Hubbry Logo
The Australia InstituteThe Australia InstituteMain
Open search
The Australia Institute
Community hub
The Australia Institute
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
The Australia Institute
The Australia Institute
The Australia Institute
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Australia Institute is an Australian public policy think tank based in Canberra. Since its launch in 1994, it has carried out research on a broad range of economic, social, and environmental issues. The Australia Institute states that it takes a bipartisan approach to research, but it has been described as "progressive" or "left-leaning".[3][4]

Key Information

The Australia Institute has faced criticism over alleged links with the Australian Greens, with critics arguing these connections undermine its claim of being non-partisan.[5] Media reporting has highlighted that several current and former senior figures at the Institute have held roles with the Greens, including founder and former executive director Clive Hamilton, who ran as a Greens candidate in 2009, former executive director Ben Oquist and current executive director Richard Denniss, both of whom previously worked in the office of former Greens leader Bob Brown, and other staff who have served as advisers or communications officials for the party. Former deputy chair Barbara Pocock resigned from the Institute before entering the Australian Senate as a Greens senator in 2022. Critics, including some within the Australian Labor Party, have pointed to policy alignment between the Institute and the Greens on issues such as tax, climate, energy and defence as further evidence of political affinity. The Australia Institute has rejected these claims, stating it has no formal political affiliations and arguing that its independence is demonstrated by its willingness to criticise or support policies from any political party based on its research.

Research

[edit]

The Australia Institute undertakes economic analysis with special emphasis on the role of the public sector as well as issues such as taxation and inequality, including gender inequality, poverty, privatisation, foreign investment, and corporate power. Some of The Australia Institute's contributions involve analysis of modelling exercises on the part of other groups such as assessing some of the pandemic modelling[6] as well as the modelling behind the government's intergenerational report.[7] The fiscal response has prompted attention to the tax base and so The Australia Institute described the principles of a good tax[8] and a report on how to make the budget less sexist.[9] These are some of the topics among the hundreds of reports on economic issues generally.

The Australia Institute has produced research in the climate and energy space since 1994.[10] In 2017, The Australia Institute took over the work of the Climate Institute, including continuing the Climate of the Nation report, the longest continuous survey of community attitudes to climate change in Australia.[11] The Australia Institute also published the National Energy Emissions Audit until October 2021.[12]

The Australia Institute's Democracy & Accountability Program was established to "research the solutions to our democratic deficit and develop the political strategies to put them into practice".[13] Issues pursued by the program include truth in political advertising laws,[14] how state and federal governments have handled the COVID-19 pandemic,[15] and freedom of information laws.[16]

In October 2019, The Australia Institute established the International and Security Affairs Program to examine "the global connectivity that both underpins and impacts on Australia’s place in the world and the well-being of our citizens".[17] The program addresses a broad range of contemporary global issues, including new thinking on what security means,[18] a contemporary Middle East policy,[19] the proper use of the defence force,[20] the ANZUS Treaty,[21] Australia's relations with China,[22] and how Australia might improve its performance in the Pacific.[23]

The Australia Institute's researchers are prominent commentators on public policy issues, including work on climate change and energy, emissions trading, taxation policy, and inequality.

History

[edit]

Clive Hamilton helped establish The Australia Institute in 1994 to generate public debate on building a better society, particularly the environment.[24] It was formally established on 4 May 1994.[25] The first directors of the institute were Professor Max Neutze (inaugural chair);[26] Hugh Saddler, a consultant in energy policy; and John Langmore; then a Labor Party MP; John Neville; Russell Rollason, then executive director of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid; Elizabeth Reid, the former first women's adviser to the prime minister Gough Whitlam in 1973; Barbara Spalding, an expert in social welfare and education; and Professor Marion Simms, an expert in the fields of gender studies and political science.[citation needed]

Hamilton was the executive director until his resignation in 2008. He was succeeded in the role by Richard Denniss, who stepped down in 2015 to take up the role of chief economist.[27]

Ben Oquist was executive director from 2015 to 2022. He was succeeded by Richard Denniss, who returned to the role in 2022. In October 2025, the board announced an executive leadership restructure in which Leanne Minshull was appointed co-Chief Executive Officer alongside Richard Denniss, who continues in the co-CEO role.[28]

Description and standpoints

[edit]

The Australia Institute claims to take a bipartisan approach to research but has been described as a "progressive" or "left-leaning" think-tank.[29][30]

Climate change and energy

[edit]

The Australia Institute is active in promoting global warming mitigation measures and has been critical of the Australian federal government's perceived lack of action on climate change. The Australia Institute was critical of the Howard government's decision to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and claims that the former Prime Minister and some senior ministers deny the scientific evidence for global warming and that the resources sector drives government energy policy. Leaked minutes of a meeting between the Energy Minister, the Prime Minister and fossil fuel lobbyists provide evidence for those claims.[31][32]

The Australia Institute has been active in promoting renewable energy development and other mitigation measures and has campaigned strongly against developing a nuclear industry in Australia.[33]

The Australia Institute criticised the Rudd government's proposed Australian emissions trading scheme (or Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) by arguing that it failed to adequately take into account voluntary action and delivered excessive compensation to polluting industries.[34]

