Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label funding. Show all posts

Tuesday, 10 July 2018

WHat did the IPA do with all those millions?


The Daily Telegraph, 6 July 2018, p.23:

…a mysterious foundation, CEF, which received $4 million from Hancock Prospecting in the year to June 2015, and the conservative Institute of Public Affairs think tank, which received $4.5 million from Hancock Prospecting. The Institute did not declare Hancock Prospecting’s donation in its annual report, and after receiving the funds awarded Mrs Rinehart life membership. [my yellow highlighting]

So one of the big donors to that lobby group passing itself off as a public policy think tank, the Institute Of Public Affairs Limitedendorsed as a Deductible Gift Recipient since 30 March 2006 - has been revealed.

I wonder what the Institute of  Public Affairs Limited or the The Trustee For Institute Of Public Affairs Research Trust did with all those millions?

Because IPA annual reports do not show a $4.5 million spike. By 30 June 2015 its revenue which is primarily derived from membership fees and donations stood at $3.24 million (down from $3.47 million in June 2014) and only rose by $1.75 million as at 30 June 2016. In fact between June 2015 and June 2017 IPA revenue only rose by a total of $2.86 million.

By the end of the 2017 financial year the Trustee was telling the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission that it was still only a “medium sized charity” run by 5 volunteers holding only $1,140,497 in cash or cash equivalents and this was the trust’s total assets.

In fact that $4.5 million donation isn’t recorded in any of the financial reports submitted to the charities commission either.

Even though the IPA is supposedly a think tank and the trust fund was set up for the public charitable object of undertaking scientific research one is tempted to question this omission. 

June 2015 was less than a year out from the 2016 federal election campaign. Given their ‘joined at the hip’ relationship, did the IPA use part or most of these millions to assist the Liberal Party election campaign in some manner?

Perhaps the IPA Board* would like to enlighten us all on that point?


Institute of Public Affairs Limiter Board Members

The Hon. Rod Kemp,  Chair
John Roskam, Executive Director
Dr Janet Albrechtsen
Harold Clough
Dr Tim Duncan
Dr Michael Folie
Michael Hickinbotham
Geoff Hone
Rod Menzies
William Morgan
Maurice O’Shannassy 

Institute of Public Affairs Research Trust Board Members

KEMP, CHARLES RODERICK, Chair
ALBRECHTSEN, JANET KIM
CLOUGH, WILLIAM HAROLD
DUNCAN, WILLIAM TIMOTHY
FOLIE, GEOFFREY MICHAEL
HICKINBOTHAM, MICHAEL ROBB
HONE, GEOFFREY WILLIAM
MENZIES, RODNEY WILLIAM
MORGAN, WILLIAM HUGH MATHESO
O'SHANNASSY, MAURICE JOSEPH
ROSKAM, JOHN PETER


Monday, 25 June 2018

Hands off! The ABC pays its own way, says ABC boss



ABC boss Michelle Guthrie has dramatically hit back at the Liberal Party over its call to privatise the public broadcaster, vowing the ABC will not be a "punching bag" for political and vested interests, and labelling the attacks as cynical, misplaced and ignorant.

In a provocative speech intended to "call out" the ABC's critics, Ms Guthrie also presented new data showing the broadcaster generates as much annual economic activity as it receives from taxpayers.

And she declared the public views the ABC as a "priceless asset" that should not be sold, no matter how much a commercial buyer might be prepared to fork out.

"[Australians] regard the ABC as one of the great national institutions [and] deeply resent it being used as a punching bag by narrow political, commercial or ideological interests", Ms Guthrie said.

"Inherent in the drive against the independent public broadcaster is a belief that it can be pushed and prodded into different shapes to suit the prevailing climate. It can't. Nor should it be."

Ms Guthrie said she wanted to respond specifically to the motion passed by the Liberal Party federal council at the weekend calling for the ABC to be sold off, "even if others are keen to downplay it".

ABC Managing Director, Michelle Guthrie, speech at the Melbourne Press Club, 19 June 2018:

For those who prefer an abacus-type approach to this debate, I have some fresh information. How do you put a price on the value of the ABC? In pursuit of that answer, the ABC has commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to do some research. Their report is still being compiled and will be released next month. The early findings are interesting. They show that the ABC contributed more than $1 billion to the Australian economy in the last financial year - on a par with the public investment in the organisation.  Far from being a drain on the public purse, the audience, community and economic value stemming from ABC activity is a real and tangible benefit.....

