Glenn Milne’s column in The Australian yesterday discussed the efforts of Queensland Liberal Senator Brett Mason to ensure that environmental groups who receive government funding are prevented from advocacy on public policy, or as he put it, “involv[ing] themselves in all sorts of uncharitable activities”. Milne’s spin was that the consequent move of the Environment Minister, Senator Campbell, to spread public funding among more groups and reduce the maximum from $80000 to $10000 was part of this agenda, and according to Milne, more evidence of the Howard government’s recklessness with its Senate majority.
In fact, the issue of NGOs receiving public funding and involving themselves in political campaigns has been bubbling away for some time. This issue has been heavily pushed by the Institute of Public Affairs, with former Keating Government junior Minister Dr Gary Johns devoting much of his time to criticising the political activities of NGOs.
Much debate in political science over the last decade or so has revolved around the concept of civil society, with arguments that a vibrant third sector and citizen involvment in issues mobilisation contributes mightily to the health of a democracy. There is also the shift in politics from purely class-based economic concerns to what are seen as post-materialist issues – the environment being a classic example. Senator Mason argues:
There is nothing wrong with groups and organisations in the community engaging in the political process — lobbying and campaigning. The only question is why such groups and organisations should get the tax breaks to help them do so. If the aim is to effect political change, shouldn’t these charity workers actually join political parties, where the maximum tax deductible threshold is $150? Or conversely, if lobbying should have tax benefits for charities, then why not for everyone else as well?
The answer to this question lies partly in the increasing disconnection between political parties and their voter bases, and their difficulty in aggregating opinion on issues which cut across partisan lines – the environment again being a very salient example. If we look at the issue of welfare, surely it’s right that an organisation such as ACOSS should have the right to defend low income people – for instance when Mark Latham was proposing a tax policy that disadvantaged such citizens.
There is a sort of seductive quality to Senator Campbell’s “small is beautiful” message. But there are at least two practical problems. The first is that small locally based environmental groups often lose sight of the big picture. The health of the environment is tied up with many complex economic and political factors, and planting trees or cleaning the local creek bed won’t in fact Save the Planet (though it’s worthwhile). Thus, there is a need for advocacy at the level where decisions – for instance about the Kyoto Protocol – are taken.
Secondly, you have to worry about small (possibly electorate based) grants turning into yet another porkbarrel for Coalition MPs.
It seems to me therefore that there are some justifiable reasons for funding NGOs to engage in policy and political advocacy.
The coalition have been bollicking on about this for ages. Just another way to silence dissent and NGOs that patch up the gaps in government policy. they haven’t mentioned the old get rid of charitable status (and all the tax goodies) for charities who make political comment for a while. They need to get a top up of bastard pills.
“goodness no, the government is powerless to help that homeless person”
General Quisling – Salvo chief 2007.
My turn for the half bottle of wine gitfest Bahnisch.
The coalition have been bollicking on about this for ages. Just another way to silence dissent and NGOs that patch up the gaps in government policy. they haven’t mentioned the old get rid of charitable status (and all the tax goodies) for charities who make political comment for a while. They need to get a top up of bastard pills.
“goodness no, the government is powerless to help that homeless person”
General Quisling – Salvo chief 2007.
My turn for the half bottle of wine gitfest Bahnisch.
Fair enough, Flutey. I’m sober tonight so it’s just as well that someone’s drinking at the LP Bar.
Fair enough, Flutey. I’m sober tonight so it’s just as well that someone’s drinking at the LP Bar.
This is going to be another of those posts where the only sensible thing outside the predictable Greek chorus will be said by EP if he happens by.
Boy, am I getting bored with the blogosphere. I still say it’s not going to make a flea’s fart’s (not sure if the apostrophes are right there) worth of difference to anything.
Bad day at The Office.
This is going to be another of those posts where the only sensible thing outside the predictable Greek chorus will be said by EP if he happens by.
Boy, am I getting bored with the blogosphere. I still say it’s not going to make a flea’s fart’s (not sure if the apostrophes are right there) worth of difference to anything.
Bad day at The Office.
Correct use of apostrophes, Rob.
Correct use of apostrophes, Rob.
Thanx. MP 3 is crap, by the way. What a rubbish way of listening to anything. Here I am, with thousands of bucks worth of high fidelity audio gear, and I put on The Goons on an MP 3 disc and it sounds like an old cassette player down in the toilet.
OT.
Thanx. MP 3 is crap, by the way. What a rubbish way of listening to anything. Here I am, with thousands of bucks worth of high fidelity audio gear, and I put on The Goons on an MP 3 disc and it sounds like an old cassette player down in the toilet.
OT.
Yes I know I’ve contravened your comments policy, Mark, but the title of your post was so BOORRRRRRRRIIIIINNNggggggggggggg zzzzzzzzz. Can’t you lead with ‘Sex with dwarves’, or something?
Yes I know I’ve contravened your comments policy, Mark, but the title of your post was so BOORRRRRRRRIIIIINNNggggggggggggg zzzzzzzzz. Can’t you lead with ‘Sex with dwarves’, or something?
