Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The Australian Senate has just received bombshell evidence that over $100 million in foreign funding is driving coordinated campaigns to disrupt Australia’s coal, gas, and nuclear energy industries.

A Senate inquiry has been presented with evidence that more than $100 million in foreign funding has been funnelled into Australian activist groups with the express aim of dismantling the nation’s coal, gas, and nuclear future.

The Page Research Centre, a policy institute led by CEO Gerard Holland, has lodged a detailed submission outlining how overseas money has bankrolled coordinated campaigns to obstruct domestic energy projects, manipulate public debate, and erode investor confidence.

“This is the biggest foreign influence operation in modern Australian history,” Mr Holland said in a recent opinion piece for The Courier Mail.

“At least $108 million — likely far more — has been directed into advocacy groups whose purpose is to shut down Australia’s energy industries.”

The Centre’s September 2025 submission to the Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy sets out how a network of well-financed organisations has embedded itself in Australian politics.

According to the research, the campaign is neither grassroots nor spontaneous. Instead, it is a centrally coordinated operation aimed at eliminating coal and gas while blocking nuclear energy as a reliable alternative.

We have revealed the biggest foreign influence operation in modern Australian history.

At least $108 million AUD – likely far more – has flowed into Australia from foreign donors to underwrite a network of third-party groups dedicated to shutting down the use of fossil fuels and… pic.twitter.com/REA77I2KvJ

— Gerard Holland (@gerardgholland) September 30, 2025

War Chests Larger Than Political Parties

The financial scale is stark. Data collated by the Page Research Centre shows that in the 2023–24 financial year alone, the organisations in view possessed a war chest of over $170 million.

By comparison, the combined election expenditure of the major parties — Labor and the Coalition — was smaller, meaning green lobby groups now command more campaign cash than the very parties elected to govern the nation.

The Sunrise Project, described by the Centre as the financial engine of the movement, reported $76.8 million in revenue. Greenpeace Australia recorded $25.6 million. The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), the largest green law firm in the southern hemisphere, brought in $17.8 million.

The Australia Institute received $10.6 million, and the Climate Action Network Australia $6.8 million. GetUp declared $6.4 million.

Other groups, including Lock the Gate, Friends of the Earth, Market Forces, and Environment Victoria, reported multi-million dollar budgets.

The Centre stresses that this combined war chest gives the movement more resources in a single year than both major parties spent contesting the last federal election. This imbalance highlights how overseas-backed advocacy groups can wield disproportionate influence over national policy.

The submission also traces the money trail. Using US tax filings, European foundation reports, and international grant databases, the Centre identified at least $105.6 million in foreign grants to Australian organisations since 2015. Adjusted for inflation, the total reaches $108.2 million.

A Blueprint Written Long Ago

Evidence presented by the Page Research Centre suggests this campaign has not developed organically but has followed a deliberate strategy laid down more than a decade ago.

In 2011, a document titled Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom was circulated. Funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund and drafted with input from Australian activists, it laid out a detailed plan to “disrupt and delay” coal projects and gradually dismantle the sector’s political and social standing.

The six pillars of the strategy were blunt:

• Disrupt and delay key infrastructure
• Constrain the space for mining
• Increase investor risk
• Increase costs
• Withdraw the social licence of the coal industry
• Build a powerful movement

Litigation was central to the approach. The Environmental Defenders Office emerged as the chief legal disruptor, pursuing cases to entangle projects in costly and time-consuming court battles.

Budgets included millions of dollars for solicitors, operating costs, and outreach, alongside funds for media campaigns and “Battle of Galilee” organising to block coal projects in Queensland’s Galilee Basin.

The resemblance between this 2011 blueprint and present-day tactics is unmistakable. Projects such as Carmichael, Barossa, Bylong, and New Acland have all been stalled by extended legal challenges, delaying billions in investment and leaving thousands of jobs in limbo. Some ventures have been abandoned altogether after years of obstruction.

The Machinery of Green Influence

The submission describes a sophisticated funding structure designed to hide its foreign origins.

Large international donors cut million-dollar cheques to advocacy hubs such as the Sunrise Project. From there, money is redistributed to downstream organisations including Greenpeace, the EDO, and the Australia Institute.

Tax-deductible charitable structures provide a veneer of legitimacy while obscuring the overseas sources.

This arrangement creates the impression of a diverse, grassroots coalition. In reality, the submission argues, it is a highly professional and centrally directed operation. Each group has its role:

• Sunrise Project — the financial engine, channelling tens of millions into campaigns and litigation.
• Greenpeace — the media theatre, staging dramatic public demonstrations.
• EDO — the legal disruptor, tying projects in red tape.
• Australia Institute — the policy shop, publishing reports that reinforce the movement’s message.

Together, these organisations speak with one voice: “No coal, no gas, no nuclear.”

A Fifth Column Within Australia’s Democracy

The Page Research Centre warns that the national consequences are severe.

Energy projects that could provide affordable and reliable power are delayed or cancelled. Investors face mounting risk and uncertainty. Families and businesses shoulder higher energy bills. Reliable industries are weakened while renewable corporations, often foreign-owned themselves, reap billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies under government schemes.

The submission stresses that the problem is not simply economic but democratic. “Foreign entities, with no accountability to the Australian people, are bankrolling advocacy groups whose explicit purpose is to shut down Australia’s energy industries,” it warns.

In areas such as defence or agriculture, foreign interference would spark immediate alarm. Yet, because the campaigns are clothed in climate rhetoric, they have escaped scrutiny. “Too many have looked the other way,” Mr Holland observed.

Mr Holland’s Courier Mail article describes the operation as a “fifth column” within Australian democracy — a force working from within to weaken the nation’s sovereignty.

He argues that the strategy is not only to block projects but also to reshape public opinion. By flooding the media with one-sided messaging, pressuring investors, and tying up courts, activists create the perception that fossil fuels are politically and socially untenable.

The evidence presented to the Senate portrays a campaign that has stolen jobs, destroyed investment, and weakened trust in democratic processes — all under the banner of climate virtue.

The result is a manufactured consensus that silences alternative solutions such as nuclear energy and ignores the value of Australia’s abundant natural resources.

The Senate inquiry must now determine how to respond. Options include stronger disclosure rules for charitable organisations, stricter controls on foreign donations, and clearer reporting of litigation funding. Without reforms, the Centre argues, foreign-backed advocacy groups will continue to shape Australia’s future without transparency or accountability.

For regular Australians, the revelations raise deeper questions. Who truly governs the nation’s energy future — its citizens, or unaccountable overseas funders with ideological agendas?

___

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.