The Australia Institute viewed positively the design of the carbon price mechanism implemented by the Gillard government and argued that beginning with a fixed price and transitioning to an emissions trading scheme made sense since there was no consensus about what the emissions reduction target should be.[35]

In 2014, Ben Oquist, who was the Australia Institute's strategy director, was involved in the Palmer United Party's decision to vote against the abolition of the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the Climate Change Authority.[36] Oquist wrote, "The Australia Institute is disappointed that the carbon price is likely to be repealed". However, "The Palmer-Gore announcement has re-set climate policy and politics. Keeping the CCA, the RET and the CEFC is much more than most expected from the PUP. We have avoided a big step backwards".[37]

In 2017, The Australia Institute reported that Australia's greenhouse gas emissions had been "rising rapidly" since the abolition of the carbon price, with the economist Matt Grudnoff criticising the National Energy Guarantee proposed by the Turnbull government by saying that it would be "likely to cause our emissions to rise even faster".[38]

In 2017, The Australia Institute took over The Climate Institute's intellectual property after that institute's closure, and it subsequently launched a Climate and Energy Program to continue that work.[39][40] The first Climate of the Nation report produced by The Australia Institute was released in 2018.[41]

Tax reform

[edit]

The Australia Institute employs several economists,[42] who have published papers arguing for tax reform, particularly in the areas of superannuation tax concessions, negative gearing, capital gains tax, and goods and services tax.[43]

During the 2016 Australian federal election, The Australia Institute published a series of critiques of the Coalition's proposed policy of cutting the company tax rate.[44]

The Australia Institute criticised the final two stages of the Turnbull government's three-stage income tax cut plan and released research into how the benefits from the tax cut are distributed more heavily to those with incomes,[45] and wealthy Liberal electorates.[46]

Funding and resourcing

[edit]

The Australia Institute is a registered not-for-profit organisation under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. It had a total gross income of A$10.8 million in 2025[47] (A$10.04M in 2024, and $9.05M in 2023) and is funded by donations from philanthropic trusts and individuals, as well as grants and commissioned research from business, unions, and non-government organisations. The Australia Institute reported 42 full-time equivalent staff.[47]

In its first decade to 2003, The Australia Institute was largely funded by the Poola Foundation and the Treepot Foundation, philanthropic organisations run by the Kantors.[48] Other significant funders include the McKinnon Family Foundation; David Morawetz's Social Justice Fund, a sub-fund of the Australian Communities Foundation; the US Rockefeller Foundation, Diana and Brian Snape, and the Susan McKinnon Foundation.[49] In 2025, it was reported that the Minderoo Foundation, a philanthropic charity established by mining magnate Andrew Forrest, made an undisclosed donation to the Australia Institute. The contribution, described by media sources as "substantial", drew attention due to Minderoo’s policy alignment with the Institute on issues such as emissions reduction and climate policy.[50]

In recent years, The Australia Institute has reported the number of donations that it has received from individuals, with 2,000 individual donors in financial year 2015[51] and 2,700 in the financial year 2017.[52]

The Australia Institute does not disclose its sources of funding but claims that it does not accept donations or commissioned work from political parties.[53]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

The Australia Institute

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Australia Institute is a progressive public policy based in , , founded in 1994 by to generate research and debate on economic, social, and environmental issues toward building a more just and sustainable society. It positions itself as independent, funded primarily through donations from individuals and philanthropic trusts, grants, and commissioned work from non-partisan entities like businesses, unions, and NGOs, explicitly avoiding political party financing. The organization conducts analysis on topics including , , housing affordability, and inequality, often advocating for stronger government intervention and critiquing corporate influence in politics. Under executive directors such as Hamilton until 2008 and current co-CEOs Richard Denniss and Leanne Minshull, the Institute has influenced public discourse by commissioning studies that challenge mainstream economic assumptions, such as opposing expansion and promoting progressive taxation reforms. Its work has contributed to shifts, including heightened scrutiny of resource sector subsidies and budget proposals, positioning it as one of Australia's more prominent non-corporate-funded think tanks. Despite claims of nonpartisanship, the Institute has faced for perceived left-leaning , including close personnel and ideological ties to the Greens party that undermine its independence assertions, as well as accusations of selective interpretation in and economic modeling to support predetermined policy preferences. Critics, including economists from the and , have highlighted instances where its research dismisses countervailing evidence, such as on emissions targets and fiscal impacts. These controversies underscore tensions between its self-described role in driving evidence-based debate and perceptions of advocacy over neutrality.

History

Founding and Initial Focus (1994–2000)

The Australia Institute was established in 1993 by , an economist and environmental advocate, who served as its executive director from inception until 2008. The think tank, based in , was launched publicly in 1994 with the aim of conducting independent, non-partisan research to stimulate public debate on economic, social, and environmental policies, particularly those fostering and equity. At its outset, the organization positioned itself as a progressive voice critiquing prevailing policy paradigms, drawing on empirical analysis to challenge resource-intensive growth models. The Institute's initial research emphasized environmental degradation and Australia's role in global challenges. In 1994, it produced findings that Australia was then the highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide, highlighting vulnerabilities in energy and emissions policies. This work laid groundwork for ongoing scrutiny of fossil fuel dependence and climate impacts, informed by data on emissions trends and international comparisons. Early outputs also addressed overconsumption patterns and their societal costs, using quantitative assessments of household behaviors and economic incentives to advocate for restrained material growth. Through the late , the Institute expanded its scope to include intersections, such as structures and labor market dynamics, while maintaining a core commitment to evidence-based critique of neoliberal reforms. Hamilton's leadership steered activities toward publications and public engagements that prioritized causal links between policy choices and long-term ecological limits, often contrasting with government emphases on . The launch event in 1994, featuring addresses by figures like Michael Kirby, underscored the Institute's intent to influence discourse on ethical amid rapid . By 2000, these efforts had established the Institute as a niche player in , reliant on donations and project funding rather than corporate or partisan ties.