Deloitte calculates that the ABC is helping to sustain more than 6000 full-time equivalent jobs across the economy. It means that for every 3 full-time equivalent jobs created by the ABC, there are another 2 supported in our supply chain – local artists, writers, technicians, transport workers and many more. In hard figures, the research shows that the ABC helps to sustain 2,500 full-time equivalent jobs in addition to the 4000 women and men who are directly employed by the public broadcaster.

The Turnbull Government and the Liberal Party are well aware that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) generates income and the government is a beneficiary.

The 2016-17 annual report, which like all the public broadcaster's annual reports is tabled in parliament, shows the ABC received $1.03 billion in federal government funding.

It also received $70.4 million in own-source revenue (sale goods/rendering services etc.) and recorded a total of $1.03 billion in own-source income.

In addition, that same financial year the ABC paid the Turnbull Federal Government a one-off dividend of $14 million.

But then again, the repeated funding cuts have never been about the ABC living within its means or paying its own way, 

The Liberal and Nationals only ever seem to want to privatise government agencies which return money to treasury - after all their silvertail mates are not interested in cheaply buying businesses that aren't capable of being turned into private enterprise cash cows.

Sunday, 24 June 2018

How the ABC is faring in the Australian Parliament and who won't support the public broadcaster


According to Hansard at 10.02 0n 18 June 2018 the Petitions Committee presented a number of petitions for consideration by the House of Representatives.

This was one of them:

6) Australian Broadcasting Corporation The federal government awards the Australian Broadcasting Corporation $1 billion in funding per year. It is therefore the responsibility of the ABC to represent the people and not to push an ideological agenda onto the children of our great nation nor to bully the men and women of Australia who object to said agenda. This is exactly what 2 productions of the ABC (ABC Comedy and ABC Me) have done with their recently released "Internet Song", "What its like:" and "Privilege Rap" among other examples. This behaviour is not only morally reprehensible but is also in breach of Australian broadcasting Corporation Act of 1983 which states: "to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism;". We therefore ask the House to investigate the ABC for misuse of funds for the purposes of pushing an agenda and to drastically cut the ABC's funding by 90%. from 735 citizens (Petition No. EN0562)

The principal petitioner appears to be one Keiren Lincoln.

At 11.59am on the same day the Labor Member for Isaacs and Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, Mark Dreyfus by leave, moved:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Isaacs from moving the following motion immediately—that the House resolves that it will never support the privatisation of the ABC and calls on the government to reverse its latest damaging $83 million cut to the ABC.

The motion was defeated by 10 votes.

MPs who refused to protect the ABC against privatisation and their electorates

Abbott, AJ (Warringah)
Alexander, JG (Bennelong)
Andrews, KJ (Menzies)
Andrews, KL (McPherson)
Banks, J (Chisholm)
Bishop, JI (Curtin)
Broad, AJ (Malee)
Broadbent, RE (McMillian)
Buchholz, S (Wright)
Chester, D (Gippsland)
Christensen, GR (Dawson)
Ciobo, SM (Moncrieff)
Coleman, DB (Banks)
Coulton, M (Parkes)
Crewther, CJ (Dunkley)
Drum, DK (Murray)
Dutton, PC (Dickson)
Entsch, WG (Leichhardt)
Evans, TM (Brisbane)
Falinski, J (Mackellar)
Fletcher, PW (Bradfield)
Flint, NJ (Boothby)
Frydenberg, JA (Kooyong)
Gee, AR (Calare)
Gillespie, DA (Lyne)
Goodenough, IR (Moore)
Hartsuyker, L (Cowper)
Hastie, AW (Canning)
Hawke, AG (Mitchell)
Henderson, SM (Corangamite)
Hogan, KJ (Page)
Howarth, LR (Petrie)
Hunt, GA (Flinders)
Irons, SJ (Swan)
Keenan, M (Stirling)
Kelly, C (Hughes)
Laming, A (Bowman)
Landry, ML (Capricornia)
Laundy, C (Reid)
Leeser, J (Berowra)
Ley, SP (Farrer)
Littleproud, D (Maranoa)
Marino, NB (Forrest)
McCormack, MF (Riverina)
McVeigh, JJ (Groom)
Morrison, SJ (Cook)
Morton, B (Tangney)
O'Brien, LS (Wide Bay)
O'Brien, T (Fairfax)
O'Dwyer, KM (Higgins)
Pasin, A (Barker)
Pitt, KJ (Hinkler)
Porter, CC (Pearce)
Prentice, J (Ryan)
Price, ML (Durak)
Pyne, CM (Sturt)
Ramsey, RE (Grey)
Robert, SR (Fadden)
Sudmalis, AE (Gilmore)
Sukkar, MS (Deakin)
Taylor, AJ (Hume)
Tehan, DT (Wannon)
Tudge, AE (Aston)
Turnbull, MB (Wentworth)
Van Manen, AJ (Forde)
Vasta, RX (Bonner)
Wallace, AB (Fisher)
Wicks, LE (Robertson)
Wilson, RJ (O’Connor)
Wilson, TR (Goldstein)
Wood, JP (La Trobe)
Wyatt, KG (Hasluck)
Zimmerman, T (North Sydney)        

