Remove DGR status from Greenpeace

I wrote previously that deductions to Greenpeace should not be tax-deductible (ie: on the deductible gift recipient (DGR) list. The Greenpeace Australia website proudly declares

To maintain absolute independence Greenpeace does not accept money from companies, governments or political parties.

Yet by having DGR status Greenpeace is indeed receiving taxpayer funding.

As Brendan Pearson writes today

Greenpeace Australia chief executive David Ritter warned last year that civil disobedience was inevitable given that “all available lawful options have proven wholly inadequate and ineffective”.

Presumably one of those options is the democratic process. The electorate delivered a clear verdict: the Greens shed 25 per cent of their vote. In the lower house, 148 of 150 members are in parties who support the “termination” of the carbon tax and expansion of the coal industry.

Greenpeace leaders therefore advocate illegal and criminal activities and, like Clive Hamilton, do not respect the democratic process.

If Greenpeace does not respect Australia’s values and laws it should not be on the DGR list.

The Government should therefore divest Greenpeace from the DGR list.

About Samuel J

Samuel J has an economics background and is a part-time consultant
This entry was posted in Divestment. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Remove DGR status from Greenpeace

  1. Token

    Greenpeace leaders therefore advocate illegal and criminal activities and, like Clive Hamilton, do not respect the democratic process.

    If Greenpeace does not respect Australia’s values and laws it should not be on the DGR list.

    What is the name for a multi national institutions which shakes down people globally & advocate illegal activities?

    Hmmm, I bet there is a word in English…

  2. Fred

    Take everyone off the DGR list.

    Charitable donations should be out of net income.

  3. Rabz

    … warned last year that civil disobedience was inevitable given that “all available lawful options have proven wholly inadequate and ineffective”

    The arrogance of these insane greenfilth dirtbags (BIRM) is staggering.

    Are those Liberal softcocks going to do anything about this?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

  4. Famer Gez

    Let us not forget Greenpeace’s campaign against GMO science and Ag biotech. Broke into research facilities in clear defiance of the law. An anti science group of Luddites who certainly don’t deserve tax breaks.

  5. Token

    Are those Liberal softcocks going to do anything about this?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    Stand by them in photo ops in a desperate attempt to get stroked and love from people who hate them.

  6. duncanm

    In the words of the greens and their fellow travellers:

    The taxpayer is subsidising Greenpeace to the tune of $5M/year

    (over $4M of which goes to Greenpeace International according to their 2012 annual report)

  7. JMH

    Australian taxpayers should never be required to fund rogue organisations. I cite the UN and WWF. It’s well beyond time such inane wastage is reined in. Hockey, I’m looking at you!

  8. john constantine

    respect the science. greenpeace respect the science by breaking into the csiro and destroying by vandalism csiro wheat trials. remember the abc defending the ‘passionate activists’ and the leftie talking heads explaining that due to all the good work with whales,greenpeace was entitled to vandalise whatever it wanted. no point targeting greenpeace on its own,need legislation that requires tax deductibilty only for organisations that have open elections for leadership,and transparent accounts reconciled according to australian standards.

  9. Dan

    It equals govt funding if you believe all income belongs to the government and it is granted back to you by the grace of politicians. Given that donations to political parties are tax-deductible it is absurd to claim a politically biased organisation is not eligible.

  10. entropy

    It equals govt funding if you believe all income belongs to the government and it is granted back to you by the grace of politicians. Given that donations to political parties are tax-deductible it is absurd to claim a politically biased organisation is not eligible.

    but that’s the point, Dan, these clowns clai.m that a diesel fuel rebate is a subsidy, then claim tax deductibility for themselves is not funding from government. I would prefer the end of tax deductions for donations for everyone. It should be from net income, as Fred says.

  11. Ripper

    Yep , time for Joe to make some of Swannie’s “savings” and tax them.

  12. MT Isa Miner

    Too right , Samuel J. It’s the only way to hit them. in the wallet. Abetz and Hockey we are waiting!