Growth and Policy Influence (2000s–2010s)

During the 2000s, The Australia Institute solidified its reputation through research challenging conventional economic metrics, particularly under executive director , who led the organization until 2008. A landmark contribution was the 2000 update to its (GPI), which adjusted GDP for factors like , , and ; the analysis revealed that Australia's GPI had plateaued since the mid-1970s, even as GDP continued to rise, highlighting disconnects between economic expansion and societal wellbeing. This framework influenced academic and policy discussions on , prompting critiques of growth-at-all-costs paradigms and informing alternatives like voluntary downshifting, where the institute documented rising voluntary income reductions among affluent Australians seeking over consumption. The institute's policy influence extended to environmental and resource debates, with reports questioning government economic modeling on reductions, asserting that projected costs were overstated due to flawed assumptions about technological adaptation and impacts. During the mining boom, TAI analyses emphasized the sector's exceptional profitability—total pre-tax profits exceeding $51 billion in 2009–10—arguing for resource rents to fund public infrastructure rather than subsidize industry expansion. These positions aligned with, and contributed to, Labor government proposals like the 2010 Resource Super Profits Tax, though the final Minerals Resource Rent Tax was diluted amid industry pushback; TAI later submitted evidence against its 2014 repeal, underscoring lost revenue potential estimated in billions. Into the 2010s, the organization grew its research scope and media engagement, with figures like Richard Denniss amplifying critiques of inequality and , including wage stagnation relative to productivity gains post-2000. This era marked expanded output on climate-energy intersections, such as opposing and advocating emissions pricing mechanisms enacted under the in 2012, which TAI defended as economically viable despite political reversal in 2014. Institutional maturation included nascent specialized projects, enhancing influence on parliamentary inquiries and public discourse, though quantitative staff or budget expansions remained modest compared to corporate-funded counterparts, relying on philanthropic and grant funding for independence.

Recent Developments and Expansion (2020–Present)

During the , The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work intensified research on labor market shifts, including record-high casual and part-time employment levels and their implications for worker security, informing debates on post-recession recovery strategies. The organization also analyzed regional economic impacts, such as in , advocating for targeted infrastructure and job policies to mitigate downturn effects. In 2024, the Centre for Future Work established the Carmichael Centre, a dedicated initiative named after union leader Laurie Carmichael, to advance studies on , reforms, and union delegate protections amid evolving labor laws like the Closing Loopholes Bill. This built on the Centre's ongoing surveys of unpaid overtime and overwork trends, which predated but accelerated post-2020 due to pandemic-induced changes in work hours. The institute broadened its programmatic reach in 2023–2024 by launching the Coalition for Climate Ambition, uniting over 50 organizations to push for enhanced emissions reduction targets; introducing fellowships including the Anne Kantor Fellowship for policy research and a Young Woman Environmentalist Fellowship; and starting series such as Dollars & Sense (November 2023) and After America (June 2024) to disseminate economic and geopolitical analyses. It hosted the Climate Integrity Summit in March 2024, engaging Pacific leaders on integrity in , and marked its 30th anniversary with a gala featuring economist Joseph E. Stiglitz in August 2024. Expansion included sustained operations from its office, directing local efforts on environmental assessments like salmon farming impacts, and branch under a dedicated director for strategic partnerships. The institute's research contributed to federal policy shifts, such as the 2024 redesign of Stage 3 tax cuts, which redirected approximately $84 billion over a toward low- and middle-income earners.

Organizational Structure

Mission, Independence, and Governance

The Institute states its mission as conducting independent to foster a more just, peaceful, and sustainable society, while providing intellectual and policy leadership that influences public debates and secures improved policy outcomes in . Its philosophy centers on addressing major societal challenges through rigorous combined with advocacy, encapsulated in the view that "big problems can be solved with good and political bravery." The organization positions itself as non-partisan, asserting that it "barracks for ideas, not political parties," though its research outputs frequently align with progressive policy priorities on issues like and . Regarding independence, the institute claims to maintain by sourcing funds exclusively from philanthropic trusts, individual donations, grants, and commissioned projects from businesses, unions, and non-governmental organizations, while explicitly refusing any donations or work from to avoid direct partisan influence. This structure is intended to enable unbiased analysis without formal ties to political or commercial entities, allowing focus on evidence-based advocacy. However, reliance on union commissions—entities historically linked to labor movements and left-leaning —suggests potential ideological alignment that could compromise perceptions of full , particularly given the absence of equivalent conservative funding sources. Governance is overseen by a volunteer , with members serving without to ensure dedication to the institute's objectives rather than personal gain. The board includes a Committee responsible for approving research priorities and activities supported by the institute's dedicated Research Fund, promoting in project selection. As of the 2023-24 financial year, the board was chaired by Dr. John McKinnon, with Deputy Chair Ms. Alexandra Sloan AM, and directors including Mr. Josh Bornstein, Dr. Elizabeth Cham, Ms. Therese Cochrane, and Professor Elizabeth Hill, among others; these individuals bring expertise in areas such as , , and academia. The structure adheres to Australian legal and regulatory standards, emphasizing compliance and stakeholder without specified mechanisms for external audits beyond standard charitable reporting.