Wednesday, 20 June 2018

Majority believe that funding for all ABC services should be increased or maintained, according to Essential Research survey


In May 2018 the Turnbull Government 'slashed' the ABC's 2019-2021 funding by $84 million.

Is this another example of this federal government's tin ear?

Because the Essential Report of 19 June 2018 shows majority support for ABC funding levels to be maintained or increased:

Perhaps Turnbull and Co should stop listening to the Institute of Public Affairs and seek opinion from outside that fetid conservative hothouse and places other than Parliament Drive or News Corp headquarters.

Saturday, 12 May 2018

Time to show support for the ABC


The situation in 2018.......

The Guardian, 8 May 2018:

Dear colleagues,

The government has tonight announced it will freeze the ABC’s annual funding indexation for three years from July 2019, which will cost the organisation $84m. This will be compounded by the decision to cease a further $43m in funding to support quality news and current affairs services and follows the cumulative $254m in cuts imposed since 2014.

This decision comes at a critical time for us. As you are all aware from our conversations following this year’s annual public meeting, we are at a watershed moment as a public broadcaster as we continue to strive to deliver the high standards of programming Australian audiences expect, despite escalating global competition and rising production costs.

Let me be frank with you: I am very disappointed and concerned that after the measures we have introduced in recent years to deliver better and more efficient services, the government has now seen fit to deliver what amounts to a further substantial budget cut. This decision will make it very difficult for the ABC to meet its charter requirements and audience expectations.

However, we will continue to pursue our strategy during triennial funding negotiations with the government this year to achieve the proper levels of funding we require to meet the expectations of not only our current audiences but those of the next generation.

Our priorities have and always will be to our audiences and the programming we create for them. Our success in this is a tribute to the talent, dedication and high-quality work of our teams right across the country and the world.

Our public interest journalism, breaking news coverage and independent analysis are highly valued by the community, including across regional Australia. The drama, comedy and children’s content we deliver every hour are likewise important to the cultural life of the country. And services like triple j, RN and ABC Local remain crucial channels for audiences everywhere to join the national conversation.

Unfortunately, the government has overlooked this contribution and the trust and value more than 80% of Australians place in us as an independent national broadcaster.
In a statement in response I have made clear this decision will have an impact on our audiences.

We will continue to oppose the decision and seek every opportunity to reverse the cuts in the coming months before they take effect.

Michelle Guthrie

Abc.net.au, Statement, 8 May 2018:

The Government’s decision to freeze the ABC’s indexation from July 2019 will cost the broadcaster $84 million over three years and will be compounded by the decision to cease a further $43 million in funding to support quality news and current affairs services.

This decision comes at a critical time for the ABC as it commences triennial funding negotiations with the Government and comes on top of a cumulative $254 million in cuts imposed since 2014.

The ABC’s independence and its commitment to in-depth analysis and commentary has never been more valued or trusted by Australian audiences, nor so critical to the challenges facing the nation.

ABC Managing Director Michelle Guthrie said the impact of the decision could not be absorbed by efficiency measures alone, as the ABC had already achieved significant productivity gains in response to past budget cuts.

“The ABC is now more important than ever given the impact of overseas players in the local media industry and the critical role the ABC plays as Australia’s most trusted source of news, analysis and investigative journalism,” Ms Guthrie said.

“Our talented and dedicated content makers consistently deliver award winning public interest journalism, regional services and critically acclaimed original Australian programs and content.

“Stable, adequate funding is essential if we are to continue to deliver for Australian audiences.”

The ABC’s long-term strategy published at an Annual Public Meeting in February 2018 outlines the broadcaster’s plan to respond to changing audience expectations, and to remain as relevant in the future as it always has been in the past.

