The Smith Family was caught out recently doing what civil activists do, defining a problem, in this case poverty, in a way that keeps them in the advocacy business. The Smith Family, along with other non-government organisations represent the charitable, the consumer, the greenie, the humanitarian. They add to the already crowded field of interest groups, like pensioner, professional, trade and employer unions that seek to influence public policy.
The likes of the Australian Council Of Social Services purport to represent the poor; the Australian Consumers Association -- consumers; the Australian Conservation Foundation -- the environment; the Australian Council for Overseas Aid -- the poor overseas; Amnesty International -- the world's oppressed, and so on.
These NGOs, among a host of others, consist of private activists organising for public purposes. They are a sign of a healthy civil society. After all, there is no reason to leave all the politics to the politicians. That is, unless NGO interests do not coincide with our own. In politics, organised lobbies crowd out unorganised lobbies. A certain amount of displacement occurs when the organised are granted access to government. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- NGOs, like political parties, help to aggregate and filter opinion, and in doing so, they contribute to the work of politics.
NGOs are clearly free to express their views, but what is the basis for them to speak on behalf of the public, or at least sections of it? Are there legitimate grounds to test the credentials of those who purport to represent society?
The opinion of an NGO must, of necessity, be weighed against the opinions of other NGOs, and the electorate. Although each constituent has access to their member of parliament, the weight of an individual opinion is not great, unless their standing is exceptional. The exception depends on their expertise in the field, or on their direct involvement in an issue or on their ability to represent a class of people.
Governments should not grant NGOs privileges greater than those accorded any citizen. They should not assist NGOs nor give them access to policy forums, unless they have standing. One way of managing the relationship with NGOs is to use a protocol, in this case a statement of credentials, which a government can use to establish the standing of an advocacy body. Those NGOs granted standing should make information available by way of a publicly accessible register. The key assumption of the protocol strategy is the primacy of democratic government and the public right to know with whom it is dealing.
NGOs frequently serve their interests by claiming a superior mandate to the parliament. For example, the ACF, "by 2050 Australia will be a civil society. There will be a high level of community engagement in decision-making processes, ... a higher level of trust ... with their decision-making institutions". ACF suggests community engagement is to come about through a grant to NGOs of $60 million per year. It seems that trust comes at a price! At present, nearly 200 Green NGOs receive tax-assisted donations of more than $25 million per year. The public knows next to nothing about them.
ACOSS plays the civil society game too, "We want the major political parties to commit to a new deal, a formal Agreement that better defines the Federal Government's relationship with the community sector -- a negotiated relationship which respects our full role, not just in service delivery but in policy development". The welfare peak lobbies, including ACOSS, receive over $3 million a year to play this game. Something is known of the peak welfare bodies, but details are not available to the public.
ACA also plays the game. It wants all electricity consumers to be taxed to fund a consumer voice among the electricity distributors. This end-user advocacy in the electricity and myriad other markets supposes an election of consumer representatives. How can this be achieved when the ACA has only 650 members? In reality, only those activists who run the NGOs are chosen.
Over 15,000 NGOs have Deductible Gift Status with the Tax Office, they may do good work, but the public knows nothing about them. For example, the CFMEU recently questioned the use to which the Wilderness Society was putting tax-assisted anti-logging funds.
The recent Inquiry into Charities recommended NGOs not be regulated in terms of lobbying, so long as they did not support or oppose a party or candidate. The Greens, Churches, Human Rights groups and a swag of others have made their views quite clear in the recent election, they all but suggested how to cast a vote. At the very least, where taxpayers assist these groups, or they have access to government greater than the voter, more should be known about them. The alternative is to follow the practice in the US and Canada, which deny tax-free status to groups who spend more than 20 and 10 per cent respectively of their income on advocacy.
ADVERTISEMENT
