Tim Dunlop yesterday wrote about moves from the Rudd government to undo some of the gag-clauses placed by the Howard government on government funding for charitable institutions, in which he quotes a neat summation of the policy from 2006 by Tanya Plibersek:
if you help the homeless it’s OK; if you say there shouldn’t be so many homeless you lose funding
Now, given that the balance of power in the Senate will shortly be held by Family First’s Stephen Fielding, Independent Nick Xenophon and the Greens, all of whose records would appear to support not-for-profit organisations being able to engage in social advocacy and criticism without threats of defunding, this measure to dismantle gag clauses is likely to have broad bipartisan support.
But what about other gag clauses currently in place?
Lauredhel wrote about a challenge from the less conservative arm of the Liberal Opposition (Brandan Nelson and Mal Washer) for the Labor government to dismantle the legacy of Brian Harradine’s time holding the balance of power in the Senate:
Harradine, holding all the cards, managed to get legislation passed banning foreign aid money from funding comprehensive women’s health care services. AusAid could no longer disseminate any abortion information, and some contraception was on the hit list too
While I applaud the initiative of Nelson and Washer in seeking to dismantle a fetter which constrains the choices of so many women in poor countries, I wonder how much pure politicking is involved in making this challenge to Rudd. How are the numbers likely to fall out when it comes time to pass a repealing bill? Fielding is unlikely to support the repeal of this gag clause, but Rudd will need Fielding on side in the Senate in order to have the numbers to pass Labor legislation generally. Obviously, if Labor and the Libs both support the Harradine repeal Fielding is irrelevant for that particular vote, but how then will he react when his vote is crucial on future legislation? There could be much pure mischief-making going on as part of this challenge.
Of course, there is probably also some politicking going on in the move to repeal the not-for-profits gag. Labor has been under criticism from the Opposition for directing agencies in certain government departments to submit all “strategic media releases” for vetting by the Office of the Prime Minister. Julia Gillard argues for an important distinction between a government having the right of veto over public statements from agencies engaged in contracted government work and a government vetoing public statements from organisations with no services contracts with the government.
“”We want to make sure the not-for-profit sector, the advocacy sector, can do what it does and have a say within the public domain,” she said.
We think it’s important to a mature democracy that people who have got expertise in dealing with provision of services with disadvantaged groups in our society aren’t constrained from entering the public debate.”
The distinction is valid, although I’m not especially keen on such tight central control of all agencies contracted to provide government services. So, the announcement of the intent to repeal the not-for-profits gag is both the right thing to do and a way of deflecting the Opposition criticism. The challenge by Nelson and Washer to lift the Harradine gag is also the right thing to do and also an attempt to deflect partisan criticism. Where can the stakes be lifted to now?
And will Rudd step up to help provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare to the women who rely upon our aid programs, or will he kowtow to the conservative religious lobby?
Actually that was something of a beat up. It turned out to be a departmental not a Ministerial direction.
Still, the end of the gag clauses is a good thing no matter which way you look at the motivations. Similarly, though Washer from what he’s said in the past is sincere and Nelson is probably playing politics, it’s still a good thing to call for. And, unfortunately, Fielding’s vote is probably going to be an excuse for a lot of socially conservative people in the ALP on a number of things.
I would say that it’s a symptom, not a problem in itself.
Modern politics is so tightly scripted that journalists pounce on the smallest mistake in the quest for a “good” story. Word-perfect performance = no story. Slight mistake = OMG SCANDAL AT THE TOP.
So in response the politicians become still more disciplined, more scripted, more controlling.
Honestly I don’t see a way out of it.
Its excellent the gag on charities is gone. One reason Howard was able to get away with his horrendous welfare reforms was because the charities were’nt able to let the public know what was being done to the poor and disadvantaged in our ever so prosperous country.I have enough faith in the intrinsic decency of the Australian people to believe if they knew what was going on, they wouldn’t have stood for it, and that mean-minded litt;e man knew that.
As for the Harradine gag. Nelson may very well be sincere. He is an MD after all. Still, he’s undoubtedly also engaging in mischief making with the Catholics in the ALP, and otherr conservative Xtans. He has no chance of success. Devout Catholic though he is, Morris Iemma didn’t hesitate to tell Cardinal Pell to mind his own business on the stem-cell legislation. I expect his Federal colleaugues will behave exactly the same way. Labor hasn’t forgotten what a dangerous mix religion and politics can be. They learnt the lesson the hard way in the Great Split.The Liberal party will be the party has problems over this. Its tailor-made for a Tony Abbot hand-grenade over their uneasy leadership.
NGOs have absolutely no right whatsoever to taxpayer funding. Any funding they DO receive should be subject to the same processes of Executive review as any other taxpayer-funded expenditure.
There are far too many NGOs that are nothing more than idiotic fronts for international socialist types. They should be defunded toute du suite.
JG,
Vinnies and the Sallies, Mission Australia,, etc etc etc international socialist types? Not to my knowledge, mate. And I should know.
Of course Rudd Labor is making sure it is perceived as honest and open, in contrast to Howard’s mean, tricky and very secretive approach.
“NGOs have absolutely no right whatsoever to taxpayer funding.”
Too right. All those rich social workers running around living the high life.
No, govt investment should only be spent on things like tax breaks for multinationals or contracts to companies that profit from war.
“NGOs have absolutely no right whatsoever to taxpayer funding.â?
Of course, if we don’t fund NGOs – who run on the smell of an oily rag – to provide our social services, we’ll have to fund proper public servants, who are really quite costly, what with their demand for decent wages and conditions and so on…
Talking of mischief making, the Ruddites could repeal the ban on contraception advice but not abortion advice. That would wedge the Xtians nicely – the Fieldingites are proddies who have no objection to contraception, while the Abbottians of course oppose it.
DD, that could be an interesting wedge of the wedge, definitely.
SG and MsLaurie, please don’t feed it.
[...] Taking off the gags at Larvatus Prodeo (tags: foi) [...]
I’m glad they are taking off the gag. If nothing else it psyched people out and encouraged organisations to censor themselves.
I hope they take some of the other insidious things in their (FAHCSIA) standard contracts like the bit that allows them to approve (or veto) potential staff in identified positions. They used this clause with organisations they sought to “influence.”
I think Julia said they’d be reviewing the contracts in toto, Angharad, with a view to simplifying them and removing regulatory burdens.
I hope they don’t review them in toto actually Mark. If the gag doesn’t kill the larger charities, the administrative burden of reviewing and re-signing hundreds of contracts will! I hope they can find some administratively easy way of doing this.
But I’m glad they are looking at this issue seriously. And it really affects NGOs like ACOSS much more.
I think it’s more a template for the new contracts and striking out the objectionable features of the current ones, Angharad, from what I understand.