The Federal Minister for the Environment, Senator Ian Campbell, has recently had some green groups seeing red because of changes he is making to government funding of environmental non-government organisations. Since the 1980s, taxpayer funding has serious distorted and politicised the environment movement. It has encouraged lobbying over "getting-one's-hand dirty" and looking to find practical solutions to the environmental problems that confront us. It has favoured big activist organisations over local grassroots groups. It has encouraged groups to cross the boundaries from the environment to politics.
The Government's decision is in two parts. First it increasing the total allocation of funds Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations scheme, it capped the amount given through at $10,000 per organisation. In the past under the Hawke and Keating Governments, funding under the scheme was allocated to a limited number of predominantly large NGOs with an advocacy focus; with some groups receiving in the past around $200,000 in a single year.
Large amounts of taxpayer monies not only rewarded those groups that supported Labor but conveniently gave them the means to go out and campaign for Labor's re-election. Bringing environmentalists into the Labor fold has been credited by some as helping return the Hawke Government in the 1990 Federal election, though some hardheads within the ALP are more sceptical about the success of this strategy. And it was through the use of programs like the GVEHO which provided the mechanism to do so.
Speaking recently at the National Press Club, Kim Beazley described some Howard Government pre-election spending as a "systematic abuse of taxpayer-funded programs for political purposes". It's a good quote because it neatly sums up what the ALP did with taxpayer funding of green groups during its time in power.
Campbell's recent decision to change funding arrangements for environmental groups has at long last redressed this distortion. Rather than gagging government critics as Labor and some groups would suggest, what Campbell has done is to focus the Government's spending on groups involved in hands-on environmental activities and making a tangible contribution to preserving and restoring the environment.
According to Labor's shadow environment minister, Anthony Albanese, "Jobs will be lost, services will be cut", adding that "this will have a devastating effect on the environment".
Though the claim has been made that the environment will suffer as a result of this decision, it's an impossible proposition to prove. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of their advocacy in delivering tangible benefits to the environment? Has there ever been a proper analysis of this assertion?
Yes, as Albanese claims, "jobs will be lost" by this decision, though not many. This lament, however, exposes the problem. The program is the Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations, and was not meant to be a job-creation exercise for professional activists or activist "businesses". As for the claim about services being lost, the biggest losers are state-based peak bodies which primarily service their members -- other green NGOs. If the services offered by these peak bodies is as important as some say they are then they should have no difficulty raising the shortfall from their member organisations as the public (excluding government) gave environmental organisations $72 million last year.
Naturally, the decision has led to cries of foul play from past beneficiaries of government funding under the old regime. However, while there are some groups upset by the decision, there are probably many hundreds of community groups actively working to repair the environment who are delighted at this decision. In recent years, the number of environmental organisations officially registered with the Department of Environment and Heritage has grown dramatically to 317, with 39 being added in just the last 12 months. While organisations with a high media profile have prospered, many small community-based that tackle everyday environmental problems are crying out for just a bit of money.
What the minister has done is to allocate the money more to where the need is, to groups that lack the media profile to generate money from the public.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment