What is the real intent behind plans to abolish Australia's charity regulator?

This government does not like campaigning and advocacy organisations, and the removal of the ACNC as an independent regulator simply exposes those organisations to attack.  

Greg Ogle

Excellent piece by Greg Ogle,  Independence of Charities Under Threat,  on the real intent behind Abbott Governments plans to repeal the national charity regulation body — the 18-month old Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission (ACNC)- and hand back the regulation of charities to the Australian Tax Office. 

Ogle argues that repeal of the ACNC paves the way for a return to the political attacks of the Howard Government years (1996-2007), particularly attacks on environmental and campaigning groups involved in public advocacy, direct action and activism.

The Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission (ACNC) was set up less than 18 months ago by the Federal Labor government to regulate the charitable sector. The governing legislation for the ACNC ensured the independence of charities and their right to advocate for charitable causes.

The objects of the Act that established the ACNC committed to ensuring a “robust, vibrant, independent and innovative” charity sector. The legislative provision ensured that the governance standards required to be met by charities did not constrain advocacy. 

In essence, the legislation gave charities some protection for pursuing advocacy and activist campaigns that challenge Government policy or corporate malfeasance.

Ogle reminds us of the Howard Government's direct attack of advocacy and campaigning by charities and NGOS: 

Under the Howard government, the tax office was used to attack and pressure charities who were advocated for policies the government didn’t like. This was at a time of recurring public and parliamentary attacks on those charities by senior Liberal politicians like George Brandis, Brett Mason and Eric Abetz, echoed by industry groups and right wing think tanks. The pressure meant that between 2004 and 2007 The Wilderness Society, for instance, faced at least 20 different public calls for them to be stripped of their charity status. They passed the three Tax Office audits of their “political” activity, but other groups like AidWatch had long court battles to secure their tax charity status.

In a separate article, Andrews leads fight to abolish Charities Commission, Mike Seccombe shows how the campaign to abolish the ACNC was driven by the self interest of the financial services sector (who administer charitable trusts) and influential parts of the Catholic Church, who are concerned about revealing financial details of the Church. 

Seccombe notes how Cardinal Pell, former Head of the Catholic Church in Australia and confidant of Prime Minister Abbott and Minister Andrews, made it clear that he opposed the ACNC.

Although there were some initial concerns among charities about the likelihood of increased compliance and regulatory costs, the majority of the charity sector now support the ACNC. Seccombe describes the campaign waged by the powerful financial services industry to abolish the ACNC

While the financial services industry claimed they are concerned about the cost of complying with its financial disclosure requirements, Seccombe shows that their real concern is the likelihood of scrutiny by the ACNC of their  administration of charitable trusts, that would reveal the grossly excessive fees they take for looking after the bequests of philanthropists.

Seccombe quotes Tim Costello CEO of World Vision Australia and Chair of the Community Council of Australia: 

“It’s pretty apparent there are only two main groups that are strongly opposed. The trustees, who handle dead people’s money, are a major source of opposition because they don’t want transparency about what they charge. The other is the Catholics".

Ogle refutes the Minister's claim that the abolition of the ACNC is designed to reduce red tape, by highlighting  other ways that the Federal Government could reduce red tape, but refuses to do so.

 Ogle gets to the heart of the matter:

This government does not like campaigning and advocacy organisations, and the removal of the ACNC as an independent regulator simply exposes those organisations to attack.

Spot on!!! 

Attacks on the independence of the voluntary sector and civil society

" We are on a slippery slope, where it is becoming increasingly common to hear the view that voluntary organisations should deliver services but not challenge the status quo, especially if they receive government funding. We are already seeing a ‘chilling effect,’ with increasing evidence of self- censorship by voluntary organisations"

Roger Singleton, Chair of the Independence Panel for the UK Voluntary Sector

 The Panel for the Independence of the UK Voluntary sector has just released its 2014 report titled Independence Undervalued: The Voluntary Sector in 2014,  and the picture it paints is despairingly familiar to the situation in Australia:

 "The voluntary sector is losing its ability to protect the most vulnerable in society as a result of government attacks on its campaigning activities, lack of consultation over policy changes, and funding arrangements that put the future of an independent sector at risk"

In its media release the Panel:

• calls on the British Prime Minister David Cameron to take action to stop weakening the independence of the sector and to rebuild trust.  
•  calls on voluntary sector leaders to take a stand to preserve the sector’s independence, which it says is vital to a healthy and compassionate democracy and the reason why so many people lend their support to charities and trust their services.

