It is more like Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth than a policy forum
Its prime aim at the moment is to battle Australia's second largest export industry, which makes the Australia Institute seem like something of a misnomer.
In a pitch to supporters the institute has announced its "next big project" is to block all new coal mines in this nation and around the world.
"Put simply," its chief economist Richard Denniss argues in the email newsletter, "if Australia succeeds in its coal ambitions, the world will fail in its efforts to tackle global warming." So the Australia Institute is seeking to undermine a growing industry that employs 55,000 Australians and generates more than $40 billion for the nation.
This is an astonishing objective for any organisation - no matter what they call themselves. But it suggests they might be better described as the Anti-Australia Ins-titute or, if that sounds too jingoistic or reactionary, the Gaia Institute. After all, they do seem to be more concerned with saving the planet than supporting Australia. 
Denniss has taken his campaign overseas, actively advocating against our coal industry in London this week. "We're a little country that plans to ruin the world," he told the Grantham Institute, "and our politicians are not going to stop this." He added that the Coalition's attitude to coal was "batshit crazy".
There certainly is madness afoot. Consider, for instance, that the coal industry directly contributes about $5bn annually in taxation to state and federal governments to help provide services. Yet the Australia Institute, which works against this industry, is given tax-free status. In effect, taxpayers subsidise this organisation to undermine our economy.
This is all of a piece with the public funding that goes to a range of environmental lobby groups that run protests and legal challenges against resource developments.
Denniss has told supporters he will be speaking "all around the world" in coming months to push this campaign against coal. It comes four years after he contributed to a well-funded, domestic "anti-coal movement" strategy that included plans to "disrupt and delay" infrastructure, "increase costs" and "increase investor risks" for coal projects.
The Australia Institute was founded two decades ago by Leftist academic Clive Hamilton, but has expanded in recent years and become more prominent in -national political debate, particularly on climate change.
Denniss, a former Greens staffer, handed over the executive director's role in   June to another former Greens staffer, Ben Oquist, who served as Bob Brown's chief of staff. Hamilton has run as a Greens candidate, as has the institute's chair Lin Hatfield Dodds.
Its board has also maintained strong links to the union movement - Ged Kearney has served and two union officials are current members.
Denniss and Oquist are personable, articulate, media-savvy, politically astute and well respected in the corridors of parliament house. Just like the former Greens leader Oquist served, they epitomise the acceptable face of hardline political and economic views.
They have increasingly adopted a clear economic focus in their analysis which even their competitors in the contest of ideas have admired. "Their analysis is misguided but it is high level," says a competitor. "They do use economic arguments and modelling which is part of their success, even though it is often wrong-headed." The Australia Institute claims to have no formal political or commercial links and the political bent of its work, which could be variously described as Green Left, Hard Left or Extreme Left, is often disguised in media reports.
A sample of ABC stories refers to them as: "A leading think tank"; "An influential think tank"; "A Canberra think tank"; "research group, the Australia Institute"; and finally, "A left-leaning think tank".
In Fairfax newspapers they have been quoted as a "policy think tank" and often just a "think tank" as well as "left leaning" on at least one occasion and also under their self-descriptor of a "progressive think tank". These usually incomplete or misleading descriptors stand in contrast to those used, for instance, about the Institute of Public Affairs, which is almost invariably described as a "conservative", "free market", "right wing" or even "neo-liberal" think tank.
These identifiers or their omission are important when the views and findings of these organisations are used in political and policy debates. But perhaps it is more important to consider whether the term "think tank" is any longer applicable to an organisation committed to campaigning against a major industry.
In at least some of its activities, the Australia Institute is now behaving more like Greenpeace or The Friends of the Earth than a highbrow policy forum.
It has been found submitting incorrect information, apologising in the Newcastle Herald for underestimating the likely royalties from a coal project, and admitting it made the same error in submissions against two other coal developments It has published research, including some conducted for the GetUp! campaign group, claiming the mining industry is heavily subsidised to the tune of $4bn or more yet the Productivity Commission has found: "The estimated effective rate of assistance from tariff and budgetary assistance for mining is negligible." NSW Minerals Council CEO Stephen Galilee says the Australia Institute has been active around the nation campaigning against mining and gas projects.
"It is another branch of the -environmental movement and the anti-coal movement," says Galilee.
"They are a de facto extension of the Australian Greens Party, extensively involved in campaigns around the nation while calling themselves a think tank.
"They should be honest and up front and admit they are a political organisation masquerading as a think tank." The institute has been active campaigning against forestry in Tasmania, highly critical of Abbott government budget measures and has contributed strongly to taxation debates with a redistributive focus championing "fairness" or "equity".
Their most recent annual report showed they spent $1.6 -million in 2013/14 and aim to build a base of 2000 small donors -contributing a total of $1m -annually.
Observers suggest the institute relies heavily on some wealthy private donors and possibly union donations. It is having an impact, which is evident from resentment in the resources industry.
"The Australia Institute staff sits in their Canberra office generating spurious data and research," says Rio Tinto's coal chief operating officer (coal), Chris Salisbury, "with the aim of stopping NSW -regional projects like our Mount Thorley Warkworth mine in the Hunter Valley".
Salisbury says that this is a mine of three decades standing that wants to expand within existing leases.
"There are 1300 people relying on the mine to put food on the table for their families," he says.
"But the Australia Institute is happy to use these people as pawns in their anti-development campaign."As think tanks go, the Australia Institute seems intent on -adding brawn to the brains.