over
time. Whether that’s an issue or not we’re not sure, we’ll see what the
submissions say. (Why would it be ‘an
issue’? Surely it would be brilliant if there were far more localised
environmental volunteer groups to do the essential work of ‘protecting and
restoring’ beleaguered native habitats free-of-charge, that governments not
only refuse to do, but who are in many cases actively contributing to the
destruction, degradation, desecration and pollution of said natural
environments?) the cost at the moment is difficult to identify – we know
that the entire charity sector costs billions of dollars so to gift deductible
recipient status across the whole charity sector is easy to identify, but we’re
actually having difficulty getting Treasury to tell us exactly what the
Environmental Register costs us, so we’ve asked those questions…
FRAN KELLY: So it might not be an issue at all, it might
not be a problem at all really. (So why
set up a very expensive Standing Commission and Inquiry without having this
basic information which could very well reveal that there IS not problem with
environmental groups.. surely that should have come first.)
ALEX HAWKE: Look, there’s estimates and assumptions but
there’s not really much point in me giving you those estimates and assumptions,
I mean it is a subject of individual organisations tax returns and adding them
all up (Which because this register
‘stands alone’ should be a very easy and quick exercise, so why is the Finance
Department taking so long to provide it?) and for privacy reasons obviously
you understand nobody can access those except for the Tax Office, so we’ve
asked the question. (When exactly was
this information officially requested and how long have they been waiting for
an answer?) But it’s a concern to me and a concern to the Committee that we
don’t actually know how much the Environmental Register costs us. Now it sits
separately under The Act, it’s a separate register environmental organisations,
and nobody can answer the question in government of how much the Environmental
Register costs us. (Unbelievable, in more
ways than one. This is a scandal.)
FRAN KELLY: Do you think there is an issue? Do you think there is
an example of conservation groups being eligible for tax-deductable donations
that shouldn’t be because the money’s been spent on political activism or
advocacy rather than environmental projects or protection of the environment?
ALEX HAWKE: Look, I expect we’ll see a lot of submissions
about this on all sides and I think you’ll see on this register of 600 groups,
if you go to the parliamentary website there, you’ll see small scale
environmental groups and probably we’ll hear from people telling us the great
local environmental work they’re doing…
FRAN KELLY: I’m sure…
ALEX HAWKE: You’ll see large scale environmental groups,
things like organisation like Greenpeace and others and I don’t want to single
anybody out particularly but just by way of example, bit organisations that
receive a lot of taxpayer money. You
know, you’ll see difference in scale, I think you’ll see difference in
approach… some people directly do environmental work, others look at the
advocacy side or the education side (Most
of them do all of that!) and then of course you’ll find I think from
different sectors people will tell us that there’s protesting campaigning
political activity and that’s outside
the definition of course, as is…
FRAN KELLY: But why
is it outside if political activity or protest is about education, which you
say is listed there, or is about raising a profile to end up with something
being protected? Isn’t that what environmental groups can do?
ALEX HAWKE: Well that would be the Inquiry’s purpose to
look at those things, so the idea that you can be a political entity is well
covered in other forms, I mean you can register as a political party, you can
receive tax payers funding in elections, you can do all of those things through
other mechanisms. (The point here is that
virtually all ordinary working or retired people who want to protect the
natural environment have no ability to start up a political party! That is why it
is so important that they have access to effect political change where they see
necessary through these Environmental groups.) The Act of course is
intended for education, advocacy and specific purposes that are outlined there,
so we’ll be looking at all of that in that context.
FRAN KELLY: Just trying to get a
handle on what it is you might be looking for. For instance, if we look back
through the lessons of history, the campaign to save the Franklin, no doubt
there were elements of that that were political activism, yet it saved the
Franklin. Would that kind of campaign be ineligible?
ALEX HAWKE: Well, yeah, hah… that’s too difficult a
question for me to answer…
FRAN KELLY: why?
ALEX HAWKE: I mean the issue is
because…ah…well, because political activism itself is not a problem. I mean
we’re in a free country, people are allowed to do political activism – the
question that we are looking at is what tax-payer funding goes to that
activism. (But the issue has been settled with the High Court decision) And
that is one of the things that we’ll look at in this case. It’s not a question…
I don’t want to denigrate anybody’s right to campaign, to do political
activism, to join green groups, all those things – those are all healthy parts
of our democracy - the question is whether
you’re entitled to tax-payers dollars to do it, and that’s what we’re
going to be looking at, those sorts of issues.
FRAN KELLY: But if they’re ‘healthy parts of our
democracy’, doesn’t it stand, as we do with any other healthy parts of our
democracy, there is some government
funding that goes to supporting elements that do these things because as a democracy we make that kind
of decision.
