The Greens are relaunching their party think tank. What do these organisations do?

The appointment of former high profile Greens federal housing spokesperson and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s arch nemesis, Max Chandler-Mather, as executive director of the party’s think tank – the Green Institute – raises several important questions.

First, what are party think tanks and what purpose do they serve in Australia’s party system?

And second, what does the decision to appoint Chandler-Mather signal for the future strategic direction of the Greens?

What are party think tanks?

Despite party think tanks operating in Australia since the late 1990s, it’s likely most Australians are unaware of their existence and the role they play in our democracy.

Party think tanks are organisations that operate for the benefit of a particular political party. They perform a range of functions, including conducting research, undertaking policy development, member and public outreach and events, and training.

Read more: The rise of think tanks in Australian politics

Party think tanks are distinct from other think tanks, such as the right-leaning Institute of Public Affairs and left-leaning Australia Institute. While the former are official think tanks affiliated to a party, the latter are independent organisations, even if they may enjoy a close relationship with particular parties.

Australian party think tanks are also state-funded. Grants are awarded to the governing party and the major opposition party. Minor parties are eligible if they have at least five members of parliament.

For this reason, only Labor (Chifley Research Centre), the Liberals (Menzies Research Centre), Nationals (Page Research Centre) and Greens (Green Institute) have think tanks.

Value for money?

Despite being state-funded, Australian party think tanks are generally small-scale operations.

The amount of state funding think tanks receive depends on their affiliated party’s representation in parliament. As a result, the governing and opposition parties receive comparable, and higher, levels of financial support. Recognised minor parties receive significantly less.

Regardless, public funding makes up an important share of their respective income. Only the Liberals’ think tank, and to a lesser extent the Nationals’ Page Research Centre, seem capable of keeping their doors open without public funding.

While the $1 million party think tanks receive in state funding pales in comparison to the election funding some parties earn, one might ask what benefits party think tanks produce for taxpayers.

Public funding enables parties to offset the costs of research, policy development, outreach and training. But it’s more difficult to discern what larger democratic principle is served by funding these institutions.

‘Relaunching’ the Green Institute

Leaving aside the questions of the public value of state-funded party think tanks, the appointment of Max Chandler-Mather raises interesting questions about the future direction of the Greens.

In his leadership announcement, Chandler-Mather set out a bold plan not just for the Green Institute but for the party more broadly.

On one level, Chandler-Mather’s vision for the relaunched Green Institute is very much in keeping with his personal and party brand.

Chandler-Mather intends to use the institute to “reforge direct connection with ordinary people”.

The institute is being reimagined as a vehicle to train volunteers and undertake movement-building activities, chiefly by conducting what he claims will be “the largest face-to-face survey of Australians outside the Census”.

This, Chandler-Mather says, will enable the party to tap into the policy issues that matter most to voters. His reputation as an innovative grassroots campaigner makes what is otherwise an ambitious goal less lofty.

Similarly, Chandler-Mather’s description of the major parties as being disconnected because of their reliance on “corporate polling and focus groups” is a familiar reproach that offers a contrasting vision of the Greens as a grassroots social movement party.

But there are elements of Chandler-Mather’s vision for the Green Institute that may sit less comfortably with the party.

First, his pursuit of “progressive economic populism” and the commitment to “transforming our economic system in a way that ensures everyone has what they need to live a comfortable, meaningful life, free of financial and housing stress”, suggests a much stronger emphasis on bread and butter concerns.

While the Greens have never been a single issue party, Chandler-Mather’s priorities appear to be more focused on materialist issues. But what exactly this “progressive economic populism” looks like in practice is yet to be clarified.

Second, Chandler-Mather seems to concede the Greens are languishing, and only a return to the party’s original goal of replacing the establishment parties can overcome this.

This stance sits in contrast to the more constructive and cooperative approach signalled by the party following last year’s election.

There are also parallels with the approach the Green Party in the United Kingdom is taking under leader Zack Polanski. There, a pitch around the Greens being a genuine left-wing alternative to Labour has seen the party surge.

Of course, as executive director of a party think tank, Chandler-Mather cannot impose his vision over the party. But he can use the institute to amplify his message in ways that he could not do as a member of the Greens party room. He can also recruit others to help bring this vision to life.

And it seems that taxpayers, whether they see the value of state-funded party think tanks or not, will be required to underwrite these efforts.