Leadership, Personnel, and Affiliated Centers

The Australia Institute is governed by a volunteer who receive no for their service. As of the 2023-2024 financial year, the board is chaired by McKinnon, with Sloan AM as deputy chair; other members include Josh Bornstein, Elizabeth Cham, Therese Cochrane, and Elizabeth Hill. Executive leadership consists of co-Chief Executive Officers Dr. Richard Denniss and Leanne Minshull, following Minshull's appointment on October 1, 2025. Denniss, an and author, previously served as sole and contributes to commentary on economic and . Minshull, a former solicitor and strategy director, brings experience from , political, and business sectors focused on social and environmental causes. Key personnel include Ebony Bennett as deputy director, Anna Chang as , Kathleen O'Sullivan as and (all based in ), Greg Jericho as chief economist, and Polly Hemming as director of the Climate & Energy program. The institute employs over 50 staff across offices in , , , and , organized into research programs such as , environment, and & . The institute houses affiliated research centers including the Centre for Future Work, which examines labor market trends and worker rights; the Centre for Responsible Technology, addressing and tech policy impacts; and the Nordic Policy Centre, focusing on policy models from . These centers conduct specialized research integrated with the institute's broader programs, alongside state branches for localized analysis.

Policy Research and Positions

Climate Change, Energy, and Environmental Policy

The Australia Institute's Program, established in June 2017 following the closure of the independent , focuses on research into , energy transitions, and the economic implications of dependence. The program inherited key initiatives such as the annual Climate of the Nation report, which tracks public attitudes toward , and the National Energy Emissions Audit, conducted until March 2023 under the late Dr. Hugh Saddler. It advocates for policies prioritizing rapid decarbonization through renewables, while critiquing government approvals of projects as inconsistent with international scientific assessments. TAI positions emphasize that Australia's 43% emissions reduction target by 2030 from 2005 levels is insufficient given updated climate science, recommending deeper cuts to align with limiting warming to 1.5°C. In a 2023 analysis, the institute argued that recent data on accelerated warming timelines render the target outdated, urging immediate strengthening based on empirical projections of carbon budgets. On fossil fuels, TAI has campaigned against new mines since 2015 via its "No New Coal Mines" initiative and opposes gas expansions, citing the International Energy Agency's 2021 finding that no new supply investments are compatible with net-zero pathways. A July 2025 report highlighted that extraction for exports accounted for nearly 20% of Australia's domestic emissions growth, with exported fuels linked to 1.15 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2023. The institute critiques mechanisms as undermining genuine abatement, asserting in 2023 that offsets represent a core but flawed pillar of Australia's strategy due to integrity issues like over-crediting. An August 2025 analysis claimed major polluters exploit the Safeguard Mechanism—intended to cap industrial emissions—through baseline adjustments that fail to enforce reductions, effectively allowing continued pollution under the guise of compliance. TAI calls for ending , estimated at AUD 14.5 billion in 2023/24 (a 30% increase from prior years), arguing they distort markets and delay renewable adoption by artificially lowering fossil energy costs. In energy policy, TAI supports expansion of bodies like the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to accelerate solar, wind, and storage deployment, while highlighting Australia's historically high per capita emissions—peaking as the world's highest in 1994 per institute research. Environmental analyses include mapping extreme heat vulnerabilities, with reports identifying regions where population growth exacerbates exposure to climate-driven events. These positions have drawn industry rebuttals, such as from the Business Council of Australia, which in 2018 labeled TAI's advocacy as non-constructive and prone to misrepresentation of economic trade-offs in energy transitions. Despite such critiques, TAI maintains its recommendations stem from causal links between emissions trajectories and observed warming rates, prioritizing empirical emissions data over political expediency.

