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

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."

 

NGO's: the trojan horse for market, corporate and state power?

 David Harvey in his book A Short History of Neoliberalism:

The rise of advocacy groups and NGOs has...accompanied the neoliberal turn and increased spectacularly since 1980 or so. The NGOs have in many instances stepped into the vacuum in social provision left by the withdrawal of the state from such activities. This amounts to privatization by NGO. In some instances, this has helped accelerate further state withdrawal from social provision. NGOs thereby function as "Trojan horses for neoliberal globalization."

 Mike Davis in The Planet of Slums:

Third World NGOs have proven brilliant at co-opting local leadership as well as hegemonizing the social space traditionally occupied by the Left. Even if there are some celebrated exceptions--such as the militant NGOs so instrumental in creating the World Social Forums--the broad impact of the NGO/"civil society revolution"...has been to bureaucratize and deradicalize urban social movements.

Will we ever see a National Charities Commission in Australia?

Another Federal Government Inquiry has called for the setting up of a National Charities Commission to regulate the charitable and not-for-profit sector, particularly those charities and church groups that enjoy tax free status.  A link to the Senate Inquiry report is here.

The Senate Inquiry Report recommends that such a Commission would have the power to remove the tax free status of any organization found to be in breach of the rules, or not acting in the public interest (by applying a public benefit test).

This Senate Inquiry was instigated by Independent Nick Xenophon as a result of serious concerns about churches such as the Church of Scientology and Hillsong Church, who benefit significantly from their tax free status. 

The Senate Inquiry found that no agency- not the Productivity Commission, not the Taxation Office, not Treasury- could identify the value of tax concessions to charities and churches, although a conservative estimate is between $1-$8 billion.

This is the fourth Senate inquiry into the not for profit sector in a decade that has recommended greater scrutiny of churches and not- for- profits with charitable status.  The recent Productivity Commission Inquiry and the Henry Taxation Review also called for a similar Charities Commission. 

However, there has been no action on any of those Inquiries, although the Labor Party has committed to establish such a Commission.

In a previous post on this issue (here) I noted the double standard inherent in the current situation where politically active groups like AIDWATCH can have their tax free status removed by the Australian Government because they criticize Australian Government policies, whilst breaches of the code and rules by Churches are ignored

Why not-for-profits should be wary of corporate social responsibility

This great piece by Russell Mokhiber from Corporate Crime Reporter  shows why not-for-profits should be wary of any involvement in corporate social responsibility initiatives. Frankly, they are being used.

As Mokhiber (and many other writers have shown) corporate social responsibility is not just an oxymoron but a sham:

"Corporate social responsibility has been used by companies to ward off both the activists and to reduce the probability of more onerous government regulation,"

"And companies pretend to be socially responsible, but they really don't do very much. This keeps the activists at bay. And it might serve to keep government regulators at bay by saying - see, we are doing it on our own."

UK Minister diverts fund allocated for Campaigning to service delivery

More evidence from the UK about the depoliticisation of the NGO sector and the unwillingness of government to support the campaigning activities of small NGO's.

The decision by the British Minister for the Third Sector Angela Smith to abandon a 750,000 pound Campaigning Grants Program after 32 successful applicants had been told they would receive funds has generated outrage among the British voluntary (NGO) sector. The decision has breached the Labour Government's own Compact with the Voluntary sector which outlines how the public and voluntary sector will behave towards each other.

The Minister's Office of the Third Sector announced last Friday that it was diverting the funds allocated to small agencies for campaigning activities into a Hardship Fund to support NGO's providing support for disadvantaged people.

With an election not far away it appears that the Brown Government got nervous about the potential political fallout of funding campaigning and activist groups in the lead up to an election. The agencies involved had already received letters informing them of the success of their grant so the legality of the Government's decision is likely to be tested.