The
Guardian, 26
September 2018:
Great Barrier Reef
scientists were told they would need to make “trade-offs” to the Great Barrier
Reef Foundation, including focusing on projects that would look good
for the government and encourage more corporate donations, emails tabled in the
Senate reveal.
The documents, including
cabinet briefing notes, contain significant new details about the workings of
the foundation and the
government decision to award it a $443m grant, including:
The
executives of mining, gas and chemicals companies – and international financial
houses that actively back fossil-fuel projects – were among the guests at a six-star
retreat hosted by the foundation less than a month after the grant was
announced;
The
media companies Foxtel and Fairfax and the tech giant Google are among a
tightly held list of donors to the foundation;
The
only CSIRO employee contacted about the grant before the announcement in April
was in Patagonia, and did not get the email. Documents have previously revealed
that the government’s peak science agency was
cut out of the decision to award the grant;
In
August, as scrutiny of the grant intensified, public servants pushed to block a
long-planned meeting between the then science minister, Michaelia Cash, and the
head of the foundation, Anna Marsden, because of concern about the “optics”.
Emails sent by staff at
the Australian Institute of Marine Science outline how government expectations,
the ability to leverage private donations and public perceptions “may drive the
[foundation] to prioritise shorter-term research initiatives in order to
demonstrate progress and return on investment”.
“Where it becomes
challenging is that … interventions with the largest future benefit also take
the longest to develop,” the institute’s executive director of strategic
policy, David Mead, wrote in an email to colleagues.
“Among other trade-offs, we will need to
determine to what degree we focus on quick wins or whether we progress
longer-term strategic interventions and accept that we will only partially
progress them during the next five years (perhaps with little outward
visibility of success/progress).”
The emails also reveal
an initial state of uncertainty about how a $100m allocation for reef
restoration and adaptation would be handled.
Three weeks after the
announcement about the money, Mead was trying to get answers about how the
grant would be allocated.
“I followed up with the
granting agreement, did not really get an answer other than they are working on
it over the next month,” Mead wrote on 18 May. “So we will just have to watch
this space.
“Once the thing is
signed by GBRF we are going to need them to make some definitive statements one
way or the other, as everyone is wondering and I don’t want the team to
destruct … ”
Emails between staff at
the industry, innovation and science department reveal discussion about the
“optics” of a long-planned meeting between Cash, Marsden and the chief
executive of institute, Paul Hardisty.
Note
* The total Great Barrier Reef Foundation grant was for $487,633,300.