Economic Policy, Taxation, and Resource Industries

The Institute's economic research emphasizes progressive reforms to address inequality, labor market weaknesses, and macroeconomic policies favoring capital over workers. In a 2022 report, the institute critiqued the prior decade's policies for prioritizing fiscal and weak wage growth, advocating instead for targets, strengthened minimum wages, and robust employment services to raise living standards. Its Centre for Future Work, an affiliated initiative, focuses on and labor issues, producing analyses that link stagnant wages to insufficient and neglect of worker protections. The institute's economists, including Chief Economist Greg Jericho, have analyzed post-pandemic recovery, arguing for targeted fiscal measures over broad deficit reduction to sustain without exacerbating . On taxation, the institute positions as under-taxed relative to OECD peers, collecting revenue akin to poorer nations despite high wealth levels, and calls for reforms to fund services without broad rate hikes. It proposes principles for effective taxes, such as minimizing economic distortion and targeting , exemplified by advocacy for curbing superannuation concessions, which it estimates disproportionately benefit high earners and cost the budget significantly—projected at over $50 billion annually by some measures—while widening gender and income gaps. The institute supported 2025 government changes taxing super earnings on balances over $3 million at 30% (up from 15%), noting this remains below the top marginal rate of 45% and targets only the wealthiest without affecting most retirees. Broader proposals include three reforms—such as a 2% on assets exceeding $5 million and multinational profit-shifting curbs—to raise $70 billion yearly, framed as equitable shifts from regressive concessions to progressive levies. Regarding resource industries, the institute frequently criticizes mining and fossil fuel sectors for capturing excessive profits amid high commodity prices while contributing minimally to public revenue relative to perceptions. It contends that mining accounts for under 5% of government revenue despite public overestimation, with royalties and taxes yielding far less than industry lobbying suggests, and attributes recent inflation partly to mining windfalls comprising over half of corporate profits in 2022–2023. The institute opposed abolishing the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) in its original form, arguing compromises diluted its potential despite mining concessions, and has campaigned against gas exports, highlighting Australia's outsized shipments exceeding Qatar's while domestic prices soar. Such positions have drawn rebuttals from industry groups, including claims of methodological flaws in revenue underestimation, though the institute maintains its analyses prioritize empirical fiscal data over sector narratives.

Labor, Social Issues, and Other Domains

The Institute's Centre for Future Work conducts advocating for enhanced labor standards, including policies to enforce higher wages and conditions across supply chains, as outlined in its 2018 report Raising the Bar. The centre analyzes adjustments, finding no that increases correlate with sustained or job losses, and recommends periodic rises tied to and cost-of-living metrics. It promotes work-life balance initiatives, such as "Go Home on Time Day," to address overwork and insecure employment in sectors like gig economies and casual labor. On , the institute publishes data showing Australia's wealth inequality has widened, with its 2023 report Who’s in the Middle? documenting stagnant middle-class asset growth amid top-end concentration, and calls for progressive taxation reforms like aggregated land taxes to fund . research critiques market-driven models, arguing in 2014 testimony that treating shelter as a commodity exacerbates for low-wage workers, and advocates public investment over . Gender-focused studies highlight persistent pay gaps, with a 2023 analysis revealing that proposed cuts would disproportionately benefit men (about two-thirds of gains), while recommending targeted policies like subsidized childcare to boost female workforce participation. In Indigenous affairs, the institute supported the 2023 referendum for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament, aligning with the Statement's call for advisory mechanisms on laws affecting Aboriginal and Islander peoples, based on prior research into native title's land management implications. It has submitted policy input on , emphasizing resource allocation for without endorsing unsubstantiated claims of systemic beyond verifiable disparities in and data. Beyond core social domains, the institute critiques political finance as a threat to democratic integrity, publishing reports on mining sector donations (e.g., 2017 analysis of over $10 million in undisclosed contributions) and advocating real-time disclosure laws, donation caps, and bans on foreign influence to curb corruption risks. Its Democracy and Accountability program opposes hasty electoral reforms that could entrench incumbents, citing 2024 polling where 90% of Australians favored truth-in-advertising mandates. Limited work touches foreign policy, occasionally linking aid to gender equity goals, but prioritizes domestic transparency over expansive international advocacy.

Funding and Financial Operations

Sources of Revenue and Budget Overview

The Australia Institute derives the majority of its revenue from donations and bequests provided by philanthropic trusts and individuals, supplemented by income from commissioned , , and other sources such as investments. The states that it does not accept funding from or corporate entities that could influence its research independence. For the financial year ended 30 June 2023, amounted to $7,755,286, as reported in its audited . Donations and bequests accounted for the largest share at $7,504,483, while revenue from providing goods or services (primarily commissioned ) contributed $132,194. Government totaled $8,571, revenue from investments was $42,535, and all other revenue reached $67,503. More recent data from the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) indicate of $10,678,098, reflecting growth likely driven by expanded donations and activities.
Revenue SourceAmount (AUD, FY 2023)
Donations and bequests7,504,483
Goods or services132,194
grants8,571
Investments42,535
Other revenue67,503
Total7,755,286
The institute's budget supports operations across , , and , with employee benefits comprising a significant category (e.g., $4,070,260 in FY 2023). It has maintained financial surpluses in recent years, enabling expansion in staff and programs while adhering to its non-profit status under ACNC oversight. Specific donor identities are not publicly disclosed in financial reports, consistent with the organization's on to protect contributor and .

Transparency Concerns and Donor Practices

The Australia Institute does not publicly disclose the identities of its major donors, despite its significant influence on debates, arguing that such privacy protects contributors from retaliation by powerful interests, as experienced by other charities. This practice contrasts with organizations like Transparency International Australia, which voluntarily reveals large individual donors, and has drawn criticism for undermining accountability in a sector that shapes legislative and electoral discourse. A notable instance highlighting these concerns occurred in September 2025, when reports emerged of an undisclosed donation from the Minderoo Foundation—funded primarily by mining billionaire Andrew Forrest—to the institute, amid TAI's ongoing research critiquing resource extraction industries and fossil fuel policies. Critics, including policy analysts, questioned potential conflicts of interest, noting that donor secrecy obscures whether contributions align with or influence specific research outputs, particularly given TAI's advocacy against sectors tied to Forrest's business interests. While Australian charity laws do not mandate donor disclosure for non-profits like TAI beyond aggregate financial reporting to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), public interest arguments for greater transparency have intensified, especially as TAI's donations exceeded $9.9 million in 2024, comprising the bulk of its revenue. TAI's donor practices encompass a mix of individual contributions, philanthropic trusts, union grants, and commissioned research from businesses and non-government organizations, as outlined in its annual reports, but without itemized breakdowns that could reveal concentrations of influence. For instance, unions have historically provided funding for labor-related projects, while philanthropic sources support environmental and economic analyses, yet the absence of specifics fuels skepticism about independence, particularly when TAI campaigns for real-time political donation disclosures and caps on influence in elections. This selective transparency—advocating reforms for others while maintaining internal opacity—has been flagged as a broader issue for Australian think tanks, with commentators arguing it erodes trust in policy research purporting to serve the public good.

