Uncharitable Clampdown

by Glenn Milne - The Australian

As his July Senate majority looms, John Howard publicly makes much of avoiding hubris. But behind the scenes this Government is moving ruthlessly to lock in its political ascendancy, even at the cost of free speech. Thus it was that early last week Environment Minister Ian Campbell announced that in the future government grants to environmental lobby groups would be capped at $10,000, rather than the previous $80,000.

The spin offered by the minister was that this would allow his department to better spread the available environment funds across a wider range of groups. So if you're a member of the Gulargambone Eucalyptus Tree Planting Society, you'll now have a better chance of getting a grant.

That is true. But the real political sting in the tail of the announcement was that the larger, national environmental lobby organisations will now lose money – and, therefore, effectiveness. And these groups are almost universally critical of the Government's policies on issues such as global warming and the Kyoto Protocol.

So in one fell swoop the Government buys itself more support at a community level and muzzles its political opponents at a national level. Neat. And it may be about to get neater. Just ask Liberal Party senator Brett Mason.

Mason, from Queensland, is gentle of manner but one of the political hard men on the Government's backbench. On the Labor side of politics, there are Wayne Swan and Stephen Smith. The Liberals have Mason and his mate, fellow Queensland senator George Brandis. Like Smith and Swan, when parliament sits, Mason and Brandis are rarely seen apart. They even have matching jumpers. They're gutsy, too. Both supporters of Peter Costello, they have shown in the past they're prepared to stick their necks out for him regardless of whether they incur Howard's wrath. Which they do.

And like Smith and Swan, the Liberal version of Labor's so-called "glimmer twins" specialise in the hard end of political strategy. Mason and Brandis devised the Liberals' Queensland Senate campaign at the last election. Together they won Howard's endorsement to promote the Liberal Party against the National Party in their Coalition partner's heartland seats.

The result was a lift in the Liberals' Senate vote that won them another upper house seat for the state. While the Nationals make much noise about their Barnaby Joyce delivering Howard his one-seat Senate majority via Queensland, Brandis and Mason can equally claim it was their strategy that gave Howard his historic victory.

It's a mark of their effectiveness that the Nationals detest them both. Even the normally sheepishly good-natured Nationals Senate leader Ron Boswell bridles at the mention of their names.

Since the election Mason has been frying other fish. It began in March 2004 during the adjournment debate in the Senate when Mason rose to address the house on the apparently benign subject of charitable institutions. The speech was anything but. Mason had in his sights the tax deductibility of charity organisations, a status that is granted with one caveat: such organisations must not engage in political advocacy.

"Our approach is very much in line with countries such as the US and Britain," Mason told his Senate colleagues. "Sadly, perhaps, some [charities] do not appreciate this sense of mutual obligation and want to have all the benefits without the obligations. Increasingly, we are seeing many organisations which want to have all the tax benefits of charities but at the same time involve themselves in all sorts of uncharitable activities. Over the years we have seen a change in the way some charities operate. In the past they've provided welfare for the needy and worked hands-on for the environment; now they just lobby the Government instead – or if the Government does not oblige them, they lobby to change the Government to a more accommodating one."

Then Mason came to the point: "There is nothing wrong with groups and organisations in the community engaging in the political process – lobbying and campaigning. The only question is why such groups and organisations should get the tax breaks to help them do so. If the aim is to effect political change, shouldn't these charity workers actually join political parties, where the maximum tax deductible threshold is $150? Or conversely, if lobbying should have tax benefits for charities, then why not for everyone else as well? If it's OK for koalas and the homeless, why isn't it for sugar farmers?"

In preparing his case, Mason had the help of two key right-wing thinkers, Gary Johns and Don D'Cruz, both members of the Institute of Public Affairs. Mason went on in the Senate to give some examples of blatant politicking by tax deductible organisations such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society.

Now, Mason is about to reap the harvest he sowed back in March last year. Shortly before the 2004 election, the senator formally asked the then environment minister, David Kemp, to investigate his complaints.

Kemp's successor, Campbell, has promised Mason a reply, and he has now written to conservation groups reminding them their tax deductible status is dependent on their efforts being devoted to "the conservation of the natural environment and not for any other purpose, such as political activity".

If you think those words are ominous, you're right. Mason is now awaiting his reply from Campbell and does not expect to be disappointed.

But if you think it's only environmental groups that are likely to be affected by the Mason campaign, think again. How would Catholic Health Australia be feeling right now? Remember it? It was CHA's head Francis Sullivan who devised Labor's Medicare Gold policy at the last election and then publicly endorsed it, with the weight of the Catholic private hospital system behind him. You may have forgotten, but the Government hasn't.

The ball Mason set rolling in March 2004 now has the potential to knock over some very big skittles. And they will all be judged on their attitude to the Government. So much for free speech. And if legislation is required, the Senate will no longer be a problem after July 1. So the next time Howard tells you his Government has not succumbed to hubris, put it in the same basket as the promise to maintain the Medicare safety net.