This is tantamount to political backmail, i.e. the government of the day using taxpayers’ money to buy-off public criticism from community organisations, purely for its own self-interested political ends. A corruption of process. What next? No social security recipient can criticise the government? First they came for the NGOs, and I remained silent, then they came for …
This is tantamount to political backmail, i.e. the government of the day using taxpayers’ money to buy-off public criticism from community organisations, purely for its own self-interested political ends. A corruption of process. What next? No social security recipient can criticise the government? First they came for the NGOs, and I remained silent, then they came for …
And there’s the Greek chorus, bang on cue.
And there’s the Greek chorus, bang on cue.
Or the flea’s fart………….
Or the flea’s fart………….
Or the argument being taken another step.
Or the argument being taken another step.
…….where? I didn’t understand the hideously convoluted what-you-said-before.
…….where? I didn’t understand the hideously convoluted what-you-said-before.
Lots of stuff lots of folks don’t understand. Not my problem ol’ son.
Lots of stuff lots of folks don’t understand. Not my problem ol’ son.
I presume this funding started with the previous government buying votes through paying green groups that would then give it third-party endorsement during elections – a strategy Labor may now regret, given how the Greens are eating into their primary vote.
I really can’t see a case for direct state funding of green advocacy groups. They are quite capable of raising funds on their own – who hasn’t been harrassed on the street by a green fundraiser at some time (or multiple times if you live in a leftie area like Carlton). It’s a fashionable middle class issue. And strategically they were daft to become financially dependent on an opponent.
There is no free speech issue here – just that like most of the rest of us who engage in politics they now have to go find the money themselves.
Sure, raising money is a hassle, but knowing that you have to do it has positive effects as well, in stopping complacency.
I presume this funding started with the previous government buying votes through paying green groups that would then give it third-party endorsement during elections – a strategy Labor may now regret, given how the Greens are eating into their primary vote.
I really can’t see a case for direct state funding of green advocacy groups. They are quite capable of raising funds on their own – who hasn’t been harrassed on the street by a green fundraiser at some time (or multiple times if you live in a leftie area like Carlton). It’s a fashionable middle class issue. And strategically they were daft to become financially dependent on an opponent.
There is no free speech issue here – just that like most of the rest of us who engage in politics they now have to go find the money themselves.
Sure, raising money is a hassle, but knowing that you have to do it has positive effects as well, in stopping complacency.
Andrew, I should have also mentioned that the other implication of Campbell’s plan is to remove or lessen funding from the larger Green groups per se. Would you support their being funded with the caveat that they not engage in advocacy? Or would you support their being funded but being required to raise funds for advocacy?
There are resonances with the VSU issue here too.
Andrew, I should have also mentioned that the other implication of Campbell’s plan is to remove or lessen funding from the larger Green groups per se. Would you support their being funded with the caveat that they not engage in advocacy? Or would you support their being funded but being required to raise funds for advocacy?
There are resonances with the VSU issue here too.
Why is the government funding any of theses bodies anyway?
If you make a faustian bargain then the chickens come come to roost.
Personally I think cliches are a dime a dozen but I couldn’t help my self
Why is the government funding any of theses bodies anyway?
If you make a faustian bargain then the chickens come come to roost.
Personally I think cliches are a dime a dozen but I couldn’t help my self
Mixed metaphors, Homer. Sheesh.
Mixed metaphors, Homer. Sheesh.
Government approval and sanction isn’t always a good thing. It did fuck up the trade union movement after the Accord in the eighties, and the State Secretaries still haven’t quite gotten to the point of acknowledging that they’re not a part of the game on the hill any more. Unions traditionally do best when they’re seen as outsiders to the process of governing.
What’s so attractive to NGOs about being part of the process of Government—apart from the money?
Government approval and sanction isn’t always a good thing. It did fuck up the trade union movement after the Accord in the eighties, and the State Secretaries still haven’t quite gotten to the point of acknowledging that they’re not a part of the game on the hill any more. Unions traditionally do best when they’re seen as outsiders to the process of governing.
What’s so attractive to NGOs about being part of the process of Government—apart from the money?
The money I suspect. You’d have thought the risk of co-optation, as you rightly point out, Liam, would give pause for thought.
The money I suspect. You’d have thought the risk of co-optation, as you rightly point out, Liam, would give pause for thought.
“What?Äôs so attractive to NGOs about being part of the process of Government?Äîapart from the money?”
Three things:
1) Money;
2) Money; and
3) Mo’ money.
“What?Äôs so attractive to NGOs about being part of the process of Government?Äîapart from the money?”
Three things:
1) Money;
2) Money; and
3) Mo’ money.
Once a group starts taking money from the government, it starts to become dependent on the government.
Advocacy groups should never rely on government funding, or on corporate funding (unless the profit interests of the corporation coincide with the goals of the advocacy group).