The ABC will continue to negotiate its funding requirements with the Government to ensure it can deliver on this commitment to a future which ensures the ABC remains relevant in the digital age.

Ms Guthrie also rejected as unnecessary the proposed efficiency review given efficiency programs introduced by the ABC in recent years.

Time to pick up that pen and object to this funding freeze........

Prime Minister Hon. Malcolm Bligh Turnbull MP
Parliament House
Canberra, ACT 2600
PH: (02) 6277 7700
FAX: (02) 6273 4100

Deputy Prime Minister Hon. Michael McCormack MP
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
PH: 02) 6277 7520

Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts Senator Hon. Mitch Fifield
Parliament House
Canberra, ACT 2600
PH: (02) 6277 7480
EMAIL: Minister@communications.gov.au

Minister for Regional Communications Senator Hon. Bridget McKenzie
PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
PH: (02) 6277 3200
FAX: (02) 6277 5755

Local MPs by Electorate contact details here.

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

The NSW Government’s Latest Attack On The Environment


How important is protection of the natural environment to the NSW Government? 
Many in the community believe that the Government gives it a very low priority.   There are even some who would assert that the NSW Coalition Government is conducting a war on the environment.
Concern about the Government’s environmental attitudes is the inevitable result of a series of its policies and legislation over recent years.  A few examples are its original very strong support for CSG and unconventional gas mining[1], its weakening of land-clearing and biodiversity protection laws[2], its strong support of coal mine expansions despite community opposition[3], and more recently, its plan to change the law to enable Lithgow’s Springvale Mine to stay open despite its threat to Sydney’s water catchment[4].
The latest major threat to the natural environment in NSW is the re-structure of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).  The National Parks and Wildlife Service, a part of the Office of Environment and Heritage,  manages more than 870 national parks and reserves covering over 7 million hectares of land  which is more than 9% of the state’s land area.
The restructure which is currently under way involves the amalgamation of administrative areas, and either the loss of experienced officers or their demotion to what will be little more than clerical roles with substantially reduced salaries.  In addition there are serious concerns about the effect of the changes on fire-fighting capacity as well as on pest management.
The changes resulting from this restructure will have serious effects throughout the state.
Grafton on the NSW North Coast, for years an administrative centre for NPWS, will lose that function. Despite Grafton’s location in the geographical centre of the new region, the administrative headquarters is being transferred to Coffs Harbour. 
Clarence Valley locals, having seen over recent years the steady transfer of state government jobs from Grafton to Coffs Harbour, are angry about this.  What makes this decision even more nonsensical to some Clarence residents is that the Clarence Valley LGA (Local Government Area) contains one of the biggest areas of national parks on the North Coast.  Clarence Valley Mayor, Cr Jim Simmons, pointed out recently that the Clarence had 2,262 sq km of national parks, 22% of the Council area, while Coffs Harbour, has only 42 sq km – a mere 4% of the Coffs council area.
While there is concern about job losses, the loss of expertise in the Service and the impact of this drawn-out and unfair process on the Service officers, there is another major concern – the long-term effect on our very important national parks estate.  Despite the claims by politicians, including the Nationals Member for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis, this is a cost-cutting exercise at a time when the Government has boasted about a record budget surplus of $4.5 billion.  Any claim that it is not cost-cutting when the NPWS budget has been reduced by $121 million is obviously ludicrous.
However, it is probably more than just a cost-cutting exercise.  It is almost certain that it is at least partly driven by the ideology of the Coalition Government a core part of which, according to John Menadue[5], is commercializing and privatising public assets.
With reference to this, Menadue said: “A clear case at the moment is the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is being deliberately underfunded and forced to seek private funding and promoting commercial access to public parks.
“Yet this is happening when, with growing population density, we have a greatly increased need for public parks, gardens and open space. Furthermore, we were able to fund our public parks for decades in the past when we were much poorer than we are today. We need to protect our parks more than ever and we have more money to do so. Yet state governments are screwing national parks with funds to force commercialization and privatization.”
In the same post Menadue quoted figures from John Benson about the downgrading of the NPWS[6]. The number of rangers has been reduced by more than 90 over seven years. Only two of 14 regional managers have been appointed after a restructure and a similar threat faces critical staff at the area management level. Staff is so reduced in some regions that basic amenities cannot be maintained and a lack of field staff presence disappoints public visitor expectations.”
Despite all the spin from politicians and bureaucrats, it is obvious that the government intends to downgrade our national parks and is setting up the National Parks and Wildlife Service for failure. If the community, including that in our local area, does not protest vehemently enough, we will be stuck with this vandalism until this arrogant government is removed.
Hildegard
Northern Rivers