ALEX HAWKE: No, it’s my personal
view no, I don’t think you should receive that kind of thing to go and do your
own protesting or campaigning… (This is
exactly why Alex Hawke is demonstrably unsuitable for this leadership position
or even to be on this committee at all – his stated personal views are
completely antithetical to his ability to make rational, balanced assessments –
he’s already made up his mind on the issue, as many of his colleagues on this
committee have, all on the public record.)
or indeed
unlawful activity, I don’t think you should earn the tax-payer dollar for those
sorts of things and certainly some elements of some protests involve unlawful
activity, but you know in this case what we’re looking at, and I think it’s a
commonly-held view at the moment, everyone donating to charity whether it be
environmental charities or other charities, are looking for transparency,
they’re looking for the right to ensure their dollar is being spent exactly
where it’s supposed to be spent and there’s
particular requirements under this Act and that’s what we’re going to be
looking into.
FRAN KELLY: It is
going to come down to definitions – I imagine there’ll be some hefty debate
about this on the committee itself, but advocacy and lobbying by themselves are
not unlawful, nor are they inconsistent with being a charity, and we know that
because the High Court came to that conclusion when it ruled in the favour of
Aidwatch back in 2010 – that group had been stripped of its charitable status
by the Howard government for criticising the government’s policy on overseas
aid, and the High Court found that engaging in political debate is a crucial
part of advocacy work and in the public interest. Is there a lesson there that
will lead your discussion and the way you run the committee?
ALEX HAWKE: Yeah, I think there’s
lessons in all of these examples, (But
clearly this government has not paid any attention to that lesson in particular
or they would not have bothered wasting so much tax-payers money setting up
this standing committee and holding this Inquiry – how much exactly has it
already cost and how much will it end up costing and even if they do manage
after court appeals to throw off some groups, how much money would that have
made for the government in relation to how much the process has cost?) and
indeed in New Zealand Greenpeace lost its court case against the New Zealand
government to receive tax-payer funding (What has New Zealand got to do with the
Australian Register of Environmental Groups?) and in our own High Court has
denied groups like Sea Shepherd in the past things like that. (Has Sea shepherd ever claimed charity
status that has been removed? Research.) There are good examples both ways (But the major one, the most significant one
as relates to this Inquiry is clearly the High Court decision, which has been
totally ignored by the government.) I mean I don’t believe this is
something that will be radically controversial, (You are dead wrong there!) I think most people want to see greater
scrutiny and transparency around tax payer funded entities (O yes indeed, especially around the tax-payer funded IPA…) and all
of those things are under scrutiny in this Inquiry.
FRAN KELLY: I think it’s fair to
say there’s a bit of nervousness about this decision within the environmental
groups because they look at some of the comments from some of your colleagues,
for instance Andrew Nikolic who moved a motion at last year’s federal liberal
council meeting to strip environmental groups of charitable status (What, all of them? Get transcript) He
said groups like the ACF, The Wilderness Society and the Bob Brown Foundation
are conducting “illegal activities”, “untruthful, destructive attacks on
legitimate businesses”… and George Christianson, the member for Dawson (and member of the standing committee) called
last year for the register to be “cleansed” of green groups…(What, all of them? Get transcript.)
Can you see why environmental
groups might be a bit sensitive to this Inquiry being established. (or you could say cynical and suspicious…)
ALEX HAWKE: Well I can, and look, nobody I think has…
well, green groups are not sancrosanct (sic) just like charities in other
sectors, to ensure that they meet their purposes and objectives and the
Charities Commissions being more rigorous with other charities. (Exactly – the Charities Commissions are
already overseeing ALL charities including green charities, so why the need to
duplicate?) Environment charities have to be rigorous and transparent as
well, there’s no special protection for environmental charities.
FRAN KELLY: Well thank you very
much for joining us.
ALEX HAWKE: Thanks very much.
-------------------------------------------
FRAN KELLY: Lyndon Schneiders is the National Campaign
Director of the Wilderness Society, he joins me in the Breakfast studio. You
heard the comments there from Alex Hawke. He says that what tax payers don’t
want is for their money to be spent on, for instance, ‘unlawful’ activities
conducted by some of the environment groups – is that fair enough?