This issue wouldn’t have arisen if activists hadn’t made the mistake of buying into the system in the first place.
Once a group starts taking money from the government, it starts to become dependent on the government.
Advocacy groups should never rely on government funding, or on corporate funding (unless the profit interests of the corporation coincide with the goals of the advocacy group).
This issue wouldn’t have arisen if activists hadn’t made the mistake of buying into the system in the first place.
I’d have thought power would have been a more attractive prospect if it came with less funding and more clout. But that’s just me, I’ll go back to my labourist cage now…
I’d have thought power would have been a more attractive prospect if it came with less funding and more clout. But that’s just me, I’ll go back to my labourist cage now…
It could be argued that the most powerful advocacy groups – Business lobbies such as the BCA – don’t need government funding because of their economic position – therefore equalising the playing field might be a legitimate role for government.
It could be argued that the most powerful advocacy groups – Business lobbies such as the BCA – don’t need government funding because of their economic position – therefore equalising the playing field might be a legitimate role for government.
Some of the most powerfful environment groups — such as Greenpeace — refuse government funding and are respectably large multinational businesses themselves.
I was heavily involved in the environmental movement in the 80s, and even then there were half a dozen multinational lobby groups self-funding to the tune of $100 million PA, or more.
Running after government funding makes one a slave of the government — as those groups who are now feeling a touch of the whip have discovered.
Some of the most powerfful environment groups — such as Greenpeace — refuse government funding and are respectably large multinational businesses themselves.
I was heavily involved in the environmental movement in the 80s, and even then there were half a dozen multinational lobby groups self-funding to the tune of $100 million PA, or more.
Running after government funding makes one a slave of the government — as those groups who are now feeling a touch of the whip have discovered.
All a bit fairyland. The government funds NGOs to provide public services. ACOSS, for example, is a peak body representing service providers. This is just an exercise in the government trying to have its privatisation of services and eat it too.
All a bit fairyland. The government funds NGOs to provide public services. ACOSS, for example, is a peak body representing service providers. This is just an exercise in the government trying to have its privatisation of services and eat it too.
You shouldn’t accept government money or if you do accept it on your terms not theirs if you provide vital services.
I agree with EP.
Did I say that metaphor?
You shouldn’t accept government money or if you do accept it on your terms not theirs if you provide vital services.
I agree with EP.
Did I say that metaphor?
I don’t think the latest debate is really about NGO’s – although I could be wrong. I thought it was about groups that did work for the community but also made political comment or lobbied for change, eg. a group that did conservation work, but who also publicly commented on the Howard Government’s policy on conservation would be threatened with removal of funding, even if the government money was used solely for its community work.
I would hope that if that ever happened it would apply uniformly, and a government- funded group that say, provided family “planning” was barred from lobbying for change in abortion law…
It is very difficult to decide what’s lobbying and what’s representing a constituency. These groups are obviously different to NGO’s that have a purely political purpose. As long as the funds that come from government are used for community projects, I don’t think that a group should ever be gagged from making comments about their work – even if it’s sometimes political.
I don’t think the latest debate is really about NGO’s – although I could be wrong. I thought it was about groups that did work for the community but also made political comment or lobbied for change, eg. a group that did conservation work, but who also publicly commented on the Howard Government’s policy on conservation would be threatened with removal of funding, even if the government money was used solely for its community work.
I would hope that if that ever happened it would apply uniformly, and a government- funded group that say, provided family “planning” was barred from lobbying for change in abortion law…
It is very difficult to decide what’s lobbying and what’s representing a constituency. These groups are obviously different to NGO’s that have a purely political purpose. As long as the funds that come from government are used for community projects, I don’t think that a group should ever be gagged from making comments about their work – even if it’s sometimes political.
The functions of providing services and of lobbying should be separated.
During the Hawke/Keating years, the government funded groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Family Planning Association, which then went on to issue statements supporting the government at election time. This is a corruption of the political process.
Any group that takes a partisan position in politics should not expect its partisan targets to provide its funding. “Pay me to attack you” — yeah, right.
The functions of providing services and of lobbying should be separated.
During the Hawke/Keating years, the government funded groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Family Planning Association, which then went on to issue statements supporting the government at election time. This is a corruption of the political process.
Any group that takes a partisan position in politics should not expect its partisan targets to provide its funding. “Pay me to attack you” — yeah, right.
Both Andrew Norton and Evil Pundit imply that this issue is simple political tit-for-tat, and so pro-*Coalition* politicking by NGOs would be effectively exempt from de-funding threats (at least until the next change of government, anyway). Personally, I would have thought that any “corruption of the political process” is a bad thing per se, and should be stamped out for good, rather than responded to in kind when one’s political ship next comes in. But hey, I loathe both major parties.
A related issue is that the legal/political conceptions of charities (and religions) generally is much in need of an update. But with fundamentalist Christian “non-profits” running lucrative Work for the Dole programs, etc, there’s zero chance of the Coalition risking alienating its key outer-suburban constituency by conducting a more wide-ranging review.