Footnotes
[1] In particular for Metgasco in the Northern Rivers – until the very strong community opposition forced a buy-back of the Metgasco licence.
[2] The 2016 Biodiversity Conservation Act and Local Land Services Amendment Act. There are strong concerns that this legislation will lead to huge biodiversity loss and allow broadscale land clearing.
[6] John Benson’s post on Menadue’s blog - https://johnmenadue.com/john-benson-biodiversity-is-threatened-in-new-south-wales/  provides an interesting view of the former world class quality of the NSW national parks estate and its current decline.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will be considered on topical subjects.

Thursday, 19 October 2017

Be a hero - save an endangered Swift Parrot family today


Swift Parrot
Lathamus discolor
Psittacidae
Critically endangered (Australian federal listing)
IUCN Red List
Image: Geoffrey Dabb/ Canberra Birds

Swift Parrots breed only in Tasmania and then fly across Bass Strait to forage on the flowering eucalypts in open box–ironbark forests of the Australian mainland. While on the mainland, they are nomadic, spending weeks or months at some sites and only a few hours at others, determined by the supply of nectar. [Birdlife Australia]

                                     

Go to https://pozible.com/project/operation-pko to donate

ABC News, 18 October 2017:

The parrots are nomadic and eat nectar, travelling in flocks to nest near flowering eucalypts.
"This year, all their food is on the east coast of Tasmania, and that area is full of sugar gliders," Dr Stojanovic said.
"We're very concerned that all the birds we bred on predator-free islands last year, will end up nesting on the mainland in sugar glider habitat and be eaten."
With the help of an electrician, Dr Stojanovic has designed "a possum-keeper-outer" nest boxes, with a door to close behind the parrot once darkness fell.
"Effectively, it's just a little motor and a light sensor," he said.
"As soon as it's daytime the sensor automatically detects that there's ambient light and it will open to release the parrot to go about their business….
Dr Stojanovic said previous research had shown the possums could eat parrots "within a couple of days" of the bird laying its eggs.
"About half of the female swift parrots that nest on the mainland of Tasmania each year end up being eaten by sugar gliders," he said.
"It can be a really severe rate of predation."
Dr Stojanovic said the crowd-funding protection measures were needed due to ongoing deforestation of the swift parrot habitat, by logging.

Monday, 3 July 2017

Is the Liberal Party of Australia taking a leaf out of Steve Bannon's playbook


This was a ‘news’ banner on the Liberal Party of Australia’s The Fair Go website on 27 June 2016:
The short eight sentence long spiel behind the login wall began with:

Where does Getup get its money from and what is the real agenda behind the bluster?

From Open Society to Podesta to The Sunrise Project, Avaaz to GetUp in Australia! There’s certainly been a lot of US money a-flowing toward Aussie Leftists groups. So, who is giving who how much and where is it all going?

And ended with this image:


However it did not disclose any “secret money trails” and appeared to base its claims in part on 'fake news' produced during the 2016 US presidential election and the political donations disclosures GetUp! (Getup Limited est. 29 April 2005) regularly submits to the Australian Electoral Commission which can be found on the commission’s website as well as on a GetUp! web page.

According to the staff writers at The Fair Go the villain of the piece is George Soros – one of the people Donald Trump likes to hate – who is supposedly nefariously funding GetUp! through Avaaz.

Of course no mention is made of the fact that two co-founders and current board members of GetUp! were later also co-founders of Avaaz, so there is an existing and acknowledged relationship which has seen these two groups work together on climate change campaigns.

Instead this little gem made it off a staff writer’s keyboard and onto the website:

Getup alone spent $10m on pro-Union, pro-Green, anti-development, anti-jobs agenda last year. They have been getting some help from American organisation Avaaz with $275,000 in donations over the last two years.

But where does Avaaz get their funding from? Open Society Foundation of course! 

All roads lead back to George Soros.

Small problem with the maths though. The figure for the last two Third Party Return of Political Expenditure forms submitted by GetUp! show zero donations from Avaaz in 2015-16 and a single $99,985 donation in 2014-15. Even if one goes back to the 2013-14 form, that included donation would only bring the Avaaz donation total to $195,605 over the last three financial years declared to date.

