A heated Senate inquiry into climate and energy misinformation witnessed two prominent organisations refusing to reveal their financial backers on Wednesday. The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a known climate-sceptic thinktank, and Rainforest Reserves Australia (RRA), a conservation group opposing renewable projects, both declined to name their donors during the session.
Defiance on Donor Disclosure
Chaired by Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson, the committee pressed both groups on their funding sources. Scott Hargreaves, the IPA's executive director, was asked directly if mining magnate Gina Rinehart remained a donor. He stated, "We don't disclose our donors," confirming it was a matter of policy, not legal requirement. He did, however, acknowledge that Rinehart is an honorary life member of the IPA and a "generous contributor to many causes."
This follows previous court revelations that Rinehart donated $4.5 million to the IPA in 2016 and 2017, constituting a significant portion of the institute's income at the time.
Fabricated Evidence and Anonymous Backers
Rainforest Reserves Australia faced intense scrutiny over its funding and methods. Vice-president Steven Nowakowski refused to name who funded nine full-page newspaper ads attacking renewable energy and promoting nuclear power, saying only that donations came from signatories of the open letter.
The group was also questioned about its legal challenge to the Gawara Baya windfarm in north Queensland. Member Michael Seebeck revealed the proceedings were bankrolled by an "anonymous private individual," whom Nowakowski claimed was unconnected to fossil fuel or nuclear interests.
Most damagingly, RRA was forced to defend its use of AI after the Guardian exposed that its submissions contained fabricated references. Labor senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah highlighted one submission opposing the Moonlight Range Wind Farm which cited seven non-existent sources, including a report from a defunct Environmental Protection Agency about a windfarm that doesn't exist in Oakey.
"This is just a distraction," Nowakowski argued, but was cut short by Ananda-Rajah, who retorted, "No, it speaks to the credibility of your organisation." Nowakowski later clarified that while a human wrote the submission, it was edited by AI.
Broader Implications and Ongoing Scrutiny
The IPA detailed its extensive campaign against renewable energy, claiming to have visited 62 communities across Australia to advocate against the rollout of projects meant to meet climate targets. The thinktank is known for its rejection of the climate crisis and its recent promotion of nuclear power.
Questions were also raised about the IPA's connections to the coal industry, specifically regarding comments made by institute fellow Stephen Wilson about donor support coordinated by coal advocate Nick Jorss. Hargreaves downplayed this, framing it as an example of someone saying "the IPA is doing great work, you should get around it."
The inquiry, initiated by the Greens, is ongoing and is expected to deliver its final report in March of next year, continuing to shine a light on the influence and funding of groups involved in the climate debate.