•  documents numerous instances of a serious and growing threat from the government to Britain’s long tradition of independent voluntary action including:

• Growing criticism by some politicians, including the Secretary of State for Justice, of charities’ role as voices of communities.  There is an increasingly commonly expressed view that charities should simply deliver services and not speak out against injustices – leading to voluntary organisations self-censoring because they are afraid of losing government work, appearing too political or because of gagging clauses in state contracts.
• New and proposed restrictions to the ability of voluntary organisations to challenge government decisions in the courts on behalf of vulnerable individuals.
• Restrictions to campaigning put forward in the Lobbying Bill without consultation and, despite subsequent changes, with continuing concerns about their impact.
• Cuts in government consultation periods, leaving voluntary organisations too little time to respond to important questions, despite assurances this would change.
• Damage to support in communities due to loss of public funding for local specialist voluntary organisations as public service contracts concentrate on economies of scale rather than social return.
• Many state-sponsored charities subject to government interference, for example in appointment of board members.
• A weak Charity Commission ill-equipped to maintain public confidence that charities are pursuing an independent mission that is furthering the public good and not state sponsored or driven by private gain; and lack of government compliance with a document signed by David Cameron to protect the independence of the sector, the Compact.

 Panel chair Sir Roger Singleton CBE said:

“An independent voluntary sector lies at the heart of a compassionate, democratic society, a role that has become especially important as engagement with mainstream politics declines and the state reduces in size. Yet we are on a ‘slippery slope’, in which the independence of voluntary organisations is increasingly undervalued and under threat and there are insufficient safeguards to protect an independent future for the sector. It is increasingly seen either as a delivery arm of the state or only legitimate where it provides services but does not speak out for wider social change.

 The full 64 page report of the Panel is here

Not- for- profits take on corporate heavyweights

Environmental not- for- profits in Australia are at the front line in campaigns and actions against corporate heavyweights.
 

As corporations increasingly use their financial and legal power to silence and challenge campaigning organizations, the risks to not-for- profits are significant.

Environmental organizations and campaigners are particularly vulnerable as they face off against corporate heavyweights who are well-resourced, well-connected and powerful.

The risks facing not-for-profits who take on corporate heavyweights was demonstrated in the recent case of the WWF and its legal stoush with mining magnate  Clive Palmer.

In a media release WWF claimed  that the Clive Palmer owned Yubala nickel refinery near Townsville Queensland was threatening to collapse, thereby releasing toxins into the environment. The WWF claimed that three ponds containing toxic industrial waste were at capacity and could collapse and create a major environmental disaster. 

Palmer sued the WWF and was successful in the court proceedings. The WWF  was forced to apologize to Clive Palmer and agreed to pay his legal costs over its claims..

Now Greenpace Australia is taking on another global corporate heavyweight Coca Cola and it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

Greenpeace Australia has launched a media campaign against  corporate heavyweight Coca Cola Amatil to pressure Federal and State Governments to implement a national containers scheme. 

Greenpeace's campaign comes in the wake of Coca Cola Amatil's victory in the Northern Terriry courts where the powerful and wealthy multinational corporation used its financial and legal power  to successfully dismantle the Northern Territory Government's recycling scheme 'cash for containers'. In January 2011 the Northern Territory Government introduced a deposit scheme to encourgage people to recycle bottles and cans. Coca Cola successfully challenged the scheme in court claiming it was an inefficient and expensive method of increasing recycling rates.

Greenpeace is running full-page ads in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Its campaign has been entirely funded by  individual donations. In just over two weeks, over 50,000 people have  signed up to the campaign calling on politicians to implement a national ‘Cash for Containers’ scheme. 

Greenpeace is targeting Coca Cola Amatil directly arguing that: 

"Coke is currently trashing a popular and proven 10 cent recycling refund scheme and is the main blocker standing in the way of a national scheme. ‘Cash for containers’ has run successfully for 30 years in South Australia, where recycling rates are almost double those across the rest of the country.

Coca Cola Amatil has for years sought to undermine this proven system, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on misleading advertising and reportedly threatening to campaign against MPs who support the policy.

In Queensland freedom of speech does not apply to some NGOs and civil society

Funny how Liberal National Governments vehemently defend the right to freedom of speech for racists, anti Islamists, climate change deniers and corporations, but not for civil society groups and NGO's who speak out on public policy issues.

Since its election the  Queensland Liberal-National Newman Government has sought to silence NGO's who wish to contribute to political debate. The Government has made it clear that NGOs must remain silent if they wish  to receive public funding. Grant contracts now include clauses preventing non-government organisations advocating for state and federal legislative change.

Stories about the attacks on the free speech rights of NGOs in Queensland are  here, here, here, here and here. 

This latest piece is from the todays Brisbane Times.

Springborg defends 'draconian' gag orders

Queensland's health minister has defended gag orders on not-for-profit groups that receive state funding and has told the federal government to butt out.

The federal government will introduce a new bill which would ban gag clauses from all commonwealth contracts with the not-for-profit sector.

It plans to write to state and territory leaders asking them to match the federal commitment.

Federal Finance Finance Minister Penny Wong has called the Newman government's gag orders "nothing short of draconian".

"First, the Newman government cuts funding to those without a voice and then silences those who speak on their behalf," she said.