Criticisms and Controversies

Methodological and Economic Critiques

The Australia Institute's analysis of inflation drivers has drawn methodological criticism for isolating corporate profits without sufficiently integrating confounding factors like wage pressures and supply chain disruptions. In a February 2023 report from its Centre for Future Work, the institute attributed 69 percent of inflation exceeding the Reserve Bank of Australia's 2 percent target to profit margin expansions, a conclusion rebutted by RBA deputy governor Christopher Kent and Treasury economists as overly simplistic and inconsistent with aggregate data showing balanced contributions from profits and labor costs. University of New South Wales economics professor Richard Holden labeled the work flawed, urging retraction on grounds that it continued to cite discredited elements to bolster causal claims about profiteering. The institute's handling of economic modelling in and has similarly faced accusations of selective interpretation that downplays transition costs. In advocating for a 45 percent emissions reduction by 2030, the Institute misrepresented 2015 modelling by Warwick McKibbin, who clarified that such targets would impose long-term GDP reductions through higher energy prices and sectoral disruptions, rather than the negligible impacts suggested by the institute's citations. The Council of contended that this approach obscured adverse effects on households and resource-dependent , as the institute withheld comprehensive public modelling of its preferred scenarios while opposing mechanisms like the National Energy Guarantee for insufficient ambition. These critiques highlight recurring concerns over transparency and causal rigor in the institute's economic outputs, where empirical claims sometimes prioritize alignment with progressive priorities—such as curbing resource sector influence—over full accounting of countervailing like global commodity dynamics or abatement trade-offs. Independent assessments, including those from officials, underscore that such analyses risk overstating policy levers like profit controls or rapid decarbonization while underweighting incentives for and .

Political Bias and Influence Allegations

The Australia Institute has faced allegations of left-wing bias stemming from extensive personnel overlaps with the Australian Greens party, which critics argue undermines its self-proclaimed status as a "fiercely nonpartisan" organization independent of political affiliations. Founder ran as a Greens candidate for the of Higgins in 2009, while former executive director Ben Oquist served as chief of staff to Greens leader ; current executive director Richard Denniss acted as a senior strategic adviser to ; deputy director Ebony Bennett was a media adviser to ; communications director worked for the Greens for over a decade, including as adviser to leader until 2020; and former deputy chair , who resigned in March 2021, was elected as a Greens senator in May 2022. These ties have prompted Federal Labor figures to question the institute's credibility, particularly given shared policy positions with the Greens, such as scrapping stage-three tax cuts, achieving net-zero emissions by 2035, banning new fossil fuel projects, ending native forestry logging, and abolishing the submarine program. Critics, including Liberal and National Party senators in a 2023 Senate inquiry into job security, have characterized the institute's Centre for Future Work as partisan rather than independent, accusing it of biased advocacy against the gig economy and casual employment practices in ways that align with left-leaning labor reforms while ignoring broader economic contexts. The institute's campaigns, such as opposition to the Coalition's 2018 company tax cuts, have been described by commentators as conveying a false impression of while advancing progressive economic agendas that disproportionately target conservative policies. External analyses, including from Financial Review, have labeled the organization left-leaning, noting its sustained advocacy for initiatives like a national anti-corruption commission that resonate with progressive priorities. In response to such claims, institute executive director Richard Denniss has defended its independence by highlighting criticisms leveled against all major parties and emphasizing a preference for the term "progressive" over "left-wing" as applied by media outlets. Despite these assertions of nonpartisanship and absence of direct funding from , the pattern of staffing and policy alignment has fueled ongoing skepticism about on left-of-center political discourse, with some observers arguing it operates as a extension of Greens-aligned advocacy under the guise of neutral research.