    Like Collier said in the Australian, the government has to stop being bookkeeper for the unions-FM I had no idea that kind of help went on. JM and Joseph , what ARE the conservatives thinking! How did this happen? For how long has it been going on? Are they morons?

    UNION membership in Australia might halve overnight if all state governments outlawed payroll deduction of union fees and the federal government outlawed the forcible unionisation of small business by big business.

  13. MT Isa Miner

    Yeah I realise Collier said state governments- well now is the chance for all the liberals in state( except the losers in SA). But the tax help for greens is federal so it is Hockey that has to grow a pair.

  14. Bruce of Newcastle

    Greenpeace is currently doing a Josef Stalin on its founder Patrick Moore by disappearing him from its archives. Dr Moore had the temerity to say CAGW is not scientific, nuclear power should be supported and the enviro movement should go back to helping the environment.

    Yep when they behave this way, and cause huge damage to lawful businesses in this country with direct action tactics, why does Federal Government allow tax deductibility for donors to them?

    Meanwhile in the land of Stalin, remember the Greenpeace ship that was detained last year along with 30 activists?

    Its still stuck in Murmansk. The Greenpeacers are currently trying to sue in a court in St. Petersburg to get it released. They seem not to be making much headway.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  15. Rococo Liberal

    Let me as the resident expert explain a few things for you rabid chappies and chappessies out there.

    Obtaining DGR status is mostly autoimatic if an organsiation qualifies under one of the headings in the Act. Thios is confirmed by the Dept of the Environment placing an organsation on the Register for Environmental Organisations.

    There is very little the Government can do to isolate one particularly egregious group. If that group meets the requirements in the Act, then it gets DGR status. It doesn’t matter if the group then clls for Stalin to be disinterred to reign over us.

    A few years back, the Government tried to argue in court that a body called Aid Watch didn’t deserve DGR status if it did political lobbying along with its main work. The pansy High Court of course agreed that political activity was somehow related to charity work.

    So it is going to be very hard for the Government to stop Greenpeace from keeping DGR status, unless it can convimnce the High Court that Greeenpeace’s political activities are so primary to its aim that it doesn’t actually fit into the heading under the Act.

  16. Driftforge

    … warned last year that civil disobedience was inevitable given that “all available lawful options have proven wholly inadequate and ineffective”

    Doesn’t the government maintain separate lists that would be more appropriate for organisations that conduct societally disruptive activities?

  17. Driftforge

    So it is going to be very hard for the Government to stop Greenpeace from keeping DGR status, unless it can convimnce the High Court that Greeenpeace’s political activities are so primary to its aim that it doesn’t actually fit into the heading under the Act.

    It’s hardly as though Greenpiece is alone in needeing to be removed. Just remove the headings in the act that it qualifies under.

  18. Beertruk

    Ezra Levant came up with a solution to combat Greeenpeace in Canada back in August 2010. I would be interested if the Legal Beagles here in the Cat Files would know if it could work here in Oz.

    Linky :

    Calgary Sun

    They must have had a good laugh over at Greenpeace’s headquarters in Amsterdam when they heard about the Alberta government’s latest plan to defend the oilsands.

    Oilsands producer Suncor had the right idea when they sued Greenpeace for

    $1.5 million over their 2009 trespass.

    But there is a legal tool Stelmach has that Suncor doesn’t: The Criminal Code.

    Currently, only the little people at Greenpeace are ever charged, for minor crimes like mischief and, in the case of the Calgary Tower, break and enter.

    Many of those arrested are in their 20s, and are let off with a slap on the wrist.

    In the meantime, Greenpeace makes enormous profits off the scheme.

    They can always find more cannon fodder to do their dirty work.

    But there is a section of the Criminal Code designed for such a conundrum: Section 467.1, which allows for the prosecution of a “criminal organization.”

    A criminal organization is defined as one whose main activity is the “commission of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group.”

    Break and enter, for example, is considered a “serious offence.”

    Greenpeace operatives have been charged dozens of times in Alberta alone.

    The law is clear.

    To be convicted under Section 467.1, the crime organization’s leaders don’t need to know the exact details of the offences being committed, or even the identity of the people involved.

