Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise the recently published discussion paper by UNSW visiting fellow Joan Staples entitled NGOs out in the cold: the Howard government policy towards NGOs. It is part of the Democratic Audit of Australia project at the ANU. Joan Staples details that, since coming to power, the Howard government has significantly undermined the traditional model underlying the relationship between government and non-government organisations, that government policies and practices have essentially pressured many NGOs into silence and that the traditional role played by the sector revolved around helping shape public advocacy. It was an integral part of a healthy and functioning democracy. Likewise, the activism of the NGO, or civil society groups as they are also known in some countries, has been a reflection of society itself. These groups include local resident groups, community legal centres, health awareness groups, environmental and consumer groups, sporting associations and ethnic communities. Clearly, the diversity of these groups reflects the richness of the society. They have consistently been a source of ideas on the society we hope we might become and of the aspirations and ideas that should be contested and debated.

In 1991, five years before the Howard government assumed power, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs brought down a report in which it commented on the role of NGOs. It said:

An integral part of the consultative and lobbying role of these organisations is to disagree with government policy where this is necessary in order to represent the interests of their constituents.

Upon coming to power, John Howard referred to these groups as ‘single issue groups’, ‘special interests’ and ‘elites’. He promised that his government would be owned by no special interests, defend no special privileges and be accountable only to the Australian people.

Recent appointments to the ABC board in the last week, where three people are associated with one particular journal, and the back scratching we just heard from the member for Aston who had the absolute hide to describe one of those appointees, Janet Albrechtsen, as a respected commentator, show the mutual self-interest of the Howard government and its conservative elements. Of course, there is a massive gap between what Howard said and the reality of the interest groups that his government is beholden to.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Reid will refer to members by their title.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, his government has from day one been hijacked by elite special interest groups, such as various employer federations and business lobbies, but most particularly by well-heeled right-wing think tanks. The Prime Minister’s current attack on the rights and conditions of Australian workers is but a recent example of the agenda of the constituency he seeks to represent. This has been coupled with a decline in consumer protection, unchecked increases in the cost of traditional services such as banking, a welter of unconscionable conduct by some business elements and the winding down of the rights of the most disadvantaged members of the community. The period of Labor government during the seventies, eighties and nineties was a time of unprecedented dynamic intellectual debate about how to assist the most disadvantaged. This was done with significant government funding of poorly represented groups.

According to Joan Staples, the Prime Minister’s assumption of power saw the NGO sector experience an intense period of defunding. Most of the defunded groups were victimised due to their criticism of government policies, which negatively impacted on their constituencies. These groups represented some of the poorest and most unrepresented members of the community. They included the Australian Federation of Pensioners and Superannuants, the National Shelter, the Association of Civilian Widows and the Australian Youth Action Coalition. The Howard government also defunded the Consumer Federation of Australia, which until then had acted as the peak national consumer advocacy body. Earlier this year, the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia was left with only a few days funding. The government has silenced remaining groups by making them sign up to clauses which restrict them from speaking to the media. NGOs which exist outside of any government funding also came under intense attack in the form of the charities bill, which according to some green groups and community organisations has imposed a severe limitation on the ability of self-funded non-government organisations to engage in any critical action or advocacy.

In Howard’s Australia, NGOs are left to merely compete for dollars to provide essential welfare services and government is absolved of the responsibility. Accordingly, the Democratic Audit of Australia argues that the democratic process has been undermined by a combination of government mechanisms, including defunding, as well as a proactive campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the non-government sector.

While the Prime Minister proclaims that he does not govern for any sectional or small-target interest groups, he seems content to rely on the advice of the neoliberal think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. The Australian Financial Review reported in 2002 that the influence of neoliberal think tanks is being increasingly recognised in this country. According to Wilson Da Silva:

It is hard to overestimate the influence conservative think tanks have had on the political agenda of Australia.

They have been prominent supporters of the government and key protagonists who have criticised elements seen to be opposed to a market view of the state. The main ideological protagonist in this struggle is the IPA. The Democratic Audit of Australia report argues that the IPA has adopted a policy focusing on:

… undermining the standing of its adversaries through generating and disseminating negative messages about their role in democracies, their motives and their integrity.

The institute’s program to discredit the work of non-government organisations begins by trading in extreme language. I think the previous speaker, the member for Aston, typified that problem. If Kim Jong Il and the North Korean Workers Party ever need a propagandist for their unit, he would certainly be fitted for that. I will provide his phone number. Joan Staples lists some of the language that is being used by the IPA against its opponents:

... ‘cashed up NGOs’, ‘a dictatorship of the articulate’—

not the proletariat. The IPA is concerned by the ‘dictatorship of the articulate’—

a ‘tyranny of the articulate’ and a ‘tyranny of the minorities’ ... ‘mail-order memberships of the wealthy left, content to buy their activism and get on with their consumer lifestyle’.

The IPA’s protracted and virulent campaign against NGOs would under normal circumstances rule it out as an objective source for any inquiry. Yet, to great astonishment and dismay and without the provision of a public tender or announcement, the Howard government appointed the IPA and its non-government organisation unit director Gary Johns to conduct a study into the relationship between Australian government departments and NGOs. According to Radio National’s Background Briefing program, the institute’s website declares that it does not accept government funding; yet, in an astounding turn of hypocrisy, it accepted $50,000 of taxpayer funding without any tender or transparency. I thank the Democratic Audit of Australia and Joan Staples for their valuable work.

On another front, the IPA has been a virulent critic of APHEDA and other charitable and religious organisations for their work in West Papua, alleging that they are whipping up hostility for the Indonesian regime and showing too much concern for the rights of the indigenous people there. It is quite interesting to note that, before the government decided to do a U-turn and kowtow to Indonesian political pressure, the condition of people in West Papua was such that 30-odd of them were given immediate refugee status in this country. The conditions there must be so bad that their cases did not really require much review. This contrasts very strongly with the postponement over a decade of consideration of hundreds of Timorese cases. Once again, whilst the government relies on the IPA to denigrate, to belittle and to besmirch non-government organisations that have a competing analysis of society, it certainly dropped them very swiftly following their analysis of APHEDA and other organisations that have been active on behalf of people in West Papua.

In conclusion, this paper by Joan Staples drives home the reality that there has been an attempt by this government to ensure that people are disciplined, pulled into line or de-funded if they have a critical view or if they are interested in defending people who are being marginalised and deprived of income. Other organisations are entangled in the process by their heavy dependence upon government funding to operate government charitable programs. I remember years ago in the Netherlands I met a bloke from the immigration department. I asked him: ‘Do you have much criticism of the immigration policy of this country? Are the churches and others active?’ He turned to me and said, ‘We have taken them prisoner.’ I did not really know what he meant. John Howard and this government have certainly understood what he meant.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Reid—

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister and this government certainly know what that meant. Essentially, we have had a situation where a significant number of major players in this country have been brought on board. They are heavily dependent upon Job Network money to ensure their financial survival, and they have become more acquiescent to government policies.