LYNDON SCHNEIDERS: Look, this is
a long debate, its gone back 15 years and we saw it during the height of the
Howard Government and as you’ve pointed out there’s been quite a lot of
previous commentary and even legal precedents centred around this. I think Mr
Hawke and the committee have been set up for a particular reason, and that is
to pressure and try to cower the environmental movement at exactly the time in
which the government’s under extreme
scrutiny for its political actions, including extreme international scrutiny
over the coming World Heritage Committee meeting looking at the Great Barrier
Reef in danger issue. I don’t think there’s a coincidence here…
FRAN KELLY: But for people listening, explain how you
think this is ‘cowering’ the environment groups, because this is talking about
taking away some tax deductibility status, its not talking about banning groups
from performing certain activities. The crucial term of reference from your
point of view is the second I think, No.2 which says whether groups are involved
in “on-ground environmental work” (PROBLEM) which goes to concerns about
activism and political advocacy. Why should you get charitable status for
that?
LYNDON SCHNEIDERS: Well look I
think the important thing here is we’re Not For Profits. I think the Liberals
sometimes have a hard time understanding that there are organisations and
individuals who want to participate in Australian society (NOT NOT THAT) not
with a profit motive, but with a NFP motive and the environment is clearly one
of those areas.
FRAN KELLY: But this wouldn’t
stop people donating…
LYNDON SCHNEIDERS: It wouldn’t
stop people donating but it’s there as a disincentive to make it harder for
people to provide financial support to conservation groups. It’s been pretty
clearly articulated in the Senate and in the House of Reps over the last 10
years by the Libs that they believe that
removing tax-deductibility status will
do damage to the environmental movement – they genuinely believe that. Now I
think that’s a bad analysis by the way – I know from the example of our own
organisation and we’ve asked our own organisation whether tax-deductibility is
particularly important and they say no – they say they appreciate that but they
also say that moves to strip tax deductibility are more likely to increase
their support. So I think that Mr Hawke and others really need to be careful
about the path they’re going down – they might be unintentionally radicalising
the environmental movement and that would be a silly idea.
FRAN KELLY: The Wilderness Society has already been
audited once by the tax office in 2006 – what did you have to do to prove that
it deserved the tax-deductible status then?
LYNDON SCHNEIDERS: We had to
demonstrate that our dominant purpose was charitable and the tax office gave us
a complete clean bill of health. Now the tax office also recognised that we
engaged in a whole lot of activities, including education, political lobbying,
even in involvement in election campaigns where we were producing things like
report cards – they said they were all
legitimate things for an environmental group to do. (Another precedent) Our
dominant purpose however was charitable. Now that brings up another issue that
I think is unusual about this Inquiry is that following a lot of the
controversy around charities in general during the 2000s when charities grew
exponentially, there was a decision made by the last parliament to establish
the Australian Charities Commission, which regulates and is transparent and
looks at all of the charity sector
and how we conduct ourselves and makes sure that we conduct ourselves
consistent with the charity’s codes and the charity’s requirements - it looks
at every single component of the charity sector. It is removed from government,
it’s an independent body and it has broad support from the entire charity
sector because it is independent and
it doesn’t allow ‘witch hunts’ and ‘fatwas’ to be launched exactly like this.
Now the environmental movement is covered by that charity’s network and
legislation. I think it’s odd that the government’s choosing to especially
target the environmental groups when they’ve got a perfectly good statutory
body that’s sitting there, which is working, which is actually de-registering
organisations that are not carrying out their charitable purpose.
FRAN KELLY: Has it deregistered
any environmental groups?
LYNDON SCHNEIDERS: Not sure – the last time I looked it had
deregistered 530 separate charitable groups, so that’s quite considerable…
FRAN KELLY: So you think there’s
already a watchdog there…
LYNDON SCHNEIDERS: There is a
watchdog there that most importantly is one step removed from government. Now I
think it’s unusual that this government is choosing to ignore its own watchdog,
its professing a “deep community concern” – Mr Hawke was just saying surely its
legitimate for the community to want to have a look at these things… there’s
already a watchdog, which by the way, the Coalition wanted to abolish – their
promise was too abolish that independent watchdog.
FRAN KELLY: My guest is (etc)
We’ve just heard from the Liberal member who is heading an Inquiry into the tax
deductibility status of environmental groups and whether all of them are
eligible for it or whether some of them are more activists and advocates rather
than on-the-ground environmental protectors. You talk about a ‘fatwa’ – that’s
pretty strong language. Clearly feelings are high on both sides of this. Last year though the Abbott government
budget did abolish grants to voluntary environment and sustainability and
heritage organisations - and that’s a scheme that had been in place since 1973
- it also has abolished funding for the state-based Environmental Defenders
Office. (…to prepare for appeals to their
negative decisions of course, removing an avenue of legal help) Do you believe there is a campaign to harm the environment groups, is that what you’re
saying?
