Mining magnate Andrew Forrest’s Minderoo charity makes undisclosed donation to the Australia Institute | Andrew Forrest
Andrew Forrest’s charitable organization made an unhappy donation to Australia Institute, which has raised transparency concerns about the financing of influential advocacy groups.
The donation to The Progressive Thinktank, which has been confirmed by several familiar sources with the agreement but not authorized to comment, highlights different standards of disclosure in the research and plea sector.
The Institute, which is pressure for the change of policy, has not confirmed or refused the funding of Minderoo. But two sources have described the gift as “substantial” and one allegedly alleged that it was worth “six figures”. Minderoo did not disclose the value of his support.
It is not known when the gift has been made, and nothing suggests that it has influenced the conduct of the institute. There is also no suggestion of reprehensible acts on the part of the Institute or Minderoo with regard to the donation.
The public campaigns of the Institute on the reduction of emissions are closely aligned with those led by the charitable organization of the mining magnate and its company, which has publicly put pressure on the Albanian government.
The Australia Institute, Minderoo and Strongs have all criticized the use of carbon compensation to reach zero zero emissions by 2050 and have rather defended a “real zero” strategy, which requires total decarbonization.
Minderoo, who was founded by Forrest and his partner Nicola in 2001, lists the promotion of the real zero strategy as a key objective. Its website offers quotes from Forrest, including its criticism from Net Zero as “Mantra devoid of meaning that buys time from businesses and governments while continuing to burn fossil fuels”.
Forrest was co -president of Minderoo until September 2024, when he became non -executive director. During the announcement of the change, Forrest said that this would allow him to “focus on the global adoption of Real Zero”.
Register: at the Breaking News Email
Strong, founded by Forrest in 2003, is committed to making real zero programs in its own operations by 2030 and campaigned so that other companies can follow.
In February, Fortescue organized an open letter calling for the government to introduce a real zero policy, which was greeted by Australia Institute. The same month, the main climatologist of Strongs described the real zero approach at a summit organized by the Institute.
In recent months, the Institute has welcomed Forrest’s commitment to the real zero and has called on the rest of the industry to “take the same path”.
A spokesman for Australia Institute said that his research was independent and that “the protection of the privacy of our donors is important”.
“Unfortunately, in Australia, some donors of other charities have been targeted, rather than rented, by powerful voices for their generous support for work designed to highlight the problems of increase in inequalities and greenhouse gas,” said the spokesperson.
Similar reasons for retaining donors’ names have been used by the Thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) conservative. In 2012, the IPA said that it had not revealed donors because they had previously been “intimidated” by political opponents.
Other research groups disclose donors. The Grattan Institute lists all financial supporters, including individuals, who provide more than $ 1,000. The Center for Public Integrity lists key donors on the second page of research reports.
John Daley, who was the founding director general of the Grattan Institute from 2009 to 2020, said that Thinktanks “had a status of public debate” and that their donors should be disclosed in transparency.
Speaking generally, not compared to the Australian Institute, Daley said that he was not convinced of the need to keep the donors secret.
After promoting the newsletter
“If they are subject to an attack because they seem to try to buy a thinkank, then I’m not very friendly,” said Daley. “If they are subject to attack for other reasons, it is difficult to see why it would be so unpleasant.
“We force people to disclose gifts to political parties and they go forward and do it.”
Quick guide
Contact us about this story
To show
The best journalism of public interest is based on first -hand accounts of people at the current.
If you have something to share on this subject, you can contact us confidentially using the following methods.
Secure messaging in the Guardian application
The Guardian application has a tool to send advice on stories. The messages are from end to end encrypted and hidden in the routine activity that each Guardian mobile application performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us, not to mention what is said.
If you don’t already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS / Android) and go to the menu. Select the “secure messaging”.
Securedrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and publication
If you can use the Tor network safely without being observed or monitored, you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our Securedrop platform.
Finally, our guide on TheGuardian.com/Tips lists several ways to contact us safely and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each.
The spokesman for Australia Institute said: “We will break the ideas and not political parties and, in turn, do not accept donations from political parties, and the Australian Institute would not accept donations to finance work that conflicts with or seek to direct our research.”
A strong spokesperson said that the company had never given a donation to Australia Institute and that there was “a clear separation between Minderoo and Strong, with robust systems and government policies”.
A spokesperson for Minderoo said that the charitable organization was an entirely distinct organization of strong and that his “climatic advocacy is supported by rigorous research and based on evidence”. They said that the charity was “free from commercial influence and guided only by evidence, a public interest and a long -term impact”.
A 2015 report from the TranspuFy group, which follows the transparency of Thinktank’s funding worldwide, found that Australia had a “remarkably opaque political research landscape”.
“Thinktanks can play a positive role producing independent and in -depth political research to inform politicians, the media and the public,” said Hans Gutbrod, Executive Director of Transparify.
“As key players in democratic policy, they are responsible for being transparent on their operations.”
Do you know more about who finances Australian Thinktanks? Contact henry.belot@theguardian.com