But Queensland Health Minister Lawrence Springborg said not-for-profit groups should not be wasting their time and money on political advocacy.

He said the federal government should stop trying to interfere.

"We will decide how public money is spent in Queensland," he said on Monday.

"In Queensland we believe that if we give money in Queensland Health to an organisation, then that organisation should be doing what we fund them for.

"Not running around with political advocacy."

 

Not for profit aged care provider Baptistcare protests Federal Government funding cuts

Always pleasing to see large Not- for- profit organizations like Baptistcare willing to make a stand  and protest against Government policy that disadvantages the people they serve.

This report describes a protest by staff at Baptistcare's Rockingham aged care facility against Federal Government funding decisions in aged care that are resulting in $500 million being cut from aged care funding.

Baptistcare is extending the protest to 13 of its residential aged care facilities and three disability and community care sites from today, in protest at the Federal government's decision

The organisation has taken the step of launching the visual protest, which includes a call to action via social media, to raise greater public awareness of the government's 1 July adjustments to the Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI).


The protest is part of  a larger campaign being run by not- for- profit aged care providers through Aged and Community Services WA  which represents not-for-profit aged care providers which care for 100,000 of the state's most frail and vulnerable citizens.

Flags emblazoned with “Government Neglects Aged Care” flew outside the Gracehaven facility protesting reduced federal funds for aged-care organisations to deliver clinical care services to its residents.

Baptistcare CEO Lucy Morris said the Government had made it almost impossible for not-for-profit residential care providers, like Baptistcare, to provide appropriate care for the elderly and vulnerable.

“Through its adjustment of the assessment tool used to fund high-care services, the Government has stripped money from the services needed to care for older, sicker residents, who have more complex health needs and need higher levels of care,” Dr Morris said.

But Mental Health and Ageing Minister Mark Butler said subsidies would not be reduced and they would continue to grow by 2.7 per cent a year above indexation, per resident over the next five years.

He said early data for providers’ care funding claims made in July showed average subsidies increased from $133.96 per resident per day in June to $134.83 in July.

“Leading Aged Services Australia (LASA) and Aged and Community Services Australia (ACSA) have claimed funding will be cut by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2012 and beyond,” Mr Butler said.

“These claims are clearly untrue, as these early figures show. The Government’s aged care package will increase funding for residential care. This year’s subsidies will be $310 million more than last year.”

ACSA WA chief Stephen Kobelke said WA’s not-for-profit aged care sector had struggled for years to survive in one of the world’s most expensive cities.

“There has been unprecedented stagnation in the provision of aged-care services in WA, to the point that 3368 bed licences have now not been taken up since 2007,” he said.

He said ACSWA figures showed some aged-care providers would face cuts of over $14,000 per resident.

Citizen action in Perth this weekend

A busy weekend of activity coming up for WA's citizen led sector and WA civil society groups with a number of important rallies and events in Perth this weekend worthy of support. I will be speaking at one of them.

Rally against Unconventional Gas Fracking  at 1pm this Saturday October 13th in Fremantle is part of a National Week of Action against unconventional gas fracking as called by the Lock the Gate Alliance. Here in WA the unconventional gas threat has grown more serious with full scale shale and tight gas fields planned for the Mid West and the Kimberley. Speakers include: Greens MP Alison Xamon, Jamie Hanson from Conservaion Council of WA, Greg Glazov from Doctors for the Environment, Marcus Atkinson from Nuclear Free Future, Fremantle Mayor Brad Pettitt and also a member of No Fracking WAy.

The Global Noise Street Festival to be held in the Perth Cultural Centre from 6pm to 9pm this Saturday October 13th forms part of the Occupy Perth celebrations and the Global Occupy movement.

The annual Reclaim the Streets March will commence at 2pm on Saturday 13th October from the Perth Cultural Centre.

Welcome Refugees is a protest against mandatory detention and Australia's offshore asylum seeker processing regimes organized by the Refugee Rights Action Network (RRAN) WA. The event will take place at 1pm this Sunday October 14th at the Wesley Church corner  on the Corner of Hay and William Streets in the Perth CBD.

Gerry Georgatos and the power of combining citizen journalism and social justice campaigning

Gerry Georgatos is a West Australian journalist who combines investigative reporting with a powerful commitment  to campaigning on social justice and human rights issues.

Gerry is  a Western Australian based reporter for the National Indigenous Times for whom he writes important stories about Indigenous and social justice issues that few other journalists are willing to cover.

Gerry is also the Principal and Convener of the Human Rights Alliance through which he has initiated  and led groundbreaking social justice campaigns in WA. Gerry is also a Phd researcher  on Aboriginal Deaths in custody.

It is this combination of investigative journalism, social and political research and social justice campaigning that has resulted in Gerry exposing injustices ignored by the mainstream media and politicians, including the illegal imprisonment of Indonesian youths in adult prisons in WA, Police violence inflicted on a young Aboriginal man in Albany and the appalling state of Aboriginal homelessness in the Kimberley region.