Both Andrew Norton and Evil Pundit imply that this issue is simple political tit-for-tat, and so pro-*Coalition* politicking by NGOs would be effectively exempt from de-funding threats (at least until the next change of government, anyway). Personally, I would have thought that any “corruption of the political process” is a bad thing per se, and should be stamped out for good, rather than responded to in kind when one’s political ship next comes in. But hey, I loathe both major parties.
A related issue is that the legal/political conceptions of charities (and religions) generally is much in need of an update. But with fundamentalist Christian “non-profits” running lucrative Work for the Dole programs, etc, there’s zero chance of the Coalition risking alienating its key outer-suburban constituency by conducting a more wide-ranging review.
Yes, Its all part of the Howard government’s war on criticism. They fear democratic dissent, and repress it wherever possible. The ABC, student unions, NGOs the list goes on…
The argument that taxpayers shouldnt have to fund lobbying would be fine if right-wing think tanks weren’t getting paid huge consultancies every month to discredit research reports which the governemnt dislikes. Its really much the same thing – as are the the government ads eg “strenghtening medicare …(for a few months, ya dumb suckers)”
Oh …. the rank hypocrisy of the Right under Howard. Do they hold any position they dont contradict somewhere else within a day or two? eg states rightser onde day, high taxing centralist the next… no wonder RWDBs in this forum are becoming so ideologically incoherent…
Yes, Its all part of the Howard government’s war on criticism. They fear democratic dissent, and repress it wherever possible. The ABC, student unions, NGOs the list goes on…
The argument that taxpayers shouldnt have to fund lobbying would be fine if right-wing think tanks weren’t getting paid huge consultancies every month to discredit research reports which the governemnt dislikes. Its really much the same thing – as are the the government ads eg “strenghtening medicare …(for a few months, ya dumb suckers)”
Oh …. the rank hypocrisy of the Right under Howard. Do they hold any position they dont contradict somewhere else within a day or two? eg states rightser onde day, high taxing centralist the next… no wonder RWDBs in this forum are becoming so ideologically incoherent…
“if right-wing think tanks weren?Äôt getting paid huge consultancies every month to discredit research reports which the governemnt dislikes”. Er, how did I miss these? The IPA is the only one that has ever taken government money, and even then not very often. The CIS practices what it preaches, and does not accept government money.
If we are going to have big government, I have no in-principle objections to NGOs being paid to perform public functions – though whether they should get involved is something they should consider carefully, given the likely loss of independence. But I don’t think advocacy is something that should generally be funded.
VSU is in quite a different category – there is no government money involved and this is an unwarranted interference in civil society.
“if right-wing think tanks weren?Äôt getting paid huge consultancies every month to discredit research reports which the governemnt dislikes”. Er, how did I miss these? The IPA is the only one that has ever taken government money, and even then not very often. The CIS practices what it preaches, and does not accept government money.
If we are going to have big government, I have no in-principle objections to NGOs being paid to perform public functions – though whether they should get involved is something they should consider carefully, given the likely loss of independence. But I don’t think advocacy is something that should generally be funded.
VSU is in quite a different category – there is no government money involved and this is an unwarranted interference in civil society.
The IPA is the only one that has ever taken government money…
Ironically, the IPA is the one that was commissioned to tell us why NGOs shouldn’t be publicly funded.
The IPA is the only one that has ever taken government money…
Ironically, the IPA is the one that was commissioned to tell us why NGOs shouldn’t be publicly funded.
(Publicly? Publically? Which? I need sleep.)
(Publicly? Publically? Which? I need sleep.)
Publicly is right.
Publicly is right.
I must confess I often misspell publicly as publically. Is misspell misspelt?
I must confess I often misspell publicly as publically. Is misspell misspelt?
The -lt v. -elled debate is one of the most riveting and heated among grammarians, Mark. Would you say that the Margarent Valley Verdelho you just consumed with your dinner was insufficiently chilt? Of course not. Nor would you say that the bleeding body at your feet had been recently kilt – which would infuriate the Scots.
Ah, language. Beats politics any day.
The -lt v. -elled debate is one of the most riveting and heated among grammarians, Mark. Would you say that the Margarent Valley Verdelho you just consumed with your dinner was insufficiently chilt? Of course not. Nor would you say that the bleeding body at your feet had been recently kilt – which would infuriate the Scots.
Ah, language. Beats politics any day.
For which reason, I’m outa here.
For which reason, I’m outa here.
Can we get back to the point?
It’s in the public interest for citizens to speak out in the public interest, per se. OK, we accept a range of hedges on this. People with privileged information have to be careful about double-dealing. With privilege comes responsibility, and so on. But basically, the onus is deeply in favour of citizens being able to speak out, from whatever station they may hold.
To save argument about degrees, let me now slip to the ultimate case, wherein it is plain that, should a case ever be made that some limit might be placed on the tongues of those in receipt of treasury largess, an instance of such a case arises. The last body to be entrusted with adjudicating the merits will be the government itself, so total is its vested interest in defeating any and all criticism.
