Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Forrest donations and false charity

By Binoy Kampmark - posted Thursday, 1 June 2017


It is easy to sneer, and availing oneself of this chance, let's. The celebratory guff floating on the media glow of mining magnate Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest for giving away $400 million to charitable pursuits is reminiscent to that of Mark Zuckerberg. At least he did not dig up the earth in the process.

Within the kernel of philanthropic generosity lies a deception: charity, its great fruit, is born from fundamental inequality, and more to the point, the assumption that such inequality can never truly end. You are kind, because you can be; you are generous, because your wallet provides the cream that enables you to do it. As a caustic H. L. Mencken observed, the nature of such altruistic projects conceals self-interest.

More saliently, the issue of social, even political influence, an appropriation of causes and select projects over which the philanthropist can exert control, is an unavoidable fact. This does not bother supporters of the philanthropic project who see it as "risk capital for social change."

Advertisement

Judith Rodin, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, sees philanthropy in that light, with risk being its motivating "calling card". Accountability, surmises Rodin, does, in fact exist, leveraged through the notion of risk. The risk takers are the great catalysts, and for that reason, are the anointed warriors of change.

Consider Rodin's motivational speak, designed to bore: "I tell my board that if we succeed at everything we do, we're not taking enough risk, and if we're not taking enough risk, we're clearly not doing everything in our power to maximise impact for the poor and vulnerable."

Forrest had already etched himself in Australia's philanthropic records, channelling money through the Minderoo Foundation. This particular donation drive has several projects. $75 million is parcelled out for the international effort to end modern slavery. The same amount is set aside for developing a program for child development in Australia and outside. Even more is inked for cancer research.

These are questions of priorities – and who, ultimately, should be entrusted with such tasks. Government, being often an arbitrary, appropriating gang of members rather than an effective one, is bypassed in such acts. But philanthropy, ultimately, remains the poorer deliverer in terms of welfare.

This point is missed by Australia's prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who sees philanthropy in terms of influence as "greater than that of government, because it comes with the love of the philanthropist, a love of mankind." This view is highly conventional, and heavy with dust: governments can only ever spoil what the people might do better for themselves. (Leave aside, for a moment, the fact that the people might be divided between the billionaires and the paupers.) For philanthropy, reminded the prime minister on the occasion of the Forrest donation, was an "act of love" in Greek.

Turnbull's deformed understanding of love did not convince critics of Forrest's methods of wealth redistribution. His power and influence have already gone so far as to suggest, through government solicitation, welfare reforms. Having wheedled his way into the house of power, he wishes to make marks on the very way government policy operates. These include suggestions on how welfare recipients use their money, and the cashless welfare card.

Advertisement

Former NSW premier Kristina Keneally certainly wished that Forrest, for all his "great" philanthropic gestures, could have simply paid more tax." Such philanthropy vested "massive power in the hands of the giver to determine how much money is available and what causes merit support."

Keneally's point is affirmed in the conduct of Forrest and Fortescue Metals Group, at least in terms of the contempt shown towards the tax collector. (To give a sense of scale, FMG is the fourth largest producer of iron ore on the planet.) In a senate hearing in 2011, officials of FMG revealed that the company had never paid company tax, though it had forked out $450m to $500m in mining royalties each year.

As then government senate leader Chris Evans explained, "They have never paid a dollar in company tax to date and they want to resist having to pay the Mining Resource Rent Tax." Such a state of affairs was "not something the Australian people should accept."

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

10 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and blogs at Oz Moses.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Binoy Kampmark

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 10 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy