Celeste Barber’s $53m bushfire funds pose ‘agonising dilemma’

Strict conditions imposed on how the NSW Rural Fire Service’s trust fund could spend $53m raised by Celeste Barber, court hears.

Celeste Barber speaks during the Fire Fight Australia bushfire relief concert. Picture: AAP

The NSW Rural Fire Service’s strict trust fund conditions had created an “agonising dilemma” over how the $53m raised by the Celeste Barber appeal could be spent, allowing support for injured fire fighters but not the families of volunteers who died in last summer’s bushfires, the NSW Supreme Court has heard.

Justice Michael Slattery made the remarks during an urgent application for judicial advice by the RFS Brigades Donations Fund on Monday about what “flex”, if any, the trust has on how it spends the staggering windfall raised by the comedian during the catastrophic fires.

Barrister Jeremy Giles SC, for the RFS trust fund, said Ms Barber’s bushfire relief appeal – the largest in Facebook history – had been “a spectacular success” attracting donations from across the world.

He said the RFS trust fund wanted to honour the wishes of donors in how it spent the huge windfall, but under the trust conditions spending was strictly limited to funding for fire equipment, training and resources.

The Brigades Donations Fund was Barber’s nominated charity for her bushfire appeal, launched on 3 January with the initial aim of raising $30,000.

As donations soared beyond $30 million on its third day, Ms Barber declared to her supporters on Instagram she would personally ensure the donations would also be shared among interstate fire services, as well as animal rescue organisations.

"I'm gonna make sure that Victoria gets some, that South Australia gets some, also families of people who have died in these fires, the wildlife.’ Ms Barber posted in January.

I want you to know that, otherwise why raise this money if it's not going to go to the people who absolutely need it."

Mr Giles told the court while the RFS was “enormously grateful” to donors, the decision on how the RFS trust could spend the money was “not about what any particular donor believed or for that matter why they believed it”.

That, he said, included any outside charities, fire fighting services interstate or a separate fund for the families of fire fighters who had died on duty.

The RFS trust fund, in its statement of facts, said Ms Barber had acted “unilaterally” in telling donors their money would be spent in a way which wasn’t legally possible under the trust deed.

“The trustees did not request or direct her assistance,’ the statement read.

RFS trust fund also noted “over the course of her fundraising appeal, Ms Barber identified a number of charities other than the RFS Fund as potential recipients for the donated money.”

It said in circumstances where such a large sum of money had been raised by many thousands of donors, it was “practically unknowable” what their “actual intentions’ were as to how the money would be spent, beyond the RFS trust.

Peter Singleton SC, for the Office of the NSW Attorney-General, told the court he agreed with the RFS it was possible the trust could go “to the edge’ of its powers and use some of the donations for trauma counselling for firefighters as well as caring for injured fire fighters.

Mr Singleton said there were limitations as to how far that care for fire fighters could be extended, including whether it could be used to support the families of dead fire fighters.

That issue, he said, would be Justice Slattery’s “burden”.

“Where do you mark out the territory of what is possible or what is not,’ Justice Slattery asked.

“For example an injured firefighter receiving assistance … or the families of deceased fire fighters, what is the way you would limit that? I mean you clearly can’t provide them with a pension for life.”

Justice Slattery concluded “the difficult rather agonising dilemma” was that there appeared to be more prospect of supporting injured fire fighters, as “resources “under the trust, “than there is about looking after the families of deceased fire fighters”.

“That may be just how the deed works but its an unfortunate distinction … its not one that is particularly attractive”.

Just Slattery has reserved his judgment.