As well as the National Indigenous Gerry's articles also appear in many other places including Indy Media, Indy Media Brisbane, Green Left Weekly and the Donnybrook-Bridgetown Mail.

Gerry's article below is about the decision by the UK multinational corporation Serco and the WA Department of Corrective Services to deny Aboriginal prisoners access to prisoner transport to attend family funerals. 

The article will appear in the National Indigenous Times this week. 

Gerry Georgatos on Aboriginal Funeral outrage

The National Indigenous Times has been contacted by two sources during the last couple of weeks, one within the Department of Corrective Services (DCS) Western Australia and another within SERCO, that Aboriginal inmates will no longer be transported to funerals. Instead they may be left with the option of paying their respects to loved ones by either viewing a recorded or where possible live screening of the funeral and the procession while alone in a prison wing room. This has been slammed as inhumane, and culturally inappopriate by most Aboriginal Elders.

Both sources said that this initiative was flagged allegedly due to SERCO's reluctance to transport prisoners to funerals. The multinational which has the contract to much of the State's prisoner transport, and manages Acacia Prison, on the outskirts of Perth, and the lucrative Immigration Detention Centre network Australia-wide, is allegedly reluctant to provide compulsory funeral attendances for Aboriginal inmates - it has been alleged that SERCO management claimed high prison officer risk issues at funerals and also allegedly cost benefit issues. SERCO is one of the world's wealthiest companies.

The National Indigenous Times contacted the DCS, and its spokesperson Brian Cowie said "Gerry, we will have comment for you next week." 

UWA law student and Nyoongar rights activist Marianne Mackay the former chairperson of the Deaths in Custody WA contacted the National Indigenous Times a few days ago to confirm that she had also been advised that an Aboriginal prisoner was refused transport to a funeral last Friday. "This is a first, it doesn't happen that one of our people is not allowed to attend a funeral. Apparently SERCO refused to transport him and this has stunned us considering how everybody knows how important it is for our people to attend funerals. It attacks our cultural integrity."

SERCO is yet to respond to the National Indigenous Times.

Another Nyoongar rights activist, Iva Jackson-Hayward has responded with a call for the State Government to ensure that the DCS and SERCO ensure Aboriginal inmates do not have their cultural rights eroded. "The DCS and SERCO are dutibound to protect the rights of our people. Aboriginal women and men in prison cannot break their customary duty to attend funerals. It's outrageous what is happening, and it's a human rights abuse. This is all about money, and SERCO trying to make more of it by abusing the rights of our people. It is the Government's duty to pull SERCO into line."

Ms Mackay said the Inspector of Custodial Services, Neil Morgan was contacted on Friday.

The WA Prison Officers Union (WAPOU) said the State Government should scrap SERCO's prisoner transport contract. WAPOU Secretary John Welch made this call following another whistleblower's leaking of serious allegations.

The whistleblower said SERCO transported prisoners to wrong prisons, was late in bringing prisoners to their Court appearances, transported seriously ill prisoners in prison vans instead of ambulances. It was only a couple of months ago a prisoner who had open-heart surgery was returned to the prison in a van instead of an ambulance and arrived with serious injuries which the DCS tried to play down however CCTV footage proved otherwise.

All three whistleblowers said SERCO was not turning up to transport Aboriginal prisoners to family funerals, and that SERCO made no effort to account for its failure.

Mr Welch said SERCO's failure to ensure contracted prisoner transports gave rise to stress and tensions in prisons.

"These latest allegations are so serious that the Barnett Government should cancel SERCO's contract and bring these services back for the Department of Corrective Services to run so that we can be confident the community is being kept safe."

Australia has one of the world's worst prison suicide rates, with privately run prisons, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, enduring proportionately more deaths in custody than Government run prisons.

Other serious allegations were made by the whisteblowers to the National Indigenous Times and we will follow these through.

Reclaiming the history of social justice activism

This story of social justice advocacy is a reminder of the ways that the contribution of radical and progressive social justice activists and campaigners is censored by so called "official narratives" and traditional bodies of knowledge.

Ken Giles* is an elementary school music teacher in Washington DC who uses music to teach his students the link between songs and social justice movements. He uses civil rights songs, peace songs and union songs to make the connection between music and movements for social justice and peace.

Giles is spearheading a campaign to have the acclaimed singer, actor, political activist Paul Robeson inluded in the music textbooks used in schools. Decades ago Robeson was censored from most school books because of his political activism and fierce critcism of US treatment of African Americans and US foreign policies.

As Ken Giles points out even though Robeson is experiencing something of a renaissance in the US, it is still difficult to find his recordings and films, and his work and contribution is not included in many school textbooks.

Giles argues that Robeson's exclusion is an example of the censorship that occurs in the educational textbook industry. In his own campaigning Giles is encouraging his students and other professionals to challenge such censorship.

