Gold Dinner Raises $75.5 Million As Australia’s Philanthropy Culture Evolves
Sydney Children’s Hospitals Foundation CEO Kristina Keneally says Australia’s culture of large-scale philanthropy is becoming more sophisticated as Gold Dinner raises $75.5 million for children’s health, research and innovation.
3 min
Australia’s wealthiest donors are becoming more strategic, more ambitious and increasingly focused on creating measurable impact, according to Sydney Children’s Hospitals Foundation chief executive Kristina Keneally.
Speaking after the 2026 Gold Dinner, held last week in Sydney, Keneally said Australia was experiencing a significant shift in how major philanthropy is viewed, with large-scale giving increasingly part of conversations about leadership, legacy and social impact.
The annual Gold Dinner, now in its 29th year, brought together some of the country’s most influential business leaders, philanthropists and cultural figures, raising $75.5 million and counting in support of the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network.
While the event has become one of Australia’s most prestigious fundraising gatherings, Keneally said its significance extends far beyond a single evening.
“Gold Dinner, the flagship event of Sydney Children’s Hospitals Foundation, represents far more than a single evening. It is a powerful demonstration of what a committed community can achieve together over 12 months,” she said.
“The strength of that community, and the trust built over nearly three decades, means people return not just for the event, but for the impact they know it delivers.”
A NEW ERA OF PHILANTHROPY
Large-scale philanthropy has long been a feature of American society, where charitable foundations and major donors often play a prominent role in funding medical research, education and social programs.
Keneally believes Australia is moving in a similar direction.
“Australia is building a stronger culture of large-scale philanthropy, but it is still evolving compared to the United States, where giving at scale is more deeply embedded and widely recognised,” she said.
She said the country’s philanthropic landscape was becoming more sophisticated as successful business leaders increasingly sought opportunities to create meaningful change through their giving.
“In Australia, while generosity has always been strong, large-scale giving has historically been less visible, but that is changing rapidly as more leaders embrace philanthropy as a powerful way to drive meaningful outcomes.”
According to Keneally, events such as the Gold Dinner are helping reshape public perceptions of philanthropy by demonstrating the tangible outcomes that major donations can achieve.
“Gold Dinner is helping to reshape how philanthropy is perceived in Australia, making it more visible, more aspirational and more connected to real-world outcomes,” she said.
WHERE THE MONEY GOES
The funds raised through Gold Dinner support clinical care, research and innovation across the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network.
Over the past 12 months, more than $75.5 million has been raised to help fund advanced medical equipment, innovative care models and world-leading medical research. Areas of focus include precision medicine and early diagnosis, where emerging technologies are already changing how childhood illnesses are detected and treated.
Keneally said the impact is felt directly by children and families facing some of the most difficult moments of their lives.
“For children and families, this translates into very real and immediate impact. It means faster diagnoses, earlier access to life-saving treatments, and care that is more personalised and effective,” she said.
“It also ensures hospitals are equipped not just to respond to illness, but to reimagine what care can look like, giving children the best possible chance not only to survive, but to live full, healthy lives.”
BUSINESS LEADERS BACKING CHANGE
One of the defining characteristics of Gold Dinner is the calibre of its supporters.
The event has evolved into a meeting point for influential leaders from business, culture and philanthropy, many of whom see charitable giving as an extension of their professional and personal legacy.
“It speaks to a community that is not only generous, but increasingly ambitious in how it gives, combining influence, expertise and purpose to achieve outcomes at scale,” Keneally said.
Among the major supporters of this year’s event were Presenting Partner, John-Paul Nassif Foundation; Major Partners, ABC Bullion, Shaw and Partners Financial Services and One Circular Quay by Lendlease; and Premier Partner, Range Rover, whose ongoing support reflects a shared philosophy of legacy and long-term impact.
The evening also featured performances, premium hospitality experiences and fundraising initiatives designed to encourage further support for children’s health services and research.
LOOKING BEYOND NEW HOSPITALS
With major new children’s hospital developments at Randwick and Westmead progressing, Keneally said the focus is increasingly turning towards what comes next.
“The long-term vision is to ensure every child has access to world-leading healthcare, care that continues to evolve through innovation, research and global collaboration,” she said.
The foundation’s future priorities include accelerating medical discovery, expanding access to cutting-edge treatments and helping position New South Wales as a global leader in children’s health.
Keneally said the Gold Dinner remains central to achieving those ambitions because it does more than raise money.
“Gold Dinner is critical to making that vision possible. It not only provides significant funding, but also unites a powerful network of supporters who are driving the future of philanthropy in Australia,” she said.
As Australia’s culture of philanthropy continues to mature, Keneally believes that the network will play an increasingly important role in shaping the future of healthcare for generations to come.
“The result is a community that is helping to shape the future of paediatric care, not just for today’s patients, but for generations to come.”
The 1860s Darlinghurst mansion Stoneleigh could become Sydney’s most expensive home ever sold under the hammer when it goes to auction. Clint Ballard is giving buyers a $28 million guide for the heritage-listed mansion on Darley Street, opposite Iona, the former home of Hollywood royalty Baz Luhrmann. Stoneleigh is being offered for sale for the …
Set on one of the city’s last absolute riverfront sites, The Riversdale by Mosaic combines irreplaceable waterfront ownership with one of Brisbane’s most significant residential opportunities.