Supporters of this sort of quasi-fascist nonsense thus need to argue on two levels: why it is not in the public interest for citizens to speak out in these cases; and who is to judge alleged transgressions. No cheating now.
Can we get back to the point?
It’s in the public interest for citizens to speak out in the public interest, per se. OK, we accept a range of hedges on this. People with privileged information have to be careful about double-dealing. With privilege comes responsibility, and so on. But basically, the onus is deeply in favour of citizens being able to speak out, from whatever station they may hold.
To save argument about degrees, let me now slip to the ultimate case, wherein it is plain that, should a case ever be made that some limit might be placed on the tongues of those in receipt of treasury largess, an instance of such a case arises. The last body to be entrusted with adjudicating the merits will be the government itself, so total is its vested interest in defeating any and all criticism.
Supporters of this sort of quasi-fascist nonsense thus need to argue on two levels: why it is not in the public interest for citizens to speak out in these cases; and who is to judge alleged transgressions. No cheating now.
Yes, I was alluding to the IPA. Very honoruable of the CIS to decline government money – as do many lobby groups on teh other side of politics (eg Friends of the Earth).
But the point is, liberal democracy has been very copmfortable with state support for civic participation for well over a century – the logic being that it fosters deliberation and diverse opinions in policy formation instead of allowing elites (yes, who are already loaded with $) to dominate public debate and policy,
But whats the point of debating the issues here? I susepct The Howard government doesnt even agree with Norton or EP here, let alone me… They’re quite happy to fund lobbyists – just not progressive ones.
Yes, I was alluding to the IPA. Very honoruable of the CIS to decline government money – as do many lobby groups on teh other side of politics (eg Friends of the Earth).
But the point is, liberal democracy has been very copmfortable with state support for civic participation for well over a century – the logic being that it fosters deliberation and diverse opinions in policy formation instead of allowing elites (yes, who are already loaded with $) to dominate public debate and policy,
But whats the point of debating the issues here? I susepct The Howard government doesnt even agree with Norton or EP here, let alone me… They’re quite happy to fund lobbyists – just not progressive ones.
I second Chris, but I’d like to add a bit.
The government works for the citizens.
I would argue that therefore the citizens don’t have to justify anything to the government, it is the government who has to justify everything to the citizens.
The money is not the government’s – it is ours.
So, our money is being directed to a particular bunch of us to advise our government in their particular field.
The government’s job is to listen to it’s citizens.
I second Chris, but I’d like to add a bit.
The government works for the citizens.
I would argue that therefore the citizens don’t have to justify anything to the government, it is the government who has to justify everything to the citizens.
The money is not the government’s – it is ours.
So, our money is being directed to a particular bunch of us to advise our government in their particular field.
The government’s job is to listen to it’s citizens.
You have it the wrong way around, Harry.
The government has to justify to the citizens why our money should be directed to the funding of a particular lobby group.
As for Chris’ suggestion that failure to fund each and every lobby group with a political axe to grind is somehow ‘quasi-fascist’, that is simply ludicrous.
If some group wants government funding, the onus is on that group to demonstrate why it should be entitled to the citizens’ cash.
You have it the wrong way around, Harry.
The government has to justify to the citizens why our money should be directed to the funding of a particular lobby group.
As for Chris’ suggestion that failure to fund each and every lobby group with a political axe to grind is somehow ‘quasi-fascist’, that is simply ludicrous.
If some group wants government funding, the onus is on that group to demonstrate why it should be entitled to the citizens’ cash.
As for Chris?Äô suggestion that failure to fund each and every lobby group with a political axe to grind is somehow ‘quasi-fascist?Äô, that is simply ludicrous.
And so it would be, if that is what I said. What I actually said is that the starting presumption is that the government has no business limiting what citizens say, and insofar as it can be established that a limit is justified in some circumstances, the executive is not the body to make the call.
As for Chris?Äô suggestion that failure to fund each and every lobby group with a political axe to grind is somehow ‘quasi-fascist?Äô, that is simply ludicrous.
And so it would be, if that is what I said. What I actually said is that the starting presumption is that the government has no business limiting what citizens say, and insofar as it can be established that a limit is justified in some circumstances, the executive is not the body to make the call.
I admire the discussion of principles here – at least it’s the type of deliberation we should be engaging in in a democracy.
The only problem is – the Howard governemnt couldnt give a monkey’s. They’re just doing this to silence NGO critics, and kick lefty-arse. We all know they dont give a shit about taxpayers money, or accountabilty, or deliberative democracy, civil society, or anything principle we can name – left, right or centre.
They’re doing it because they can, to win… and you can rest assured it will be inconsistently applied, to suit themselves.
I admire the discussion of principles here – at least it’s the type of deliberation we should be engaging in in a democracy.
The only problem is – the Howard governemnt couldnt give a monkey’s. They’re just doing this to silence NGO critics, and kick lefty-arse. We all know they dont give a shit about taxpayers money, or accountabilty, or deliberative democracy, civil society, or anything principle we can name – left, right or centre.