For those of us who believe in and campaign for social and economic justice Ken Giles's actions show that it is important that we reclaim the history and contributions of social movements and individuals who fought for social and economic justice.

*Ken Giles is the music teacher at Shepherd Elementary School in Washington, DC. He teaches violin at the DC Youth Orchestra and sings with the DC Labor Chorus. He is a longtime member of Jewish Peace Fellowship and was a Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam War. You can read about his "150 years of Songs of Freedom and Justice” music history program at the Labor Heritage Foundation.

The history of civil society in WA: PhD on the history of the WA forest protest movement

Reading a PhD thesis is not something you do for fun.

But Ron Chapman's PhD Fighting for the Forests: A History of the WA Forest Protest Movement 1895-2001 is an important document of WA  history.

I have long argued that  protest action by ordinary West Australian citizens, in the form of social movements and civil society action, has been at the forefront of most significant social, political, economic and environmental change in this state. This is not reflected in traditional narratives about Western Australian history which largely marginalize or trivialize the action taken by WA citizens fighting for social, economic, racial and environmental justice.

So I was excited to read Chapman's thesis which shows that forest protest has been a major force for environmental and political reform throughout WA history.

Chapman shows how over time small scale protest activity by citizens was transformed into a social movement that had a significant influence on forest policy and practice, culminating in the defeat of the Court Government in 2001 and the adoption of policy by the Gallop Government to protect WA forests

Chapman describes the diversity of protest activities used by WA civil society groups to focus public attention on forest issues and pressure the WA Government to change its forest policies and practices. He shows how protest groups had to constantly adapt organization and strategies to the changing social and political conditions.

Chapman's analyses the campaigns and strategies used by West Australian citizens and civil society groups from 1995 to 2001. He distinguishes a number of distinct periods, firstly from the late 19th century to 1950, and then a second period from 1950 to 2001, characterized by 5 distinct phases:

1. Formative phase from the 1950's-60's which saved urban bushland.
2. Transitional phase during the 1970's which adopted assertive forms of protest.
3. Collaborative phase during the 1980's when campaigners began to collaborate with and influence political parties.
4. Expansionary phase during the 1990's which saw the spread of local protest groups in the South west.
5. Confrontational phase which involved an intensive campaign of confrontational and direct action.

Chapman's research demonstrate the importance of "localism" as an activist and organizing strategy. Chapman shows how the WA native forest protest movement established a network of urban and south-west activist groups which encouraged broad public support.

The eventual success of the forest protest movement resulted from the rise of these organized and effective local groups and campaigns focused on public education, media exposure and local action. The transformation of local action into an influential social movement played a significant role in bringing down a government and protecting  WA forests.

Making protest visible: Public protest as a vehicle for ethical and moral action

Public protest is one outlet for citizens to express deeply held moral and ethical commitments. Protest actions provide people with a way to address critical moral and social questions and confront the injustices, small and big, that they see around them. Protest actions are are a vehicle for ethical visions and creative ideas for a better future.

All over Western Australia this week ordinary citizens participated in public protest actions.

The photo on the left is from one of these protest actions, a rally organized by the Human Rights Alliance in the Perth CBD to protest against Government law and order policies and the misuse of tasers and force against Aboriginal people in custody

On Tuesday this week environmental groups, Aboriginal groups, unions and civil society groups protested outside BHP's Perth Annual General Meeting  against BHP and the Barnett Government's plans to make WA a major nuclear mining

In the Kimberley a small group of protesters blockaded access roads to prevent Woodside rig contractors from drilling drill on the site of the proposed James Price Point gas plant. A large protest rally against the industrialization of the Kimberley will take place in Cottesloe on the 28th November.

As a reminder of the importance of public protests, big and small, the UK Guardian has run a series of photographs of important protest events in world history. I was particularly taken with this photo taken during the 1968 Prague Spring.

Civil society rising in the UK and Europe

In London this week 50,000 students protested against education cuts by the Conservative- Liberal coalition Government.

Media reports in Australia have focused only on the occupation of the Conservative Party headquarters and, unsurprisingly for the corporate media, have largely ignored the larger story. All over Europe there is rising militancy by civil society groups against government  imposed austerity measures.

As Nina Powers points out in this piece in The Guardian the 52,000 students who protested in London display the real meaning of "The Big Society" that David Cameron claims he wants to promote. But Cameron's vision is an illusion. The Tories and Liberal Democrats want to destroy that part of civil society that resists and protests, and  holds governments and the corporate and business elite to account.

In her Guardian piece Nina Powers writes:

The protest as a whole was extremely important, not just because of the large numbers it attracted, and shouldn't be understood simply in economic terms as a complaint against fees. It also represented the serious anger many feel about cuts to universities as they currently stand, and the ideological devastation of the education system if the coalition gets its way. It was a protest against the narrowing of horizons; a protest against Lib Dem hypocrisy; a protest against the increasingly utilitarian approach to human life that sees degrees as nothing but "investments" by individuals, and denies any link between education and the broader social good.