Central banks’ efforts to keep markets stable may be creating unintended risks. Emergency lending and market backstops have encouraged highly leveraged government bond trades, potentially lowering borrowing costs while increasing financial vulnerabilities that could require further intervention during the next crisis.
4 min
Central banks may be accidentally subsidizing government borrowing through their efforts to prevent a repeat of past market blowups, and policymakers are starting to worry that anticrisis lending facilities could even be interfering with their own monetary policy.
The source of the problem is the switch from central banks being the lender of last resort to, in 2008 and 2020, also being market makers of last resort, ensuring corporate—and government—debt markets keep functioning. During a crisis, support is often essential to prevent a downward spiral that destroys the financial system.
But backstopping markets removes a key risk and encourages more borrowing—especially for the hedge funds that now own trillions of dollars of U.S. Treasurys.
“Ironically, vulnerability is created by mechanisms that were introduced to reduce vulnerability,” said Huw Pill, the Bank of England’s chief economist, one of those growing concerned, in an interview. “So, it’s a bit like a whack-a-mole kind of story.”
Offering either an explicit or implied guarantee that government-funding markets will remain open and liquid means hedge funds have less risk of being unable to finance highly leveraged trades. This is particularly true for the overnight repurchase, or repo, market, where borrowers pledge bonds for cash. The result has been a huge expansion of two popular government bond trades, arbitraging Treasurys or British gilts against bond futures or swaps.
The scale is extraordinary: The Dallas Fed estimates hedge funds ended last year with $2.4 trillion of Treasurys, up from $600 billion a decade earlier. Because the profits on each trade are tiny, hedge funds have to leverage as much as 100 times to get worthwhile returns, creating new risks.
This might sound abstruse. But in 2020, it was the Treasury basis trade blowing up that forced the Fed to intervene. In 2025, signs of trouble in the swap trade pushed President Trump to retreat from his tariff plan.
Pill worries that the reassurance central-bank policy provides bleeds into monetary policy by boosting borrowing. This, in turn, keeps government-debt yields lower than they otherwise would be.
“There’s lots of gilts to be bought,” he says. “How do you support that buying of gilts? You make it attractive. How do you make it attractive? Well, there are some imperfections in the market. So those imperfections create profit opportunities, but they’re not very big. So how do you make them more meaningful? You allow leverage to build up.”
“That’s good for the government because it gets to sell the gilts at a lower [yield] than it otherwise would. It’s good for the financial sector because they’re able to extract these rents effectively. And it’s good for the central bank because the market seems to be liquid and functioning. But all of those things are true until they’re not true.”
When it goes wrong, the more leverage, the worse the problem. And the worse the problem, the more likely it becomes that central banks have to create yet more special tools to address it. That then spurs the next buildup of leverage.
Pill thinks more effort is needed to come up with a modern version of the Bagehot Doctrine. Walter Bagehot, the 19th-century editor of the Economist magazine, summed up the role of the central bank as being to lend to banks freely, against good collateral, at a penalty rate. Access to instant cash helps banks withstand runs. The fact the central bank is offering a backstop should make the run less likely, and shareholders are penalized, through the penalty rate, if it is used.
Tools for saving markets from drying up are more haphazard. In 2020 the Fed, BOE and others just bought lots of government debt to inject liquidity into markets. That worked because, even though quantitative easing is also a monetary policy tool, they also wanted easier money.
Unfortunately, that created what Pill described as a tinderbox, ignited by the energy crisis after Russia invaded Ukraine. The excess money creation from left over from emergency QE then fanned the flames of inflation. This made it much harder to calibrate monetary policy when central banks decided to tighten (although policymakers were also, in my view, far too slow to recognize inflation).
Pill points to the “temporary, targeted” BOE buying of gilts amid the forced selling by leveraged pension funds after Britain’s botched tax-cut plan in September 2022 as a successful model. At a time when the BOE was trying to tighten monetary policy, it intervened in a way that stopped the pension fund selling spiral and stabilized gilts. Yet the central bank maintained tight monetary policy.
Bagehot would recognize the goal: Reduce the encouragement to take risk, known as moral hazard, that offering guarantees in advance creates, but retain the ability to mount a rescue in a crisis.
Unfortunately, much of central banking is going backward on this. Moral hazard is increasing, even for banks. In the 2023 bank bailout, the Fed accepted less-than-full collateral, recognizing Treasury bonds at face value rather than their (much lower) market value.
The emergency rescue facility then became a funding facility that even healthy banks chose to tap—in effect easing monetary policy by the back door and prompting the Fed to tighten the terms before it ended. Something similar could be under way with Japan’s plans to use an emergency Fed loan facility to raise cash to prop up the yen without having to sell its hoard of Treasurys.
I don’t know how to break the cycle of crises needing rescues that lead to more leverage and new crises. And I’m concerned we’re firmly into the added-leverage phase of the latest cycle.
At least central bankers are still thinking about it, even if they don’t, so far, have good answers.
Automobili Lamborghini and Babolat have expanded their collaboration with five new colourways for the ultra-exclusive BL.001 racket, limited to just 50 pieces worldwide.
By improving sluggish performance or replacing a broken screen, you can make your old iPhone feel new agai