They’re doing it because they can, to win… and you can rest assured it will be inconsistently applied, to suit themselves.
What I actually said is that the starting presumption is that the government has no business limiting what citizens say, and insofar as it can be established that a limit is justified in some circumstances, the executive is not the body to make the call.
Oh, well, in that case I agree with you.
But that statement of principle has nothing to do with the funding of NGOs.
What I actually said is that the starting presumption is that the government has no business limiting what citizens say, and insofar as it can be established that a limit is justified in some circumstances, the executive is not the body to make the call.
Oh, well, in that case I agree with you.
But that statement of principle has nothing to do with the funding of NGOs.
NGOs should be funded insofar as it’s in the public interest to do so, end of story. The government of the day’s own political interests should be utterly irrelevant, and for the executive to adjudicate over funding according to whether the recipients make public criticisms of the government is quasi-fascist.
NGOs should be funded insofar as it’s in the public interest to do so, end of story. The government of the day’s own political interests should be utterly irrelevant, and for the executive to adjudicate over funding according to whether the recipients make public criticisms of the government is quasi-fascist.
“The government has to justify to the citizens why our money should be directed to the funding of a particular lobby group.”
The government did, EP. The environmental group was funded to provide environmental advice.
The advice was ignored by the government not to protect the citizens but to protect itself. _That_ is where the problem lies.
The Environmental group subsequently lobbied.
If the government has no intention of listen to the advice, why is it throwing away our money?
The environmental group is doing it’s job – bringing things to the government’s attention.
It is the government that is the one being lax here.
Either fund no NGOs, or listen to all NGOs. To do anything else is politicking. Instead the government listens to the NGOs it likes to protect itself. The government’s job is not to protect itself, but to protect us. As I wrote, the government is supposed serve us, not itself.
And it sure as hell isn’t meant to protect itself with _my_ money.
“The government has to justify to the citizens why our money should be directed to the funding of a particular lobby group.”
The government did, EP. The environmental group was funded to provide environmental advice.
The advice was ignored by the government not to protect the citizens but to protect itself. _That_ is where the problem lies.
The Environmental group subsequently lobbied.
If the government has no intention of listen to the advice, why is it throwing away our money?
The environmental group is doing it’s job – bringing things to the government’s attention.
It is the government that is the one being lax here.
Either fund no NGOs, or listen to all NGOs. To do anything else is politicking. Instead the government listens to the NGOs it likes to protect itself. The government’s job is not to protect itself, but to protect us. As I wrote, the government is supposed serve us, not itself.
And it sure as hell isn’t meant to protect itself with _my_ money.
Okay then, fund no NGOs.
Okay then, fund no NGOs.
Alright, then we’ll move back to having ever bigger government departments, who can hire sufficient experts and service deliverers to do the work itself directly. You can’t have your privatisation and eat it too my dear Evil.
Alright, then we’ll move back to having ever bigger government departments, who can hire sufficient experts and service deliverers to do the work itself directly. You can’t have your privatisation and eat it too my dear Evil.
EP,
No problem.
Provided that the people NGOs traditionally fight against also aren’t funded or listened to either.
To build in on what Chris says above: government’s only outsource so that they can claim they don’t have control and therefore aren’t responsible. The best example of this would be detention centres.
Personally I would like total government control and therefore total responsibility. I don’t trust governments, but I trust private companies even less so.
The government has to, by virtue of public pressure, pay attention to environmental matters. It is politically easier to deflect advice from outside than within. So, the best way the government has of covering it’s arse with regard to environmental or social matters is to outsource eg replacing Centrelink with the Job Network.
EP,
No problem.
Provided that the people NGOs traditionally fight against also aren’t funded or listened to either.
To build in on what Chris says above: government’s only outsource so that they can claim they don’t have control and therefore aren’t responsible. The best example of this would be detention centres.
Personally I would like total government control and therefore total responsibility. I don’t trust governments, but I trust private companies even less so.
The government has to, by virtue of public pressure, pay attention to environmental matters. It is politically easier to deflect advice from outside than within. So, the best way the government has of covering it’s arse with regard to environmental or social matters is to outsource eg replacing Centrelink with the Job Network.
The problem here is not dependence on government funding although I do think that the government should take some responsibility for ensuring a vibrant third sector.
The problem here is using these funds to punish NGOs. Governments have priorities and they provide funds to community groups (NGOs – whatever) to help them fulfill these priorities. So NGOs can only ever apply for funds in order to do the government’s work. It’s always been like that. However what is increasingly happening is these same groups aren’t getting the government’s money if they critise the government at all. There is no separation being made between the work they have essentially been contracted to do and other work they do. When this happens democracy suffers because NGOs are the only sort of organisations that can give a voice to people’s non-financial interests. So they are silencing dissent by saying that you can’t critise the government even if their day to day activities are just planting tree in accordance with their funding agreement.