The protesters - students and others - who occupied Tory HQ will no doubt continue to be condemned in the days to come. But their anger is justified: the coalition government is ruining Britain for reasons of ideological perversity. The protests in France and Greece and the student occupations here, such as the recent takeover of Deptford Town Hall by Goldsmiths students on the day cuts were announced, are indicators of a new militancy

Civil society organisations lead the fight against the "industrialisation" of the Kimberley

While large not-for-profit organisations dominate the headlines (and the funding), here in Western Australia it is small civil society groups and not-for-profit organisations that lead the struggle for environmental, economic, racial and social justice. 

There is no better example than the current campaign to oppose and challenge  the Barnett Government 's plans to industrialise the Kimberley.

Small civil society groups, Aboriginal organisations and individual citizen activists lead the fight against the proposed $30 billion liquified natural processing plant (gas hub) at James Price Point in the Kimberley and Barnett Government plans to industrialise the Kimberley region. James Price Point is on the Dampier Peninsula, 60km from the town of Broome, on land subject to native title claim. The proposed hub is being developed by Woodside Petroleum and its consortium partners including Shell, BP and Chevron.

When he came to power in 2008 Premier Colin Barnett revoked a process already in place to select a site. Barnett also removed the Indigenous veto over the site and threatened to compulsory acquire the land if Aboriginal people did not agree to his plan.

The Kimberley Land Council, acting on behalf of Traditional Owners, signed an Agreement with Woodside Petroleum and the State Government in 2009 which gave in principle approval to the plant on the basis of an Indigenous Land Use agreement which would deliver economic and financial benefit to the Traditional owners and the KLC. However, not all Aboriginal claimants accepted or agreed with the KLC's Agreement and when they were unable to resolve their differences, the Barnett Government moved to compulsory acquire the land for the site, regardless of Aboriginal wishes.

Aboriginal people are divided on the issue and how it will impact on the community. Some support the proposed gas hub, but oppose the Barnett Government's compulsory acquisition of land.  Others oppose the James Price Point gas hub, as well as broader plans by the Barnett Government and large mining and resource companies to "industrialise" the Kimberley and have pursued legal action in Federal and State courts to prevent the development.

Environmentalists and citizens are concerned that the gas hub will be the beginning of the end for the Kimberley as a wilderness area and is part of Barnett Government plans to industralise the Kimberley, as has occurred in the Pilbara and the Midwest.

Opposition to the gas hub and the compulsory acquisition of land has galvanized a coalition of Aboriginal groups and Aboriginal leaders, local, state and national environment and conservation groups, local residents and concerned West Australians.

On October 16th an estimated 2500 citizens marched though the streets of Broome to rally and protest against the proposed gas precinct and Barnett Government plans to compulsorily acquire over 20,000 hectares of land at James Price Point, some of which is currently subject of native title claim. This is despite Premier Barnett's claims that the gas precinct will only be 3500 hectares in size (2500 hectares of land and 1000ha of marine area).

The WA Environmental Defenders Office, a small community legal service, is representing Aboriginal elder Joseph Roe in a legal action in the WA Supreme Court against Woodside to prevent it clearing vegetation at James Price Point.

Woodside was granted the clearing permit by the WA Government before the completion of the required environmental assessment process. Woodside claims that it needs to clear the vegetation to test the availability of ground water for the Project. Aboriginal laweman Joseph Roe argues that Woodside and the State Government have acted illegally and are clearing vegetation on a site that has cultural significance.

The crises within the Wilderness Society

Sadly the crisis that has engulfed one of Australia's most respected and successful campaigning not-for profits continues to play out in public. The long serving Executive Director of the Wilderness Society Alex Marr has resigned just months after the election of a new National Committee dominated by a breakaway group (known as Save the Wilderness Society). Alex Marr is now threatening legal action against the Management Committee and the Society.

After a long struggle, that included a hearing in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, the breakaway group (that now forms the Management Committee) seized control of the agency earlier this year from a Committee controlled by Marr allies, citing concerns about Alex Marr's attempts to centralise control, his management style and approach and concerns about the governance and directions of the Society.

Not surprisingly, Alex Marr's resignation letter  accuses the new management committee of cronyism, of wanting to return the society to a political protest organization and of threatening the society's financial future. Some of the same concerns were directed at Marr and the former Management Committee.

Bitter internal conflict and tension are common in not-for-profits, particularly where competing values and ideologies play out and the agency is committed to fighting for hard won social, environmental and political change. 

In the last few years the Wilderness Society has fought many tough battles with corporations and governments, and found itself under direct legal and political attack by those powerful interests. So it is not surprising that internal conflict has erupted.

Sometimes such internal tension and conflict are necessary to revitalize and reinvigorate NFP's. Let's hope that the Wilderness Society can recover from this crises and emerge stronger to reposition itself again as one of Australia's leading environmental advocacy and campaigning organizations.

