Four Corners: Funding conservation charities, 1973

REPORTER:

Five months ago, John Blanch was appointed as the foundation's new executive vice president at $20,000 a year. He had been chosen by a management consultant company from some 80 applicants and has had strong links with industry himself.

JOHN BLANCH:

The strengths, coming from industry, is to try and understand the industry point of view and to try and get them to understand our point of view as conservationists. Now, if I can provide that bridge we'll get a co-operative result.

REPORTER:

How does he react to the criticism that the foundation has become an old boy's establishment, supported mainly by big industries and government bodies?

JOHN BLANCH:

Oh, there may be a wee bit of truth, but I would say that's not true as a statement. We've got more than 7,000 individual members and a very small number of people we call benefactors and donors. These are the odd industry people who might subscribe because they're interested.

REPORTER:

Do you see the fact that you get most of your money from government and benefactors as a means of diluting of swaying your attitude in relation to some conservation issues?

JOHN BLANCH:

No. I cant see how any attitude could be changed. I really think it'd be worth more than an executive committee member's life and worth to bring up any private interest in any discussion of a conservation problem.

REPORTER:

From the foundation's own figures their executive council is made up of 37% from industry, 27% from government, 27% scientific and only 9% laypeople.

JOHN BLANCH:

This is playing with figures. Our executive committee is 10, 11 people from the council of nearly 50, which means that 3.7 people from industry are in our existing executive. Those figures you're quoting are a couple of years old now and it's only at this stage that we're looking again at the council for the next year. Our election will be at our annual general meeting in about October.

MAN:

I'm sure that the executive is dominated and its decisions are, therefore, dominated by people who are amongst the captains of industry and the establishment. I don't think that the lay conservationists who make up the bulk of the membership of the Conservation Foundation, I don't think they're sufficiently represented at either council or the executive. And remember it's the executive that makes the decisions in the Australian Conservation Foundation. In fact, this is a problem that really has to be seriously looked at by the foundation. The practical reason is that an executive of a big business firm can take a day off to attend a council meeting in Melbourne or Canberra, without any problems. The firm likes him to do it, it's in a good cause. He's able to travel down there. But a private conservationist, who may be an employed person, or may be a professional with a busy practice finds it much more difficult to take a day off even though it's only once a month, perhaps.

REPORTER:

How does Mr Blanch react to the fact that some of the benefactor members of the foundation are among the worst polluters?

JOHN BLANCH:

Well, I'm not conscious of this. I haven't looked through the list, to be candid, to establish this. I will do certainly do so, but I'm not conscious of it.

REPORTER:

You're not worried about it?

JOHN BLANCH:

Not particularly at all. Now, I think this is a false idea that quite a lot of people have.