It should come as no surprise to find that Avaaz also publishes its US expenditure declarations which means that there is even less to The Fair Go’s secrecy claims. Avaaz received a general support grant in 2008-09 from the Open Society Institute (OSI est. 1979) and since then does not appear to have accepted donations from “foundations or corporations”.

As for George Soros and the Open Society Foundations (formerly OSI) – well that registered philanthropic organisation operating world-wide produces annual budgets which show what programs it is involved with and where. Australia is not one of the countries in which it has a presence and, apart from attending at least one international conference which happen to be held in this country and including Australia in its “Case Watch” series and the occasional report, it does not appear to be active here.

The 2016 Open Society Foundations budget showed expected expenditure of US$544.6 million and the 2017 budget expenditure is expected to come in at US$940.7 million. This money goes to small and medium sized organisations such as those providing advocacy, legal aid, assistance to refugees, early childhood development and education and food security in the face of climate change programs, as well as to grass roots activism.

Who would you believe when it comes to “secret money trails”? A political party (with its own political donation probity issues) which couldn’t even come up with an original design for a website which appears to be using the Steve Bannon approach to facts and is aping one of Donald Trump’s pet conspiracy theories, or the publicly available political donation disclosures GetUp! has been submitting since 2006-07.

Monday, 24 October 2016

Self-published book by discredited political scientist costs Australian taxpayers $4,475 per page


Defunded by the Danish Government in 2012, rejected by the University of Western Australia and then Flinders University in 2015, discredited political scientist  Bjørn Lomborg went on to finally be rejected by the Abbott Government – but not before that federal government had handed Lomborg a cheque for $640,000 taken from the Dept of. Education budget.

Apparently unable to find a reputable publisher after 2010 Lomborg self-published this little 143-page tome with Australian taxpayer’s money – costing the nation $4,475 per page in a year where the budget deficit stood at $35.1 billion.

Published by Copenhagen Consensus Center USA, Inc.
Paperback Edition only – April 20, 2015, price $65.99   
New Paperback Edition – November 1, 2015, price $11.99

This is what Lomborg says of his book…..


Nobel Laureates Guide to Smarter Global Targets to 2030

Copenhagen Consensus Center has published 100+ peer-reviewed analyses from 82 of the world’s top economists and 44 sector experts along with many UN agencies and NGOs. These have established how effective 100+ targets would be in terms of value-for-money. These analyses take into account not just the economic, but also health, social and environmental benefits to the world.

An Expert Panel including two Nobel Laureates has reviewed this research and identified 19 targets that represent the best value-for-money in development over the period 2016 to 2030, offering social good worth more than $15 back on every dollar invested.

Reaching these global targets by 2030 will do more than $15 of good for every dollar spent.

In a Hurry and interested in the 19 most bang-for-the-buck post-2015 sustainable development targets? Download our project overview PDF here.

This is what the Senate thought……

The Australian, 21 October 2016:

Taxpayers contributed $640,000 to a book edited, written and published by Bjorn Lomborg and his Copenhagen Consensus Centre which was ridiculed in Senate Estimates on Thursday as “vanity publishing”.

The book, The Nobel Laureates Guide to the Smartest Targets in the World, also came under attack for receiving special purpose funding without having to undergo normal peer review processes of Australian researchers….

Bureaucrat Virginia Hart initially told Senator O’Neill the money had been used to support “extensive consultations through youth forums, media discussions, meeting with world leaders, including interactions with Australian dignitaries and officials, a number of papers that were commissioned from academics in areas that were relevant to the millennial development goals”.

But it was unclear which academics contributed to the book — none appear to be attributed — or what they produced. It is also unclear about the other activities under the funding…..

Senate Estimates also heard that the $640,000 was a contribution to the book with the rest coming from the CCC, but the Education Department did not know the total cost of the project.

Senator O’Neill also asked Senator Birmingham why the project received money under special purpose funding.

“The purpose was that the then Prime Minister and Mr Pyne had initiated a process that sought to establish an Australian Copenhagen Consensus Centre and bring its approach and methodology to Australia. Certain works were commenced while the discussions commenced as to how and where such a centre may be housed. In the end, the government made the decision not to proceed,” Senator Birmingham replied…..

While Senate Estimates was told the book was freely available on the internet, it appears it is only available for purchase. Amazon lists the book at $US11.99.