The seduction of online activism

Following the thread of my previous post I read this article on Z Net  in which Paul Rogat Loeb discusses the benefits and risks of online social and political activism. Loeb argues that online activism has politically empowered many people, but there are plenty of traps.  

Loeb concludes:

"If we assume that people will jump on our favorite cause just because they receive our communiqués and agree with us in principle, we underestimate the degree of inertia in our culture. For most people who are contemplating taking their initial steps into social involvement, a more intimate approach is often required, one that will put them at ease one question at a time, take their hesitations and uncertainties into account, and reassure them that the barriers they face are hardly unique. This more personal reach is key to enlisting new allies and to ensuring our political actions are visible enough to create a genuine public impact. That doesn't mean abandoning the astounding communicative tools we now have. But if we want to realize their potential, we're going to have to sooner or later step away from our screens"

How useful is "Clicktivism" or online activism?

image courtsey of Stone/Getty, The Guardian UK

Just been reading this important and provocative article from the UK Guardian which critiques the growing trend towards online citizen activism, what it calls clicktivism. 

I have considerable sympathy with the thrust of the article, particularly its critique of the ideology of "market"models of activism and of the need to challenge corporate power (which is purpose of the Nemesis Project which I coordinate).

"A battle is raging for the soul of activism. It is a struggle between digital activists, who have adopted the logic of the marketplace, and those organisers who vehemently oppose the marketisation of social change. At stake is the possibility of an emancipatory revolution in our lifetimes................................

The trouble is that this model of activism uncritically embraces the ideology of marketing. It accepts that the tactics of advertising and market research used to sell toilet paper can also build social movements. This manifests itself in an inordinate faith in the power of metrics to quantify success. Thus, everything digital activists do is meticulously monitored and analysed. The obsession with tracking clicks turns digital activism into clicktivism...........................

Against the progressive technocracy of clicktivism, a new breed of activists will arise. In place of measurements and focus groups will be a return to the very thing that marketers most fear: the passionate, ideological and total critique of consumer society. Resuscitating the emancipatory project the left was once known for, these activists will attack the deadening commercialisation of life. And, uniting a global population against the megacorporations who unduly influence our democracies, they will jettison the consumerist ideology of marketing that has for too long constrained the possibility of social revolution. "

Churches, political activity and the need for an Independent charity regulator in Australia

The power of the churches in Australia to circumvent charity and taxation law to serve their own purposes is amply demonstrated by Cardinal George Pell's intervention in the Federal Election campaign.

Cardinal Pell described the Greens as "anti-christian and encouraged Catholic voters not to support the Greens in the Federal election, in defiance of rulings that churches and not-for-profits who have charitable status should avoid engaging in party political activities or encouraging the public to vote against a political party.

As not-for-profit legal specialist Derek Mortimer points out in this article, in which he discusses the legal implications of Pell's statement, it is interesting to compare the inaction against the Catholic Church with the Australian Government's relentless pursuit of the small advocacy group AID Watch. The Australian Government (through the ATO) has used the court system to uphold a decision to remove the charitable status of AID Watch because it was deemed to be a political organization.

The Pell intervention reinforces the need for the introduction of an Independent charity regulator in Australia, along the lines of the UK Charity Commission, as recommended by the recent Productivity Commission Inquiry into the Not-for- Profit sector.

Criminalising citizen protests and demonstrations

image courtesy of Perth Now

"Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely
essential to it."
Howard Zinn

"..... there is an increasing and disturbing trend to answer civil disobedience and peaceful protest with criminal prosecution, and using harsh, disproportionate punishments as a means of stifling dissent, and restricting freedom of expression"
Dirk Voorhoof and Serge Gutwirth.

On the ABC's online publication Drum Unleashed two Belgian academics, Dirk Voorhoof and Serge Gutwirth have written about the growing threat to activism and civil disobedience presented by the use of the tools of the criminal, policing and justice systems.

The authors argue that that political freedoms such as the freedom of expression, the right of civil disobedience, citizen action and political protest, as well as the political liberties of citizens, are increasingly at risk from the actions of political leaders and police and legal systems.

They highlight recent cases in Denmark (the Red Carpet Four who were arrested during protests at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009) and Japan (two anti-whaling a activists were charged with trespass and theft) where activists were harshly treated by authorities and arbitrarily detained for long periods.

The recent G20 summit in Toronto provides further evidence. Police were granted sweeping new powers for the duration of the summit to prevent protest and dissent and harass and arrest demonstrators. These laws were passed secretly without any public or Parliamentary debate. The result was massive and brutal police harassment of protesters, resulting in thousands being arrested for demonstrating, Police using rubber bullets on demonstrators and citizens being arrested for failing to identify themselves. A lawsuit is being launched by Canadian Civil Liberties Association against police action for violation of citizen rights.