LYNDON SCHNEIDERS: Yes, look I think all the facts demonstrate a
consistent set of behaviour. You know, you go back to the Liberal Federal
Council meeting last year which unanimously agreed to support stripping
environment groups of their tax-deductibility status – you look at the
de-funding of the EDOs, the stripping
back of resources for the State
Voluntary Conservation Groups… This is from a government led by a Prime
Minister who has told us that climate change is absolute crap, this is also
from a government that holds at least a caucus of people who have made it clear
they deeply dislike the environment movement…
FRAN KELLY: There’s nothing wrong with that though… I
mean people are allowed to like or dislike an environmental movement, you can’t
go arguing on emotive elements like that, you have to be arguing don’t you that
lawful activity is one thing, unlawful activity is not for the tax payer to be
funding. (Clearly if that unlawful
activity is ‘protecting’ the environment, then it is, as the High Court ruled)
..do you accept that?
LYNDON SCHNEIDERS: Yes I do accept that - it comes down to the
next question around what constitutes lawful activity … I think in the eyes of
some of these folks, protesting in any way shape or form or critiquing the
government, they almost consider to be ‘unlawful’ – there is a fine line …
FRAN KELLY: It’s pretty clear if
protesters are say being dragged off the roof of the Opera House, that becomes
‘unlawful’…
LYNDON SCHNEIDERS: Well there is, but what we also often find is
that courts chose not to convict a number of these protesters because the
courts recognise that this is in the public interest – there’s a lot of these
demonstrations occurring exactly because the laws are not working or being
enforced. So I think there’s a nuanced discussion even at that point. Go and do
a factual check of people who are arrested and those who are convicted and the
relationship is very small because the courts are clear about this matter.
FRAN KELLY: Thank you for joining
us.
This is a battle that has been
drawn, I guess – this committee will now be hearing from all sides of this
debate over coming weeks and months and we’ll keep you up to date with that.
-------------------------------o0o---------------------------------
Locked Bag 3, Orbost
Victoria 3888 AUSTRALIA
eeg@eastgipsland.net.au
ABN: 30 865 568 417
www.eastgippsland.net.au
East Gippsland – our breathing space
Committee Secretary
House of Representatives Standing Committee on the
Environment
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Via email: environment.reps@aph.gov.au
16 May 2015
Submission
Inquiry into the administration and transparency of
the Register of Environmental Organisations and its effectiveness in supporting
communities to take practical action to improve the environment.
Environment East Gippsland is a volunteer organisation and
has been working to protect the environment of this region since 1983. We have
a membership of over 350 and a supporter base of over 1,000 who are from both
Gippsland as well as other areas of rural and regional Australia. About half of
this number resides in Gippsland.
Our group aims to:
promote the conservation values and environmental
awareness about East Gippsland,
promote sustainability in environmental, economic and
social terms,
make representation to Government re land use and
management,
undertake research relevant to the above,
participate in government processes.
Our group identifies rare or threatened flora and fauna
and ensures that protection measures for their survival are being adhered to.
We produce newsletters, articles, and other written information about the East
Gippsland environment and the need to protect it. This information is published
in newspapers, newsletters and our website.
We make submissions to Government in relation to the
protection of the environment and responded to Government invitations, at both
State and Commonwealth level, to comment on environment‐related matters. We
have been represented on Committees established by Government concerned with
the environment including the Regional
Forest Agreement Consultative Committee, and the Far East
Gippsland Round Table Forum on fire. We also conduct guided walking tours and
ecology camps in East Gippsland to educate the public about our forests and
wildlife.
We educate our members about the natural wonders of this
region and the need to protect our forests and wildlife. We encourage our
members and supporters to advocate for their protection. We believe that the
public love of our environment needs little encouragement and their
appreciation of and advocacy for this region has benefited the protection of
rare wildlife here. Without our supporters and their passion for the
environment, we believe East Gippsland would not have the profile it does now
as a natural wonderland, and that many areas of valuable habitat might not
still be existing.
EEG is on the Register of Environmental Organisations and
we raise about a
year through tax deductible donations. We rely on this to fund our work.
Our members and supporters are fully informed of our
activities, our ecology camps and other news throughout the year via our
newsletter, The Potoroo Review, our e‐bulletins, facebook
page, twitter and the EEG website. Our work is fully open to public scrutiny.
We would be very concerned if the Committee proposes
making the administration of the Register more complex, or limiting our work or advocacy
for the environment.
We would be pleased to provide any further information if
needed.
Yours sincerely
Jill Redwood
Coordinator
No comments:
Post a Comment