On March 31 this year, Governor-General David Hurley signed off on a small legislative amendment that delivered a valuable tax break to the Australian Future Leaders Foundation — a charity he as governor-general had warmly endorsed.
The tax break was the award of deductible gift recipient (DGR) status to the foundation: valuable because it means that any donation is a tax deduction for the donor, thus opening up the potential for large-scale donations.
And because DGR status attracts a tax deduction — and is a cost to the budget — it needs to be approved by the treasurer. In this case it was Josh Frydenberg (secretly shadowed by Scott Morrison, it has recently emerged).
By giving royal assent to the foundation the governor-general was, on the face of it, caught in a conflict of interest: bringing into law a benefit for a charity he had promoted.
It is also on the face of it a constitutional dilemma for which there appears to be no solution — other than for a governor-general to never allow him or herself to be in that position.
Crikey has sought Hurley’s response.
The royal assent to DGR status is just one of the many questions which has emerged in the Australian Future Leaders Foundation saga, which has snowballed over the past fortnight. It has culminated in the decision of four parliamentarians to move to halt a grant of $18 million, which was introduced by the Morrison government in the weeks leading up to the May election.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge and Jacqui Lambie Network Senator Tammy Tyrrell have lodged motions to disallow the grant. They are joined by independent MP Monique Ryan, with the backing of independent Andrew Wilkie in the lower house.
The $18 million grant was made under an amendment to legislation which is administered by the finance minister. At the time that was Simon Birmingham, secretly shadowed by Morrison. It has emerged, too, that $18 million was merely the start, with the legislation providing for a further $4 million a year, with no endpoint.
Like the DGR legislation, the governor-general also signed off on legislative amendments to enable the $18 million grant. That, too, was in March.
Questions had already been raised about the grant in Senate estimates hearings in April. It was revealed that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) had taken the running on dealing with the foundation and its request for financial backing. The PM&C had done the due diligence, such as there was. It had negotiated an agreement with the foundation. There was no open tender for the grant.
It also emerged that the governor-general’s favoured charity had been granted DGR status more quickly than is usual and that the Prime Minister’s Department had been “involved” in moves to grant it.
Morrison’s close involvement was noteworthy — but it suddenly took on a whole new meaning in the light of revelations three weeks ago that he had secretly taken on five ministries. We don’t know who exactly knew the scale of his ministry grab. But one person did: the governor-general, who signed Morrison’s papers.
Crikey reported a fortnight ago on the questions raised. The chronology shows that the governor-general and his office were involved in the development of the Australian Future Leaders Foundation at a time that overlapped with Morrison’s push for more ministries. It meant that at one point the two most powerful figures in government were in a position to accommodate each other’s wants: Morrison and his ministries, and Hurley and his foundation which needed government support.
It has created a disquieting perception, only made worse by Morrison’s secret adoption of the treasurer’s role.
The governor-general’s office has flat-out denied that there is any link between the two. But perceptions matter when it comes to integrity in government and the public’s (flagging) faith in the government institutions. Hence the four independents are raising questions.
Key questions have also begun to emerge about the truth of the relationship between the governor-general, the G-G’s office and Chris Hartley, an upper-crust English chap with royal connections who has been the driving force behind the foundation.
Twitter researchers/citizen journalists Ronni Salt and Jommy Tee have tracked a series of interactions between the governor-general’s official secretary, Paul Singer, and Hartley which suggest a closer relationship than the governor-general’s office had earlier stated.
And what of the foundation’s aims? Singer told Senate estimates that his office and the G-G were “pleased and excited” to be part of “such a bold initiative” to build the future leadership capability in Australia. It was a “new and exciting initiative” that would make an impact “in the national interest”.
Hartley has been awarded honours by the Queen for services to the Duke of Edinburgh’s Commonwealth Study Conferences, which now operate under the patronage of HRH Princess Anne.
To what extent does the foundation depart from the royal roots of its main backer?
It’s an important question to answer in 2022 if the organisation is to be backed by the Australian taxpayer.
The Future Leaders thing sounds like an incubator to produce Tory dinosaurs. Dont think we need it, plenty of those backsliders already. Nor should it get any public support at all, no grants, no tax concessions.
Looking at the US, one would assume it was planned to be part of the non formal conservative, nativist and libertarian ‘architecture of influence’ to be leveraged with similar groups in policy, lobbying and media.
They could have become trade commissioners in plumb locations
“pleased and excited” to be part of “such a bold initiative” to build the future leadership capability in Australia
yeah right
what kind of leaders?
future First Nations leaders? – future women leaders – future LGBTQI+ leaders? – future trade union leaders? – future disability leaders? – future ethnic community leaders? … i could go on
or was the plan for more of the same – future capitalist, royalist, god-bothering leaders – all suckling at the public teat
Judging by its promoters, I think we know the answer. Two military men and an Establishment chap setting this thing up sounds more like a conspiracy to promote more people like them.
Just like all the knighthoods for sale.
That’s what’s annoying.
It appears to be a “give me the money”, and then my we’ll write the detail that is required for us to be given the money.
So yes, it appears to be a scam for an organization the general public won’t appreciate, and won’t be able to cancel.
There’s already a school for training future leaders like David Hurley, it’s called Duntroon.
If the Future Australian Leaders Foundation could guarantee not to spawn the venal variety who rise to giddy heights in the Coalition & in the corporate world, it may be worth an $18M investment. Otherwise not.
If it prevents the venal types that pervade the Coalition from rising to the giddy heights, it’d be worth splitting $4 million every year.among non-Coalition politicians based on their primary votes.
Even as it stands this is wrong, but I would like to know if there is a religious component to this foundation. Almost everything Morrison does has it’s root in that. I suspect that once again the media are applying hopelessly outdated standards of privacy to this aspect of a scandal.
religious or cult?
All religions start out as myths in an oral culture, later they become more codified, organised and emerge as cults. They then start to be recorded in characters, cuneiform, glyphs, ideographs, runes and other such scripts that develop with the advance of various civilisations…
When they become absorbed as part of a culture the rulers and the ruling classes see a use for them in the control and manipulation of the populace. Priestly castes of various types evolve, both male and female.
This caste is carefully managed by the ruling class by placing themselves at the top and so are able to ensure the tenets of what has now become a religion, binding the people together.
An outstanding example of this is how Constantine the Great, though he lived all his life as a “pagan” only being baptised on his death bed, used his power to have the then Early Church brought to a position of eminence, but controlled by him.
He called the First Council of Nicaea in 325 that produced Nicene Creed, which was adopted to deal with the Arian controversy, which was dividing the Early Church and causing unrest in the population. This creed was later modified by the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Later on the Papal claim to temporal power was based on the supposed Donation of Constantine, a forgery.
A religion is just a cult with property
Frank Zappa , I think.
Is there a difference ?
This term is only three months in and, once again, independents and minor parties are demonstrating their value to Australians.