Here in Australia as Zoe Hutchinson and Holly Creenaune in their article in Dissent show that similar trends are evident in Australia where there has been a major expansion of police and other powers, particularly so called 'emergency powers' to stifle protest and dissent and target social movements.

Here in Western Australia the stop and search laws being proposed by the Conservative Barnett government provide police with greater powers to criminalize protest and target demonstrators in designated areas.

There is a valuable Australian site of resources for activists Activist Rights.org.au where you can read more on these issues.

New Political Party for carers and family members

The Parents Families and Carers Party, which represents voiceless parents, families and carers of Australia, is political party that needs our support.

The party exists to politically represent family members and carers who care for people with disabilities, people with mental health problems, older people and other Australians who rely on family care. The Party has run candidates in previous State and Federal elections.

The Party argues that despite their rhetoric, the main political parties have abandoned parents, carers and families to the market and/or to service providers who are driven largely by provider self interest. They are absolutely correct in that.

The party has a well argued analysis of the problems and a radical agenda for change. This is from its website:

"For more than a century, political parties of both Right and Left have presided over a steady shift in power away from individual citizens towards large corporate and state institutions. In the process, both Left and Right have become defenders of these powerful corporate, institutional and provider interests at the expense of relatively powerless individuals and families.

In government, Left and Right have administered legislative and regulatory regimes that favour large corporations over small business; provider interests over consumers; professionalised and incorporated entities over informal civil society arrangements; state accreditation and licencing authority over voluntary and localised initiative; funded quangos over independent self-funding governance; and impersonal litigation-prone rules and regulations over personal and communal responsibility. As the initiators, enactors and administrators of these regimes, the two major political machines (Labor and Liberal) have become instruments through which powerful corporate, institutional and provider interests uphold and preserve their dominance over society".

You can read all about the Party here at its website. Membership of the Party is free and details for joining here.

The article below is by one of the Party's Queensland candidates.

Political Change in Disability and Health by Pam Maram Queensland National Council Member, Parents Families and Carers Party

I have two teenage sons who rely on the full support of close family to lead as ordinary a life as possible. I have two daughters without disabilities (a lawyer and a social worker) and two sons with disabilities (unemployed and uneducated).

The experience of disability has meant I had to stop working to care at home and have lived on the poverty line for over 5 years. This existence has exhausted all financial resources, and the saddest thing is that my children with a disability have passed through their school years with virtually no education, since there have been no appropriate school options available since day one. My boys will therefore start in the job market with two strikes against them. 1. Poor literacy etc... and 2. the abysmal statistics for employment for people with a disability. A legacy of poverty has been created through no fault of mine as a parent and through no fault of the children who want to try and have not been given adequate support.

I am weary of the fight from the bottom up. Changes need to come through the political process, with the law followed by legislation. De-institutionalisation was important and I would not have had it any other way. But a gap was created as the need for support at home was ignored. This has now grown into a housing crisis with the prisons filling up with people with disabilities. This state of affairs must not continue for another minute.

Our experience to date is that so many of the federal dollars spent on disability are wasted. Much of this money is being spent referring us away from support and building an impenetrable and layered bureaucracy that has left my family on the brink for years. Of late the only program that offers funding for my children with a disability has forced us into the position of begging and explaining and re-explaining their needs - which have not changed in years - to access the funding that is their entitlement. I feel they are wasting the precious resources available but they act like we are the ones wasting the money. Those resources can either make or break this family and to have to beg and be spoken down to is a burden, day in and day out. There is no system, no standards, no empathy and no understanding that being in control of the resources means being in control of the decisions, that, but for the disability, a normal family would make as a family.

There must be a political force to create the change necessary for people with disabilities to be included and to be supported as required by the law and to lead an ordinary life with choice, an education, health care and a place to live free from abuse and neglect.

I do know that without the voice of this Party to direct policy, the decisions made by governments will continue to be made in ignorance. So much money is being spent on the bureaucracy (which is always too hamstrung to make the changes its funding was set aside for) and this is not the intent of it nor does this spending comply with the laws that the money is meant to implement and support.

More money is not the answer, the answer is in how the money is spent and by whom. Speaking as a mum, the journey for people with a disability has been a journey of discrimination, labelling, blaming, a lack of service and a lack of empathy and understanding. But for the children without a disability I would have had no reference point to refer to and I am glad of it, both the experience of raising children with and without a disability. My fear now as my sons grow up is that they have been given a pension and sidelined...but for me.

I am determined not to let resources go to the providers which for us has literally meant no service at all alongside no accountability for the lack of service and more referrals to more no service agencies and at my sons' ages we are talking about dental, mental, health, school and so on...These were a non-issue for my two children without a disability.

Why? Because my sons have a disability and discrimination against them is a daily occurrence even though it is now against the law and yes I am willing to fight to change this.

I urge every other parent and relative and friend in disability and mental health to join this Party and contribute in building up our collective strength. On my own, I am just a solo mum living with two children with a disability. But all of us together, then we can't be ignored.