    The list of factors for courts to consider includes the repeated use of a name (Greenpeace banners always feature their logo); the receipt of a benefit (Greenpeace always fundraises off their stunts); and repetition of these activities (almost a half-dozen times in the past two years).

    The law applies to members of the organization anywhere around the world.

    What do you think would make Greenpeace’s executives stop laughing?

    A few amateur newspaper ads, and arresting some college kids?

    Or the prosecution of senior Greenpeace executives here in Canada – and in Amsterdam, too?

  19. Motelier

    Rocco Liberal,

    Sorry, but I am with Fred up thread.

    Remove everyone from the DGR and dismantle it. If the cause is so good and people will believe in it the let them support with their own money.

  20. Jessie

    FYI
    Housed in Singapore’s Economic Development Board is the International Organisations Program Office,

    a growing cluster of private banks, hub for social change, established networks and 5 of the world’s top environmental movements now have collocated their regional headquarters there.

    Singapore’s established ecosystem for the social sector offers organisations a ready base for developing innovative solutions. It is home to more than 150 international non-profits and 7000 multinational corporations executing key regional functions and programs.

    Save the Children, Worldwide Fund for Nature, Earth Hour Global relocated from Sydney, Greenpeace is not listed as of 9/2012.

    The article began with a story on Kim Un the Cambodian pig farmer, his wife+4 daughters and an unsanitary toilet. Argument: Safe sanitation as a global priority in context to the UN in 2013 designating Nov 19th as World Toilet Day.
    Ref: The Economist 8th March
    P14-15 Leaders Section

  21. Baldrick

    Greenpeacefilth’s Australian CEO describes civil disobedience as:

    “…public, non-violent, conscientious, unlawful conduct … Committing acts of civil disobedience does not mean disrespecting the rule of law itself. Indeed, by being prepared to accept the legal consequences of their actions, citizen activists show their fidelity to the rule of law per se.

    So any act of unlawful conduct is considered acceptable because you’re acting in a ‘non-violent’ manner. Trouble with that theory is other people, such as the police, may have to employ violent acts to ensure your civil disobedience does not interfere with the lawful conduct of others.
    But then again it’s all done in the name of a ‘good environmental cause’, as voted on by a minority of fringe dwelling gutter scum, green-filth, charity workers!

  22. Max

    Greenpeace leaders therefore advocate illegal and criminal activities and, like Clive Hamilton, do not respect the democratic process.

    I know its Blairs Law – but I am still staggered at how quickly the left and radical/militant* Islam aligned.

    * I hate how the Media use this label when they really are indescriminate mass murdering cowards who target non-combatants.

  23. Dan

    There is a huge difference between an NGO providing food and shelter to the needy and getting some government assistance, and an organisation that is essentially a political lobbying firm getting tax breaks from government to buy ships and run programs that disrupt other countries performing legal actions. Hiring people to engage in illegal conduct is not a good look.

  24. john constantine

    australia does need rico after all

  25. Max

    Agreed Dan – Many Many of these NGOs are simply tax payer subsidised media and marketing organisations.

    In terms of “results” they most commonly serve as a “platform” to get their “creatives” high paying jobs at private sector Ad Agencies.

  26. Ivan Denisovich

    There is a huge difference between an NGO providing food and shelter to the needy and getting some government assistance, and an organisation that is essentially a political lobbying firm getting tax breaks from government to buy ships and run programs that disrupt other countries performing legal actions.

    Yep:

    http://www.vexnews.com/2012/03/at-the-coalface-what-do-the-red-cross-the-salvos-and-greenpeace-have-in-common/

    Greenpeace ethics:

    http://www.vexnews.com/2009/05/in-the-red-greenpeace-militants-scamming-donors/

  27. thefrollickingmole

    Well the courts/government have precedent for denting an “outlaw” actavist group from claiming tax deductable status..

    The excremental Sea Shepherd mob were denied the status a few years back when they applied.

    Sea Shepherd is a registered business in the following countries, but does not yet have tax benefits for the donor:
    Australia

    Mind you I do wonder just what the Sea shepherd mob would have to do to attract the eye of …ooooh lets say OH&S in the running of their “company”.