Moreover, “vibrant third sector and citizen involvement in issues mobilisation contributes mightily to the health of a democracy” only goes some of the way. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that is showing that a vibrant third sector directly correlates to a decrease in negative social indicators (smoking, cancer, high-school retention rates etc). If we understand this it is not too unreasonable to argue that by “dulling” the third sector you are contributing to a range of negative social indicators.
The problem here is not dependence on government funding although I do think that the government should take some responsibility for ensuring a vibrant third sector.
The problem here is using these funds to punish NGOs. Governments have priorities and they provide funds to community groups (NGOs – whatever) to help them fulfill these priorities. So NGOs can only ever apply for funds in order to do the government’s work. It’s always been like that. However what is increasingly happening is these same groups aren’t getting the government’s money if they critise the government at all. There is no separation being made between the work they have essentially been contracted to do and other work they do. When this happens democracy suffers because NGOs are the only sort of organisations that can give a voice to people’s non-financial interests. So they are silencing dissent by saying that you can’t critise the government even if their day to day activities are just planting tree in accordance with their funding agreement.
Moreover, “vibrant third sector and citizen involvement in issues mobilisation contributes mightily to the health of a democracy” only goes some of the way. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that is showing that a vibrant third sector directly correlates to a decrease in negative social indicators (smoking, cancer, high-school retention rates etc). If we understand this it is not too unreasonable to argue that by “dulling” the third sector you are contributing to a range of negative social indicators.
I think Popper would have supported government funding to NGOs.
I think Popper would have supported government funding to NGOs.
However what is increasingly happening is these same groups aren?Äôt getting the government?Äôs money if they critise the government at all.
This has always been the case. It’s always been a political choice what groups are government-funded. Lefties are just critical because now it’s a Liberal government making the choices, not a Labor one.
There is no separation being made between the work they have essentially been contracted to do and other work they do.
If these groups made the separation themselves, they would not have the problem. Instead, they insist on being able to take taxpayers’ money for one purpose (providing a public service), and then use it for a different purpose (political lobbying). If that’s what they choose to do, the consequences are their own fault.
When this happens democracy suffers because NGOs are the only sort of organisations that can give a voice to people?Äôs non-financial interests.
NGOs can and do operate quite well without government funding. In fact, funding often reduces the effectiveness of NGOs by creating a careerist system whose purpose is to maintain funding, rather than doing whatever the NGO was meant to do in the first place.
No political lobbying group should receive public funding. Once it does, corruption is inevitable.
However what is increasingly happening is these same groups aren?Äôt getting the government?Äôs money if they critise the government at all.
This has always been the case. It’s always been a political choice what groups are government-funded. Lefties are just critical because now it’s a Liberal government making the choices, not a Labor one.
There is no separation being made between the work they have essentially been contracted to do and other work they do.
If these groups made the separation themselves, they would not have the problem. Instead, they insist on being able to take taxpayers’ money for one purpose (providing a public service), and then use it for a different purpose (political lobbying). If that’s what they choose to do, the consequences are their own fault.
When this happens democracy suffers because NGOs are the only sort of organisations that can give a voice to people?Äôs non-financial interests.
NGOs can and do operate quite well without government funding. In fact, funding often reduces the effectiveness of NGOs by creating a careerist system whose purpose is to maintain funding, rather than doing whatever the NGO was meant to do in the first place.
No political lobbying group should receive public funding. Once it does, corruption is inevitable.
EP, I think you have a very romanitsised view of the funding options available to NGOs. I work with a LOT of NGOs (there are 700,000 in Australia) on the issue of funding at every level (not just grants) and most of them are cash starved and not nearly as effective as they could be because of this. In fact it would seem that those most desperate to get funding find it hardest to get it because they are smaller and lesser known. Far too much government funding goes to the big NGOs like the salvos.
Moreover government funding is really hard to get because of the competition for funds. Add to this the fact that of those 700,000 groups only 19,000 have DGR Status which massivle reduces the options of those without DGR status. This includes just about every dollar available from philanthropic foundations and corporate giving programs.
It is also particularly misleading to sugest that these groups use government money for lobbying. The levels of accountability that are required by government departments is in it self crippling because of the resources that have to be put into measure accounting for very penny spent.
The number of community groups that are “careerist” is negligible due largely to funding restraints and it is certainly not the case that such situations are created by government funds (with rare exceptions). Usually it is either for historical reasions (ie they are a particularly well established like the Savlos) or they have a benevolent benefactor which is again quite rare.
NGOs provide voices. In some senses they are collective bargining organisations. I would argue that if an NGO is simply service providing and not advocating then it is not doing it’s job. The members of these organisations are members for various reasons, a key one being that they provide a voice. Country Women’s Associations are more than just a place for women to get together and chat, they are there to support women and provide them with a voice in male dominated areas.
