In April this year, A Just Australia's Howard Glenn addressed the 60th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Glenn bemoaned Australia's "harsh treatment of refugees". He reported that some in that forum accused Australia "as having a human rights record as bad as Libya's".
In response, an Australian businessman wrote, "Over the last six months I have travelled to the UK, Holland, Belgium, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong and Jakarta, and I can assure Mr Glenn that in the bars, cafes, taxis and supermarkets of the world there is a great deal of admiration for the policies of "Iron Jack" [John Howard]. Leave the salons and soirees of New York [and Geneva], Mr Glenn, and visit a bar in Rotterdam to get a more nuanced and glowing appraisal of Australia's international standing".
Some opinions, it seems, are more valued than others. Organised opinion is more likely than unorganised opinion to receive invitations to address public forums. These forums are reported, and in no time, the views are thought to be public opinion. Two types of people disagree with that proposition. Politicians who represent majority opinion, and people whose opinion is not expressed by organised opinion.
In essence, the sum of NGO opinions does not equal public opinion. Moreover, no NGO that labels itself "public interest advocate" can hope to encompass the public interest. In recent decades, the great enthusiasm for public policy activism has brought great benefit. However, it has some problems that need to be addressed.
There is no longer a problem in voicing opinion in this democracy. The problem is that every opinion cannot be given equal weight. Nor is every opinion equally valid. The full-blown model of "democracy as civil activism" or "participation", while not having run its course, has reached the point of diminishing returns.
Governments and international institutions like the UN are in danger of privileging some voices at the expense of others. In international forums the "daily plebiscite" of national politics, which ensures the politicians stay close to the wishes of their electorate, is absent. Some real "fruit loops" are invited to speak at the UN!
Within Australia, the daily plebiscite works well. All shades of opinion are heard, and should be heard. Any NGO, however, that has a formal relationship with government, for example, it sits on a government committee or receives government funds should have the details of that relationship placed on the public record. This gives the unorganised opinion a chance to see who are purporting to speak on their behalf.
In this regard, I have written a report for the Commonwealth government, The Protocol: Managing Relations with NGOs. It recommends ways in which the Commonwealth can share with the electorate, details of the NGOs whom it chooses to grant the privileges of representative status, or expert status, or whom it funds. It does not suggest that there should be a license to lobby, or that the NGO voices should be silenced.
Far from silencing NGOs, governments fund many. Is the electorate aware for example, that environmental NGOs, even those who undertake almost no conservation work, and who are involved in political campaigns on an ongoing basis, are deemed charities? In reality, they are publicly-funded non-partisan political parties.
This raises a second concern. The Commonwealth has recently sought to define a charity. It has expanded the number and type of organisations to whom it has granted charity status. It has also accepted that advocacy work is a fundamental part of their work. However, when the lobbying begins to force out real charitable work, it is time to set limits on what can be done in the public's name with the public's money.
As I understand it, the government is not suggesting any limit to lobbying by charities, other than banning partisan activity. What it wants is a definition that stops charities from subverting their charitable purpose by spending too much of their resources on such work. Unlike some jurisdictions, namely, the USA and Canada, it has not suggested a limit to the amount of resources devoted to lobbying.
The best way to resolve this problem of the evolution of charity work, is to let the donor decide. This needs transparency. A well-informed donor market can make up its own mind if it wants to contribute to a charity, which for example, may spend a large proportion of its funds on lobbying. The donor may also want to know whether the charity's goals are achieved, and how efficient is the charity.
If the far more complex matter of corporate performance can be presented in simple terms, the same can be achieved for charitable NGOs.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment