Close Search
Analysis  |  Policy

Three Reasons Australians Should Be Concerned That NGOs’ Voices Are Not Being Heard

12 December 2017 at 8:35 am
Australians have reason to be apprehensive that some civil voices are being silenced write University of Melbourne academics Dr Andrea Carson and Associate Professor Sarah Maddison in this article which first appeared in The Conversation.

Contributor | 12 December 2017 at 8:35 am


Three Reasons Australians Should Be Concerned That NGOs’ Voices Are Not Being Heard
12 December 2017 at 8:35 am

Australians have reason to be apprehensive that some civil voices are being silenced write University of Melbourne academics Dr Andrea Carson and Associate Professor Sarah Maddison in this article which first appeared in The Conversation.

A healthy democracy is built on the premise that public debate should allow for many and diverse voices to be heard as part of the contest for ideas that informs policymaking.

If Australians want this to be the case, the current state of play offers three reasons for concern.

NGOs are self-silencing

The first is the finding in our research, released today, that Australian NGOs are self-silencing.

Our data show that many not-for-profit organisations, representing some of Australia’s most disadvantaged people, are cautious about advocating dissenting views for fear of losing government funding and other forms of political retribution.

Of the 1,462 senior representatives of Australian NGOs surveyed, more than half think our political culture is not encouraging of political debate.

The survey identified the barriers to being heard included:

  • fears of funding cuts
  • less access to policymaking processes than in the past
  • fewer resources available for advocacy
  • lack of media interest
  • restrictive clauses in government funding agreements that limit public commentary.

More than 80 per cent of respondents have deductible gift recipient (DGR) status. This means they can accept donations from the public. 40 per cent directly linked the prospect of speaking out as a threat to their DGR status.

The result is a degree of self-silencing or “quiet advocacy”, where charities and not for profits attempt to minimise the risk of retribution by selectively choosing which battles to fight.

As one respondent said:

“As a non-profit receiving government funding we are concerned about any negative perceptions that governments may form and possible repercussions.”

Another wrote:

“Advocacy could adversely impact relationships and government decision-making on funding and engagement.”


“In general, our advocacy is quiet and within the government’s defined consultation frameworks.

Put more simply, another said we ‘pick our battles carefully’.”

While the survey found that advocacy is not the foremost function of most not-for-profit organisations, advocacy matters. This is because, according to liberal-democratic theory, citizens should be able to encounter diverse and multiple viewpoints, including those of dissenting voices and those critical of the state.

Trust in government fades

Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells reminds us that, in a democracy, the relationship between the state and civil society is key, because:

“… without an effective civil society capable of structuring and channelling citizen debates over diverse ideas and conflicting interests, the state drifts away from its subjects.

In other words, democratic representation is called into question.”

This might go some way to explaining falling levels of public trust in government in many developed democracies – including Australia. In 2016, the ANU’s long-running Trends in Australian Political Opinion survey found that 74 per cent of respondents believed people in government look after themselves. This was up from 66 per cent in 2013.

Our study had a similar finding: 71 per cent of NGOs said people in government are more likely to look after themselves than be trusted to do the right thing.

But our findings were less bleak than the benchmark survey of the NGO sector undertaken in 2004. It found 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.

Those historic findings have not-so-faint echoes of a second cause for concern: the Turnbull government’s recent appointment of Gary Johns to head the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC).

The former federal Labor MP and commentator with right-wing think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs has previously argued that advocacy should not be considered a purpose of charities. In this regard he has singled out environmental not-for-profit groups.

Uncertainty over the ACNC’s role

A third issue is the ACNC’s newly-expanded powers.

While little detail has yet been provided of what the reform of “the administration and oversight of organisations with Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status” will involve, Revenue Minister Kelly O’Dwyer did make clear that the ACNC and the tax office will receive extra funding to “review a greater number of DGRs for ongoing eligibility”.

After his appointment, Johns said the ACNC’s goal will be to help:

“… the donor market drive the charity dollar to its most efficient and best uses.

How he conceives “best uses” is a matter that time will tell. Until then, Australians have reason to be apprehensive that some civil voices are not being heard in our liberal democracy.

About the authors: Andrea Carson is lecturer in media and politics and serves as an Honorary Fellow with the University’s Centre for Advancing Journalism. She is also the academic coordinator of Pathways to Politics with the Melbourne School of Government. Her work examines the nexus between politics and the media – with special interests in investigative journalism and political communication. She has done extensive research on journalism, Australian politics, party representation and voter behaviour, election campaigns and digital media.

Sarah Maddison is associate professor in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Her areas of research expertise include social movements, dialogue and reconciliation, and Indigenous political culture. In 2009 she was awarded a Churchill Fellowship to look at international models of Indigenous representation through a study of the National Congress of American Indians and Canada’s Assembly of First Nations. Her recent books include Black Politics (Allen & Unwin 2009), Beyond White Guilt (Allen & Unwin 2011) and Unsettling the Settler State (Federation Press, co-edited with Morgan Brigg 2011).

This article first appeared in The Conversation.

The Conversation

PB Careers
Get your biweekly dose of news, opinion and analysis to keep you up to date with what’s happening and why it matters for you, sent every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers? Get in touch at or download our contributor guidelines.


Webinar Value Packs

Get more stories like this


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Sector looks ahead to priorities as new prime minister is sworn in

Danielle Kutchel

Monday, 23rd May 2022 at 4:38 pm

The more things change…

David Crosbie

Thursday, 19th May 2022 at 8:59 am

Election 2022: The state of play

Danielle Kutchel

Wednesday, 18th May 2022 at 5:04 pm

Pro Bono News releases promise tracker for the 2022 federal election

Danielle Kutchel

Wednesday, 18th May 2022 at 4:48 pm

pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook