Or, while in the Canberra bubble, they could head to Beryl Women Inc, the city's oldest women's refuge, which has received a $10,000 grant from the CBA.

On the other side of the country, the CBA sank $10,000 into Western Australia's 12 Buckets Inc which helps disadvantaged and at-risk kids maintain their education into high school in what is a longer-term program aimed at ensuring they have the skills to get a job.

Another $10,000 has gone to the Pinnacle Foundation that provides scholarships to young students aged between 16 and 21 who are "marginalised or disadvantaged because of their sexual or gender identity".

A large business prepared to spend $10,000 helping an extra five students get special attention that may deliver long-term mental health benefits surely has a right to express a view on issues such as homophobia. But not in the current era where companies are apparently ramming views down the throats of helpless consumers. First it was a "Go Pies" poster in the front window. Now, with rainbow-coloured vanilla slices on every plate, the government is seeking to stamp out an explosion in "activitism".

This demand for the nation's big businesses to join the swelling crowd of "quiet Australians" ignores the long and important history of firms sinking their cash into social issues.

Putting money into a charity or community organisation dealing with a social issue speaks volumes for the company involved.

The federal government wants "good corporate citizens" but it does not want those firms to express an opinion on any social issue connected to the cash it hands over. That doesn't wash and it goes to what's really going on. The government doesn't like what some large firms have to say.

The government can simply ignore big business. The Business Council of Australia, for instance, has been among a large and growing group of institutions (which includes the head of the Reserve Bank) that have called for the government to increase the Newstart allowance. There is no sign the government is going to change its mind on that front despite the evidence and the petitioning of business.

Just like the person who chooses a Chokito over a Mars Bar, the government has made a conscious decision. But the government's message is you shouldn't even be offered the policy - or chocolate - choice.

It prompts a legitimate gripe. Should the relationship between a community group and a major firm simply be a transactional one, connected solely by money? That would suggest no ongoing ties or commitment to the charity and the issue with which it deals.

And while wanting large businesses to hand over the cash, no questions asked, when it comes to their operations the government wants to stick its beak in. The Nationals want to impose red tape on companies that have the temerity to label almond or soy milk as milk.

Unless our education system is in complete and utter disarray, or our supermarket aisles are clogged by befuddled shoppers, there's no evidence of people being unable to tell the difference between cow's milk and its non-mammalian counterparts. No one should tell the Nats about Olay's "cleansing milk" or Nivea's "body cream" which are definitely not kept in the fridge. And expect a sweep of the nation's remaining milk bars which, by selling soft drinks and burgers, are operating beyond their milky remit.

On Tuesday, BHP will confirm it spent about $US77 million ($111 million) on social programs around the world including the 10 Deserts program here in Australia that aims to help Indigenous communities in some of our most isolated areas. It is also sinking money into the UN's Second Chance Education and Vocational Learning Program, which aims to help women boost their educational outcomes with an eye to go into business for themselves. Should the big Australian keep mum about its efforts to help Indigenous Australians or poor women?

You can have your view about whether big firms are involved in community and charity work to boost their public profiles. You can disagree with what they have to say. It's a market place of ideas where consumers have every right to make their own choice. But the government appears to prefer a position where it's the monopoly.