In 2004 The Australia Institute led a survey of the non-government sector and produced the report Silencing Dissent: Non-government organisations and Australian democracy. It concluded that NGOs felt the government was undermining their credibility, shutting them out of civic discourse, defunding (or threatening to defund) organisations that were considered uncooperative, and micromanaging NGO activities by dismantling peak bodies.
The report detailed the growing fears across the NGO sector concerning their right to advocate in the public policy domains of most concern to them, and more broadly about their changing role in the democratic process.
A lot has happened in the 13 years since this report was published including changes to the political and regulatory landscape, the formation of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission, the passing of the Charities Act and advances in the digital landscape.
However the threat to advocacy remains a concern.
Civil Voices set out to re-examine NGO perceptions about their capacity to participate in public debate and see how public debate and advocacy has changed since the last study.
What we found is that not for profits are on a path of quiet advocacy. To a greater or lesser degree civil society organisations are engaging in various forms of “self silencing” – treading very carefully in their advocacy work less they risk financial security and political retribution.
Australian civil society needs to be supported, and encouraged to engage in frank and fearless advocacy. We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent in this regard.
The more the silencing of civil society is normalised the higher the risk becomes to the overall quality of Australian democracy.
(philanthropists etc.)
According to Civil Voices, the most important audience for civil society advocacy is politicians, at both state and federal levels.
In both the 2017 and 2004 data, state government ministers were a more important target audience than their federal counterparts, although in 2017, shadow ministers were not targeted as prominently as in 2004.
See the chart below for where else respondents were targeting:
According to Civil Voices the majority of respondents (62 per cent) believed they had experienced more success in having their messages heard in the past compared to the present.
decision-makers
interests
pressure to do things quietly
ie competition for attention from similar organistions
The most significant barrier to being heard was an organisation’s “lack of media liaison resources” (38 per cent). The next most cited reasons were a perception that mainstream media (35 per cent) and government were not interested (36 per cent). One in three respondents suggested that messages were being drowned out by “too much noise”. One in five believed that their funding agreement restricted their ability to comment on government policy. Twelve per cent perceived internal pressure (from the board or management) to “do things quietly”.
However, this picture is complicated. When the opposite end of the Likert scale is examined, it shows that 45 per cent of NGOs do not perceive any internal pressure to do things quietly; and 43 per cent do not perceive their funding agreement as restricting their capacity to comment on government policy—the same percentage of respondents that did not consider funding agreements a barrier as in 2004. Interestingly, the top four barriers to being heard remain unchanged over the past 13 years.
A charity may undertake advocacy activities without having a specific subtype of advancing public debate, as long as the advocacy is in line with its charitable purposes.
For example: A charity with the purpose of advancing education can advocate and campaign on education issues. However, if it engages in partisan advocacy, it runs the risk of being found to have a purpose of promoting or opposing a political party or candidate.
Provided the advocacy is to promote the charitable purpose of the charity, or the interests of its beneficiaries.
For example: A charity that also has the charitable purpose of advancing social or public welfare and delivers services to victims of violence can promote a change to the law which would increase criminal penalties for perpetrators of family violence.
It can do this in a variety of ways - such as meeting with elected representatives or officials or making written submissions. In doing so, the charity should remain neutral on any party views. If board members are open and transparent about such engagement, this can help ensure public perceptions of neutrality.
As long as the activities are carried out to promote the charitable purpose of the charity. However if the activities explicitly support or endorse a particular political party or candidate, the charity runs the risk of being found to have a disqualifying political purpose.
For example:
- A charity with the purpose of advancing education should take care when producing and distributing flyers. A flyer that states: "Vote (named party) first to support local schools" may be perceived as explicitly supporting a particular party which may indicate a disqualifying political purpose.
- A charity with the purpose of advancing education can produce and distribute a flyer that states a party’s policies in relation to education and allows readers to draw their own conclusions.
A charity cannot have a purpose to engage in or promote activity that is illegal.
For example: A charity with a purpose of advancing the natural environment cannot have a purpose of encouraging its members to engage in illegal methods such as intimidation, trespassing or assault to promote a change to the law regarding logging.
However, if the charity explicitly tells its members or supporters which party to vote for based on the findings of the research, it runs the risk of being found to have a disqualifying political purpose.
For example: A charity with the purpose of advancing the safety and security of the Australian public that provides advice and support to victims of crime can produce research on the impact of current or proposed government policy on law enforcement and publish this research.
October 2017.