No, Greg, because it’s not your money
Greg Combet is imposing his ideology on IFM Investors, which is owned by 27 industry super funds. Many employees have no choice but to put their money in this fund, and now they have no choice but to pay for his crusade to save the planet:
Australia’s biggest energy network will face an unprecedented emissions reduction target as its owner — industry superannuation giant IFM Investors — launches an ambitious project to cut carbon across its vast asset holdings.
Emissions reductions targets of up to 100 per cent by 2030 will be slapped on a broad range of infrastructure assets across the nation, including the Ausgrid electricity network, Melbourne and Brisbane airports, and NSW ports.
The move risks stoking a conflict with the Morrison government, which has sought to clamp down on social and environmental activism by industry super funds.
This closely follows the decision last week by the US Business Roundtable to drop the ‘Friedman Rule’ that companies seek only to maximise shareholder returns.
This is bad policy. And now we’re all paying for it.
Traditional copyright law
Can you remember being told that Indigenous people are communal and individual property rights are an evil western imposition?
It seems some Indigenous people have mastered the art of property rights. Literally:
A Queensland Indigenous health charity has had to pay $2,200 to use the Aboriginal flag on the shirts it gives away to patients, because the copyright of the Aboriginal flag belongs to a private company that is charging high fees in enforcing its licensing rights.
Trump derangement syndrome in overdrive
These people are nuts:
The host reponds like a coward:
Herald reader doesn’t understand supply and demand
Making fun of Herald readers’ letters is like shooting fish in a whiskey glass. Where do you start with this?
Your article says that a state government tourism bureaucrat along with NSW politician Walt Secord both made complaints about the choice of the Yoko Ono exhibition and the “contract” set for attendance numbers (”When Yoko Ono sparked a bureaucratic bunfight”, August 18).
What has always mystified me is that governments on all levels have any sway at all over cultural and arts policy. We should always be able to enjoy a broad range and definition of what is art and not be directed by bureaucrats or politicians in determining the arts as something defined by a fiscal bottom line.
Government should support the arts but I see oppressive tactics when they start intruding upon programming and curatorial practice based on the economics of tourism.
Bruce Tindale, Ballina
The real story here is the money spent on art exhibitions based on assumptions of tourist numbers.