Policy Impact and Reception

Achievements in Shaping Debate and Legislation

The Australia Institute's research and advocacy have influenced key policy debates and legislative developments, particularly in taxation, democratic integrity, and . In , the Institute's multi-year campaign, including the 2023 report Stage 3 Better, contributed to the federal government's redesign of Stage 3 tax cuts in 2024, shifting $84 billion in benefits over a decade from high-income earners to low- and middle-income households, thereby enhancing progressivity. On institutional integrity, the Institute's advocacy for a federal agency since 2017—through open letters, policy blueprints via the National Integrity Committee, and public campaigns—helped shape the framework for the National Anti-Corruption Commission, whose enabling legislation passed Parliament and commenced operations in July 2023. In energy and climate policy, the Institute's analyses and strategic alliances, including with figures like and , bolstered opposition to the Abbott government's 2014 attempt to repeal the Renewable Energy Target, preserving incentives that supported $24 billion in clean energy investments and averted an estimated 334 million tonnes of additional emissions through sustained renewable deployment. The Institute also advanced debates on resource rents and emissions pricing. It endorsed the 2010 Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) proposal via expert statements and submissions, influencing discussions on capturing mining windfalls, which evolved into the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) implemented in 2012 before its 2014 repeal. Similarly, reports on carbon pricing competitiveness, such as Competitiveness and Carbon Pricing (2014), informed arguments for emissions reduction mechanisms, including the Gillard-era carbon price (2012–2014), which the Institute later modeled as having prevented 72 million tonnes of emissions if extended. In domains like , the Institute's data-driven critiques—revealing, for instance, that problem gamblers account for most poker machine losses—have sustained public and parliamentary pressure for reforms such as mandatory pre-commitment and venue limits, with national polling indicating majority support despite resistance from industry stakeholders and incomplete legislative adoption.

Limitations and Broader Reception

The Institute's research has faced methodological critiques, particularly in economic analyses. A 2023 report attributing 69% of above the Reserve Bank of 's target to corporate profits was deemed "flawed" by economists and incapable of establishing causation, with officials noting that parts of the analysis did not support its conclusions. Similarly, its climate policy work has been accused of misrepresenting economic modeling and advancing unsubstantiated claims that hinder constructive debate, such as overstating the costs of emissions reductions without accounting for adaptive technologies. Perceived ideological bias further constrains the institute's scope and influence. Despite claims of , it has been characterized as left-leaning with ties to unions, leading to allegations of selective that prioritizes progressive priorities like resource sector restrictions over balanced . This orientation manifests in foreign policy positions, such as a 2025 paper defending China's claims shortly after an RAAF confrontation, which drew rebuke for echoing Beijing's narratives while downplaying authoritarian risks. Broader reception reflects polarization along ideological lines. The institute garners praise from progressive outlets and activists for amplifying debates on inequality and environmentalism, yet conservatives and business groups often dismiss its outputs as partisan advocacy rather than objective analysis, limiting cross-aisle uptake. Even founder Clive Hamilton has criticized its recent trajectory as overly apologetic toward the Chinese Communist Party, lamenting that it "churns out a lot of stuff that is essentially apologetic for the CCP regime" due to anti-U.S. tropes, marking a shift from its original independent ethos. This has reinforced views of it as influential within left-leaning networks but marginal in conservative or centrist policy circles.

