Scientists at the Great Barrier Reef have said to focus on projects to improve the appearance of the government

Great Barrier Reef scientists said they had to make compromises with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, including focusing on projects that would look good for the government and encourage more corporate donations.

The documents, including the cabinet briefs, contain important new details about the operation of the foundation and the government's decision to award a grant of $ 443 million, including:

• Leaders of mining, gas and chemical companies – and international finance companies that are actively supporting fossil fuel projects – were among the guests of a six-star retreat organized by the foundation less than a month later. announcement of the grant;

• The only CSIRO employee contacted about the grant before the announcement in April was in Patagonia and did not receive the email. Documents have previously revealed that the government's leading scientific agency was excluded from the award decision;

• In August, as control of the grant intensified, officials lobbied to block a long-standing meeting between then Minister of Science Michaelia Cash and the foundation's head. Anna Marsden.

Emails from staff at the Australian Institute of Ocean Sciences describe how government expectations, the ability to leverage private donations and public perceptions can [foundation] Prioritize short-term research initiatives to demonstrate progress and return on investment. "

"Where it becomes difficult is that … interventions with the greatest future benefit also take the longest time to develop," wrote David Mead, executive director of the Institute's strategic policy, in an email. addressed to his colleagues.

"Among the other trade-offs, we will need to determine how much we are focusing on quick wins or moving forward on longer-term strategic interventions, and accept that we will only do them partially over the next five years (perhaps with little external visibility). success / progress). "

The e-mails also reveal an initial uncertainty as to how a $ 100 million allocation for reef restoration and adaptation would be managed.

Three weeks after the announcement of the money, Mead was trying to get answers on how the grant would be awarded.

"I have followed the grant agreement, I have not really received any response other than this one, over the next month," Mead wrote May 18th. "So we only have to look at this space.

"Once the thing is signed by GBRF, we are going to need them to make definitive statements one way or the other, because everyone is wondering and I do not want to that the team be destroyed … "

E-mails from industry, innovation and science sector staff reveal discussion of "the optics" of a long-standing meeting between Cash, Marsden and the Institute's Director General , Paul Hardisty.

The e-mails show that Claire McLaughlin, executive director of the science agency governance department, called Cash's office to ask if she could attend. His appeal was referred by a ministerial staff member, Harry Godber.

"Harry Godber just called and said" … Why is Anna Marsden also present? McLaughlin wrote to his colleagues.

"I did not have a good answer – I guess it was to be able to talk about things on reefs in any configuration – but Harry's instinct is not to have it for obvious reasons."

Andrea de Leon Ewers, a senior policy officer for the department, wrote in an email that the meeting had been requested by Cash in January, but suggested canceling and providing a briefing to the minister.

"We were discussing the focus of this meeting and it's not great, considering the way the investigation is going on," wrote De Leon Ewers.