  28. Dan

    The ACF is another I would like to see taken down. Their MO is similar to Greenpeace, to engage in activities that disrupt legal business operations.

    Charities like that run by Nova Kneebone should also come under scrutiny.

  29. Bruce of Newcastle

    These people must be suffering in the current situation of no global warming and fairly poor national economic situations (due to things like the electricity prices bankrupting people here in Newcastle).

    I was at a local shopping centre a short time ago and the WWF had a stand out front, soliciting.

    I avoided them as if I had to reply to anything they said it would be unprintable. Bloody hypocrites.

  30. Token

    So it is going to be very hard for the Government to stop Greenpeace from keeping DGR status, unless it can convimnce the High Court that Greeenpeace’s political activities are so primary to its aim that it doesn’t actually fit into the heading under the Act.

    RL. How about if the organisation uses the funds to pay people who break the law? What if they advocate or incite people to break the law?

    Knowing the HCA I’m sure they have already approved in a prior case for public funds to be used to enable people to break the law (and I’m not just limiting this to the very well known to “border security” cases).

  31. Dan

    Well there should be no deductions for anything once we have a 10 % flat tax but fat chance of that

  32. New Zealand’s High Court ruled, quite rightly, that Greenpeace aint no charity, almost three years ago.

  33. Dan

    Bloody hell, if the kiwis are ahead of the game we need to dummy up quick smart.

  34. Demosthenes

    Yet by having DGR status Greenpeace is indeed receiving taxpayer funding.

    Hang on a sec. Of course Greenpeace shouldn’t be tax-deductible (charity? give me a break), but tax breaks aren’t subsidies, there is no transfer of taxpayer money. Otherwise we’re using the left-wing tactic of calling not taking 100% of miner’s profits “subsidies”! Mr J, it’s not enough to just be in the right, you need to have the better quality arguments.

  35. JC

    I love the way you wove happy Hamilton into the thread SJ. Good work. There ought to be more of it when it comes to that douchebag.

  36. .

    Dem

    Think of it like GST.

    Boom.

  37. samuel j

    I know that RL says that it is by default that Greenpeace is given DGR status. But that isn’t quite right, and even if it was, doesn’t stop the Government acting in Parliament to change the rules.

    Have a look at this page from the Australia Charities and Not for Profit Commission.

    In particular, it says that a charity (and yes, if you check Greenpeace on the ACNC website it is in fact registered as a charity!!!) cannot be registered if:

    included in a written decision made by an Australian government agency or judge that lists it as engaging in or supporting terrorist or other criminal activities

    Surely the Government should use the examples from Greenpeace to show that it is supporting criminal activities and have it removed from the ACNC. All it takes is a written decision by an Australian Government agency.

  38. gabrianga

    Somewhere in the deep recesses of my fading memory I seem to remember me and a few others doing quite a bit of investigative work on” Australia Green Groups” such as Greenpeace , ACF, Friends of the Earth even Oxfam

    The results of this “study” were to be written up by a well recognised economics expert and passed on to Peter Costello who I believe requested the information.

    Although info from Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Pacific Island were included, SFA happened and the “Green Crew” continues to this day to create havoc in development in Australia even deserting the Aborigines they used up in many of their campaigns.

    Don’t expect change as now the Government wouldn’t dare step on the “Green Crew” and many of our leading producers would rather dine with than damn them.

  39. samuel j

    Dem – Greenpeace says that tax concessions are subsidies so we are just using their own argument against them.

  40. “Dear Greenpeace,

    All those gay whales you fought to get land rights for now want to reward you. Handsomely. In person (so to speak).

    We would be homophobic if we tried to stop them.

    Hope you have a good time together.

    Happy Screaming.

    Regards, The Rest Of Us.”

  41. Ripper

    included in a written decision made by an Australian government agency or judge that lists it as engaging in or supporting terrorist or other criminal activities

    Greenpeace just need a reference from Vlad Putin

  42. Dan

    Or Jonathan Moylan. If and when that turd gets sentenced.

Comments are closed.