References

  1. https://onthinktanks.org/think-tank/the-australia-institute/
  2. https://www.theconversation.com/is-it-too-late-to-solve-some-of-our-most-wicked-problems-the-australia-institute-wont-let-us-die-wondering-251045
  3. https://australiainstitute.org.au/about/
  4. https://australiainstitute.org.au/research/
  5. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/the-australia-institutes-links-with-the-greens-revealed/news-story/5c2ec9bdbaeace153d508a857b2f7ca1
  6. https://thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2014/10/11/the-australia-institute-are-the-real-senate-puppet-masters/14129460001094
  7. https://www.afr.com/opinion/why-the-australia-institute-is-a-climate-wrecker-with-false-claims-20180828-h14mrw
  8. https://www.afr.com/rear-window/australia-institute-deaf-to-economists-criticisms-20230528-p5dbxu
  9. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/secret-research-undermines-democracy/
  10. https://clivehamilton.com/about/
  11. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Australia-Institute-Annual-Report-19-20-WEB.pdf
  12. https://www.weforum.org/stories/authors/clive-hamilton/
  13. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Australia-Insitute_Annual_Report_Financials_23-24.pdf
  14. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/DP49_8.pdf
  15. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/DP47_8.pdf
  16. https://theconversation.com/is-it-too-late-to-solve-some-of-our-most-wicked-problems-the-australia-institute-wont-let-us-die-wondering-251045
  17. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/DP14_8.pdf
  18. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NL25_8.pdf
  19. https://www.smh.com.au/national/stop-the-treadmill-we-want-to-get-off-20070926-gdr73d.html
  20. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WP9_8.pdf
  21. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mining-the-truth-IP7_4.pdf
  22. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/The_Australia_Institute.pdf
  23. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/inequality-on-steroids-as-bottom-90-get-just-7-of-economic-growth-since-2009/
  24. https://australiainstitute.org.au/research/topic/tax-spending-the-budget/page/10/
  25. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/30/casual-and-part-time-jobs-at-record-levels-after-australias-covid-recession-analysis-finds
  26. https://futurework.org.au/research/topic/covid-19/
  27. https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=56af1b63-1415-4ef6-92dd-76550ed53b50&subId=760975
  28. https://www.carmichaelcentre.org.au/closing_loopholes_self_employment
  29. https://futurework.org.au/news/
  30. https://australiainstitute.org.au/about/structure/the-australia-institute-tasmania/
  31. https://australiainstitute.org.au/about/people/
  32. https://australiainstitute.org.au/about/governance/
  33. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-institute-executive-leadership-update/
  34. https://australiainstitute.org.au/expert/richard-denniss/
  35. https://australiainstitute.org.au/research/find-an-expert/
  36. https://apo.org.au/organisation/52387
  37. https://australiainstitute.org.au/about/structure/climate-energy/
  38. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-kind-of-hypocrisy-that-has-become-so-normal-in-australian-politics-it-almost-slips-past-unnoticed/
  39. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/new-research-shows-our-2030-emission-targets-are-woefully-out-of-date/
  40. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/nearly-a-fifth-of-australias-emissions-now-come-from-sending-fossil-fuels-overseas/
  41. https://climateanalytics.org/press-releases/australias-massive-global-carbon-footprint-set-to-continue-with-fossil-fuel-exports
  42. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/carbon-credits-and-offsets-explained/
  43. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/paid-to-pollute-new-analysis-reveals-how-big-polluters-are-making-a-mockery-of-australias-key-climate-policy/
  44. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/three-glaring-holes-in-the-energy-ministers-press-club-speech/
  45. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/
  46. https://australiainstitute.org.au/research/topic/climate-change/
  47. https://www.bca.com.au/the_australia_institute_climate_wreckers
  48. https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/an-economy-that-works-for-people/
  49. https://australiainstitute.org.au/about/structure/centre-for-future-work/
  50. https://australiainstitute.org.au/about/structure/economics/
  51. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-is-a-rich-country-that-taxes-like-a-poor-one/
  52. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/how-superannuation-tax-concessions-help-the-rich-get-richer/
  53. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-changes-to-superannuation-tax-concessions-are-good-and-very-fair/
  54. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/three-simple-fair-steps-which-would-raise-70-billion-dollars-a-year-in-extra-tax/
  55. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/analysis-95-of-government-revenue-not-from-mining-industry/
  56. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-14/reserve-bank-australia-institute-profits-inflation-main-drivers/102208104
  57. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-mining-industry-is-the-biggest-whinger-in-the-country/
  58. https://www.bravusmining.com.au/bravus-mining-and-resources-statement-on-inaccurate-and-misleading-claims-about-our-business-by-anti-fossil-fuel-think-tank-the-australia-institute/
  59. https://www.tai.org.au/content/raising-bar-how-government-can-use-its-economic-leverage-lift-labour-standards-throughout
  60. https://australiainstitute.org.au/research/topic/labour-standards-workers-rights/
  61. https://www.tai.org.au/node/127
  62. https://australiainstitute.org.au/research/topic/inequality/
  63. https://www.tai.org.au/content/working-poverty
  64. https://australiainstitute.org.au/research/topic/gender-at-work/
  65. https://futurework.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/Centre-for-Future-Work-Gender-Pay-Gap-WEB.pdf
  66. https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/why-the-australia-institute-supports-the-voice-to-parliament/
  67. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/DP11_8.pdf
  68. https://australiainstitute.org.au/research/topic/aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-people/
  69. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Explainer-Campaign-finance-Web.pdf
  70. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Political_Influence_of_Donations/PoliticalDonations/Report_1/section?id=committees%252Freportsen%252F024147%252F25779
  71. https://theconversation.com/sweeping-reform-of-the-electoral-laws-puts-democracy-at-risk-they-shouldnt-be-changed-on-a-whim-249144
  72. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-case-for-a-feminist-foreign-policy/
  73. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Annual-Report-2022-23-WEB.pdf
  74. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Annual-Report-21-22-WEB.pdf
  75. https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/fd5078d6-2daf-e811-a963-000d3ad24077/profile
  76. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/11/australia-influential-thinktanks-transparency-refuse-to-reveal-their-biggest-donors-financial-backers
  77. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/03/mining-magnate-andrew-forrest-minderoo-charity-makes-undisclosed-donation-to-the-australia-institute
  78. https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/charities/fd5078d6-2daf-e811-a963-000d3ad24077/documents/080bb5fd-d0c0-ef11-a72f-000d3ad17a98
  79. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/real-time-disclosures-should-replace-yearly-political-donation-data-dump/
  80. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/should-think-tanks-be-forced-to-disclose-their-funders-20180802-p4zv4g.html
  81. https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/australia-institute-urged-to-retract-flawed-profit-inflation-report-20230513-p5d84j
  82. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-07/profits-havent-contributed-to-inflation-but-doubts-raised/102312254
  83. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Job_Security/JobSecurity/Interim_Report/section?id=committees%252Freportsen%252F024635%252F77226
  84. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/the-campaign-to-kill-coalitions-company-tax-cuts-plan-20180212-h0vyd9
  85. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/why-australia-s-think-tanks-are-a-growing-source-of-covert-power-20240824-p5k50p
  86. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-dangers-of-centrism-in-a-time-of-crisis/
  87. https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/stage-3-better/
  88. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/RSPTLetter_7.pdf
  89. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Submission-to-the-Select-Committee-on-New-Taxes_4.pdf
  90. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/DP86_8.pdf
  91. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/key-gillard-era-reform-carbon-price-would-have-saved-72-million-tonnes-of-emissions/
  92. https://australiainstitute.org.au/research/topic/gambling/
  93. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/most-gambling-losses-are-from-at-risk-gamblers/
  94. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/foi-3376.pdf
  95. https://thenightly.com.au/politics/australia/australia-institute-aussie-think-tank-defends-beijings-south-china-sea-claims-days-after-raaf-confrontation--c-20454226
  96. https://thenightly.com.au/politics/former-greens-candidate-who-founded-the-australia-institute-says-left-wing-think-tank-is-too-soft-on-china-c-20265918
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.