Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I am continuing my comments from last week when I was talking about Audit report No. 47 of 2005-06, the Auditor-General’s review of funding for communities and community organisations. I had got to the point where I was expressing my concern about the government’s attack on NGOs, non-government organisations, and their legitimate role in our democracy. I had been looking at this report and had found some concerns. The report indicates some concerns with some of these funding programs.

On page 58 the report notes that one-third of the interviewed service providers had difficulty with the timeliness of payments from government. We know that NGOs are often very reliant on such payments. Again, it is cause for concern. On page 82 they point out that 10 per cent of respondents to their survey expressed concern that FaCSIA did not analyse the performance reports that they submitted. With the exception of the programs relating to Indigenous services, the ANAO was advised by FaCSIA staff that performance reports were immediately filed upon receipt, with no detailed analysis of the service providers’ performance being undertaken. How on earth do we know if these services are meeting the needs of the community?

We also know that community groups are increasingly critical of the burdensome bureaucracy and red tape that they feel are being imposed on them. They have only just finished one report when they need to fill out another one. It is extremely disturbing that these reports are, it appears, just being filed and not even looked at. One wonders why the organisations are being made to fill out these reports if they are not being reviewed. A cynical, suspicious mind would think that they are being required to fill out these reports because it binds them up in red tape and prevents them doing other things.

On page 81 we find that FaCSIA would have difficulty determining from these indicators whether grant recipients were achieving an adequate level of activity to justify funding. On page 21 the report suggests that the absence of an effective performance information framework restricts FaCSIA’s capacity to demonstrate the extent of these contributions and effectively target the allocation of resources. If that is the case, I am deeply concerned that NGOs are being required to jump through hoops and are being criticised for their work—and yet there does not seem to be any foundation for this, as their reports are not being analysed. They are filling out information on which they think their performance is being assessed, but they are not being checked. So (a) they are not getting performance feedback and (b) they are being bound up in red tape without people paying adequate attention. There appears to be no foundation for the criticisms that are being levelled at them.

I would think that these sorts of reports are also important to effectively target the allocations of the agency’s resources and that effective allocation was a large part of their role. What is more, we have government accusing NGOs of being unaccountable, but here they are being very accountable and agencies and the government are not paying attention. How can they be claimed to be unaccountable when the government and the responsible agency are not even reading their reports? One wonders on what basis the government keeps making these unfounded criticisms.

In light of these issues and what I see as the government’s constant undermining of non-government organisations, I believe there is an urgent need for the development of a new relationship between government and non-government organisations—or the third sector, as it is commonly known—that acknowledges the massive contribution the sector makes to the economy, which is now argued to be over $30 billion per annum. More importantly, it strengthens the wellbeing of our community and the health and vibrancy of our democratic processes.

I believe that the nations that do get it right in terms of fostering the education, personal development and wellbeing of their citizens and giving them the opportunities for meaningful work and a decent life—which are the cornerstones of creativity, productivity and innovation—will ultimately be those that are best able to face the challenges of the 21st century. Nations that do get it right and foster that personal development are those that also have a very strong framework for non-government organisations, which play a vibrant part in the debates about and the promotion of the wellbeing of a nation.

It is time we looked at developing—and perhaps legislating, if it is decided in dialogue with the community that that is what needs to happen—a new relationship between the government and the third sector that ensures equity, sustainability and justice and that separates these issues from those of public funding for core functions and contracts for service delivery. We need a process that enshrines the legitimate role of advocacy for the marginalised, the disadvantaged or the oppressed.

At this stage I am not advocating a particular model, as this is ultimately something that needs to be debated, discussed and developed with the third sector and the community in all its diversity. We could look at the compact in the UK and the accord in Canada as some interesting starting points but ultimately we need something for our own unique situation in Australia that meets our needs and circumstances and that sustains and helps develop a vibrant and sustainable third sector in this country—one that is unafraid to advocate for those who are disadvantaged and marginalised and for the environment.

I believe our nation is better for the diversity of non-government organisations. I find deeply depressing the constant attacks that our NGO sector faces, when all the NGOs are interested in is the rights of others and the environment. They are not self-interested. They do not have vested interests, other than the broader health of our community and our environment. Therefore, I strongly believe that this government should change tack in its approach to the third sector and, in fact, direct resources to sustain it.

Question agreed to.