JUNGLE DRUM: Does charity begin at home or in Northern NSW?

LAWRENCE MASON COLUMN

Contributor Article

Email
Last updated:

 

When my daughter was very small I decided that we would sponsor a child. But doing research I was horrified. Not much of the money gets to the kids in many cases.

And many charities seem to line the pockets of the administration team while struggling to actually do what they are supposed to do. Eventually we found Children International, and even today they use more than 80 per cent of funds to benefit sponsored children.

I don't know a lot about charities, but I do usually check before I donate. People in Australia donating to charities purporting to "Save the Daintree" would be wise to do so too, given recent media surrounding one such charity.

You have to ask why they are not fixing the devastation where they are based? Northern NSW is far more degraded than the Daintree. Does the sexy name Daintree gain far more cash, so the charity bosses can pay themselves more? Their annual reports suggest it's a pretty good gig.

But it is not just how much of the donation is spent on the task, it is HOW the money is spent. Going back to my experience, Children International spends most money on community centres. Parenting advice, dentists, doctors, tutoring, printing and even transport are provided by these centres. We have been to them, met "our" child, and seen the benefits. If you donate extra they arrange gifts for birthdays and Christmas. They don't just hand the cash to the parents...

I have been thinking about Save the Daintree charities and what they could be doing, instead of what they are doing.

Here goes:

1. They could support financially school Parents' and Citizens' Associations in the area, and engage the kids in environmental pursuits (not just free tree-planting labour)

2. They could support basic improvements to health in the region; this community contributes daily to the health of the forest so give back.

3. They could become advocates for genuine renewable energy in the region. This a no-brainer and their lack of support for this in my opinion reinforces their ultimate depopulation plan.

4. They could support, facilitate and fund tour-guide education and improvement. Better presentation is a win.

5. They could fund the Daintree Rainforest Observatory so it does not close. Rainforest research is crucial, and we do not need to lose this centre.

6. They could lobby for, or fund, a couple of jetties and a boat ramp to help our community be more resilient.

7. They could guarantee to never again buy up blocks approved for desperately needed housing in the community (or actual houses like some are now). Buying up blocks that are reserved in the town plan for housing or already built on is an arrogant middle finger to the existing community and to Bama.

8. They could actually support the Yalanji desire to return to Country, instead of buying blocks and extinguishing rights to housing on them. Are First Nations people supposed to maintain culture and connection by looking at the gifted blocks?

9. They could fund badly needed research into roadkill, so we could learn from people who have hit or nearly hit wildlife, learn about and implement sound makers, safe road crossings or whatever is found better, and thus reduce wildlife deaths.

10. They could meet with and become a part of the community, instead of its enemy.

Not all of what is done by rainforest charities is bad. But some are so bad that we have community groups and Facebook pages dedicated to refuting their claims, and even a politician agrees that some behaviour is questionable.

Personally, I think that some "good" activities such as nurseries and revegetation are often a smokescreen for more buyback land banking and the ultimate aim of depopulating Daintree, but I could be wrong. The first proposed tourism centre has just popped up on a charity website slated for Cow Bay. How long before the banked land is used for carbon trading and Airbnb?

The Douglas Shire is asleep at the wheel on this and has been for a long time. Are they hoping when there is enough bought back they can give up on us? Changes to development need approval, and therefore changes to no development, should also require approval. Whatever your opinion, please think carefully before you hand over your hard-earned cash. Because it will be your agricultural land south of the river next.

*Lawrence Mason has lived at Cape Tribulation all his life, and has been involved in farming, timber and tourism. He is a former board member of Tourism Port Douglas Daintree, founding Chair of Daintree Marketing Co-operative, and has been a member of both Alexandra Bay and Mossman State High School P&C. He is also a member of the Douglas Chamber of Commerce and has a keen interest in local issues.

  • The opinions and views in this column are those of the author and author only and do not reflect the Newsport editor or staff.