EP, I think you have a very romanitsised view of the funding options available to NGOs. I work with a LOT of NGOs (there are 700,000 in Australia) on the issue of funding at every level (not just grants) and most of them are cash starved and not nearly as effective as they could be because of this. In fact it would seem that those most desperate to get funding find it hardest to get it because they are smaller and lesser known. Far too much government funding goes to the big NGOs like the salvos.
Moreover government funding is really hard to get because of the competition for funds. Add to this the fact that of those 700,000 groups only 19,000 have DGR Status which massivle reduces the options of those without DGR status. This includes just about every dollar available from philanthropic foundations and corporate giving programs.
It is also particularly misleading to sugest that these groups use government money for lobbying. The levels of accountability that are required by government departments is in it self crippling because of the resources that have to be put into measure accounting for very penny spent.
The number of community groups that are “careerist” is negligible due largely to funding restraints and it is certainly not the case that such situations are created by government funds (with rare exceptions). Usually it is either for historical reasions (ie they are a particularly well established like the Savlos) or they have a benevolent benefactor which is again quite rare.
NGOs provide voices. In some senses they are collective bargining organisations. I would argue that if an NGO is simply service providing and not advocating then it is not doing it’s job. The members of these organisations are members for various reasons, a key one being that they provide a voice. Country Women’s Associations are more than just a place for women to get together and chat, they are there to support women and provide them with a voice in male dominated areas.
You’ve just reminded me that many NGOs which receive government funding are organisations run exclusively for the benefit of women.
This is sexist. The government should not be funding sexism.
You’ve just reminded me that many NGOs which receive government funding are organisations run exclusively for the benefit of women.
This is sexist. The government should not be funding sexism.
You’re being cute EP.
What’s your response to Hammy?
You’re being cute EP.
What’s your response to Hammy?
Actually I think Hammy makes some very good points.
Notwithstanding that, I have an issue with government funded advocacy, and think that advocacy functions should be performed by groups that are separate from those performing service functions (though they may have members in common).
Groups that receive government funding are beholden to the government, as we have seen here. And any government’s decisions about which advocacy groups to fund will inevitably favour those that are like-minded. For these reasons, political lobbies should not be funded by government.
Actually I think Hammy makes some very good points.
Notwithstanding that, I have an issue with government funded advocacy, and think that advocacy functions should be performed by groups that are separate from those performing service functions (though they may have members in common).
Groups that receive government funding are beholden to the government, as we have seen here. And any government’s decisions about which advocacy groups to fund will inevitably favour those that are like-minded. For these reasons, political lobbies should not be funded by government.
Hammy has made the most relevant point methinks.
Lets say we have a bunch of NGOs who help homeless people. Their aim is to reduce the number of homeless people. The only way to end up with no homeless people is through government programs.
Ergo these NGOS, having all the credibility of being on the frontline, pressure government to institute changes that will ‘cure’ homelessness for ever. Once they have achieved this their work is done.
Hammy has made the most relevant point methinks.
Lets say we have a bunch of NGOs who help homeless people. Their aim is to reduce the number of homeless people. The only way to end up with no homeless people is through government programs.
Ergo these NGOS, having all the credibility of being on the frontline, pressure government to institute changes that will ‘cure’ homelessness for ever. Once they have achieved this their work is done.
Yes, getting away from the abstract left/ right bickering, in the real world of policy making, NGOs and peak bodies are an essential source for Local, State and federal governments.
The fact is, they’d all be quite hopeless without their links to the frontline on social policy. Which is why they started funding them in the first place. Its cheaper and better informed than leaving it all to bureacrats.
Yes, getting away from the abstract left/ right bickering, in the real world of policy making, NGOs and peak bodies are an essential source for Local, State and federal governments.
The fact is, they’d all be quite hopeless without their links to the frontline on social policy. Which is why they started funding them in the first place. Its cheaper and better informed than leaving it all to bureacrats.
It’s fine for an NGO to advocate in favour of a particular policy.
However, when an NGO starts supporting some candidates or parties, and opposing others, it has crossed the line into politics and makes itself a legitimate target for political attack.
It’s fine for an NGO to advocate in favour of a particular policy.
However, when an NGO starts supporting some candidates or parties, and opposing others, it has crossed the line into politics and makes itself a legitimate target for political attack.
Like the right wing thinktanks, farmers’ groups and business lobbies with their government consultancies, EP? They often attack the ALP and the Greens.
Like the right wing thinktanks, farmers’ groups and business lobbies with their government consultancies, EP? They often attack the ALP and the Greens.
Rot my socks, I actually agree with Evil to some extent on his last point. While NGOs should be free to speak out on policy matters and criticise the government, they should take care not to become identified with particular parties and candidates, or they do become legitimate targets.
Rot my socks, I actually agree with Evil to some extent on his last point. While NGOs should be free to speak out on policy matters and criticise the government, they should take care not to become identified with particular parties and candidates, or they do become legitimate targets.
Yes, Mark, like them.
The same rules should apply for all.
Yes, Mark, like them.
The same rules should apply for all.
cs, EP and I all agreeing. Who’d have thought?
cs, EP and I all agreeing. Who’d have thought?