The Australian government is a nauseating lobbyist front for fossil fuels and oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch and Gerry Harvey
It is my sincerest hope that by some miracle we finally turf them out. The way they've swung from disaster to disaster hopefully left enough of an imprint of how much of a despicable failure they really are
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamewar comments to HN? We ban that sort of account because we're trying for something other than internet default here.
This is the government scraping the barrel to find any positive spin it can regarding the reef. Now there's more global attention, it might be worth reminding/informing others of fairly recent government involvement regarding the Great Barrier Reef: [1]
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation board has strong ties to fossil fuel interests, it has six full-time staff, it is set up as a "charity" and its main function appears to be to reallocate money to other organisations. Its operations are not subject to environmental regulations under any state or Commonwealth legislation and if the Foundation contributes to a major environmental disaster, it can be wound up and its members (directors) are each liable to a maximum of $100 towards any outstanding obligations.
The unsolicited allocation of $444 million to this shop-front venture appears to have been made without discussion, legitimate tender or evaluation.
Contention is that Gov and Agency have less than stellar credentials and the Org has board members that don't, on the face of it, seem aligned with saving the reef (because their interest in BigOil)
It's good news that bleaching is down and coverage is up, but that's generally going to be the case after a mass bleaching event if the whole reef hasn't died.
One however has to assume UNESCO didn't attempt to list it as endangered for kicks. The very recent recovery is great, but we should still be concerned with the reefs long-term health.
You're talking about a country where even the weathermen have been infiltrated. [1]
They've also been fighting tooth and nail against any scrutiny trying to pass law to make it basically meaningless to even attempt investigation without prior proof of guilt [2].
I've become profoundly cynical about big non-profit organizations. Not all non-profits are bad, of course, but it really seems like the bigger the organization the more likely it is that the organization operates like a front.
We should be that way about all non-profits regardless of size.
The tax status just means that all profits need to be reinvested into the organization rather than paid out. Those expenses and investments can include salaries, tangible assets, you name it. There's a lot you can do with those parameters - put your family members on the payroll, get vehicles, offices, decorate your house with artwork, clothing, travel. So long as it conceivably relates towards furthering the mission, and ironically getting more money (fund raising) is the mission, so anything to do with public appearances, schmoozing, events, etc., can be rationalized. There's a lot you can do with those levers - peddle influence primarily. A few token contributions to the local soup kitchen, an artist, or better yet, another back-scratching non-profit, and you're good for the year.
Family foundations are a racket of the wealthy for sure. What's awesome there is you also have a great place to stash annual income for tax avoidance where it will still serve your lifestyle interests.
Institutional foundations for social betterment are often rackets for political graft. Look at Seattle or San Francisco for glaring examples of non-profits as fronts for political rent seeking, influence peddling, and laundering political contributions (just to name two easy ones).
It's been said that the first job of any non-profit is to keep the thieves out. That's true - because even if a non-profit is created with the best of intentions, the lax governance and talent shortfalls mean they are easy targets for corruption, either intentional corruption or the creeping rationalized indulgences that start happening when executive egos are left unchecked.
11 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 41.5 ms ] threadIt is my sincerest hope that by some miracle we finally turf them out. The way they've swung from disaster to disaster hopefully left enough of an imprint of how much of a despicable failure they really are
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation board has strong ties to fossil fuel interests, it has six full-time staff, it is set up as a "charity" and its main function appears to be to reallocate money to other organisations. Its operations are not subject to environmental regulations under any state or Commonwealth legislation and if the Foundation contributes to a major environmental disaster, it can be wound up and its members (directors) are each liable to a maximum of $100 towards any outstanding obligations.
The unsolicited allocation of $444 million to this shop-front venture appears to have been made without discussion, legitimate tender or evaluation.
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-03/turnbull-defends-cash...
I read it a bit like "well SHE was seen in a bar last Saturday so her account of the car accident is scarcely believable".
One however has to assume UNESCO didn't attempt to list it as endangered for kicks. The very recent recovery is great, but we should still be concerned with the reefs long-term health.
You're talking about a country where even the weathermen have been infiltrated. [1]
They've also been fighting tooth and nail against any scrutiny trying to pass law to make it basically meaningless to even attempt investigation without prior proof of guilt [2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5qOoIexcps
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/05/propo...
The tax status just means that all profits need to be reinvested into the organization rather than paid out. Those expenses and investments can include salaries, tangible assets, you name it. There's a lot you can do with those parameters - put your family members on the payroll, get vehicles, offices, decorate your house with artwork, clothing, travel. So long as it conceivably relates towards furthering the mission, and ironically getting more money (fund raising) is the mission, so anything to do with public appearances, schmoozing, events, etc., can be rationalized. There's a lot you can do with those levers - peddle influence primarily. A few token contributions to the local soup kitchen, an artist, or better yet, another back-scratching non-profit, and you're good for the year.
Family foundations are a racket of the wealthy for sure. What's awesome there is you also have a great place to stash annual income for tax avoidance where it will still serve your lifestyle interests.
Institutional foundations for social betterment are often rackets for political graft. Look at Seattle or San Francisco for glaring examples of non-profits as fronts for political rent seeking, influence peddling, and laundering political contributions (just to name two easy ones).
It's been said that the first job of any non-profit is to keep the thieves out. That's true - because even if a non-profit is created with the best of intentions, the lax governance and talent shortfalls mean they are easy targets for corruption, either intentional corruption or the creeping rationalized indulgences that start happening when executive egos are left unchecked.