Tanya,
I agree wholeheartedly, intimidation is the hallmark of the Howard government. The problem is not only with the Liberal side of politics though. The Labor party has drifted so far to the right, they now seem to occupy the ground that the Liberals once stood on.

Until federal Labor returns to represent its former constituency, i.e. the "centre" of politics, the federal Labor party will remain as Australia's largest pressure group. Rid yourselves of "the invisible man" Beazley, and install someone with a bit of passion to oppose Julia Gillard for example. While the federal and Queensland parties are run by silly old Bill Ludwig and his Australia's Weakest Union cronies, what genuine worker would/could vote Labor.

Democracy is neither free, fair nor equal.

Of course this is insidious and an attack on democracy and free speech. The ABC's Background Briefing program has featured this. One of the ironies is that former ALP parliamentarian Gary Johns has been in charge of the program for the IPA. Some Nature Conservation Councils have also lost funds which were redirected to individual conservation bodies. The Minister for the Environment, the Hon Ian Campbell, responded in August 2005 to a letter about this, saying that the guidelines he had established "do not prevent any group from lobbying or making public statements on any matter". He did say that the grants were explicitly for "on-the-ground work to protect .. environment and heritage assets." This government is following the same path as the Bush administration and Republican Party.

What a load of political crock, Tanya. Governments should not be funding people or groups to make political statements, regardless of whether those statements are for or against any political party. Similarly, governments should remove public funding when it is being used for partisan political purposes. When the ALP was in office federally from 1983 to 1996, it behaved no differently than how the Howard government has operated for the last 10 years.

The bottom line is that, if someone has a political statement to make on any issue, funding should not come from the public purse. It's that simple.

Bernie.

What A lot Of Hog Wash. Have you forgotton where! the funding comes from?
The people Burnie. i suppose you agree with the move to hush the RSPCA from running their Ban live Export and intensive farming movement as well
Thing Thing IS Bernie that 99 percent of Australia WANT the RSPCA do do their job.
Thats is just one eg of the bullying that goes on.

Its such a pity that the Government oppose! any proper codes of practise towards animal welfare isnt it.
Perhaps that to al,llow people like Amada Vanestone tocontiue her cruel practses and half the ministers to carry on with their personal interests of live exports.
God Forbid that the people should want to say something about Cruelty with their OWN money.
Its the Peoples money NOT the governments. They are gagging free speach and choice.


course that is just one example there are many other

Excellent Tanya. I fully agree.

But the big question is: what will Labor do to reverse this momentum and improve participatory democracy?

I find it very strange that you have made no mention at all about Labor’s policies on any of this. This suggests very strongly that if Labor won power, little would change.

You failed to mention one of the really disgusting aspects of antidemocracy – compulsory preferential voting. This voting system means that your vote can and often does count where you have no intention of it counting, which of course is fundamentally antidemocratic. And yet, Labor fully supports it at the Federal level, don’t they.

"Governments should not be funding people or groups to make political statements, regardless of whether those statements are for or against any political party." - Bernie Masters

Interesting point Bernie, but the Government isn't funding these groups to make political statements. Its funding them for community services - say these groups come across a situation that is making their cause difficult, a situation that is being exacerbated by bad government policy.

Should they not speak out on a political matter? Even if it makes the government of the day look bad?

Or should they just shut their yap-hole and be grateful for funding, even if it means their situation is getting worse?

I'm not trying to be facile (ok, maybe the yap-hole comment is) but I would appreciate your honest reply.

SHONGA,

I know that you and I have not seen eye to eye very often in the past, but I can only say that if you think that the Labor Party has moved to the right of politics, considering that around 90% of the voters support the Labor, Liberal and other parties to the right of Liberal, that puts you as I have always expected on the extreme left.

Why you and others of similar mind cannot see that left-wing politics has had its day, and that politics is going to move more and more to the right for the rest of our lives, as the standard of living falls and the world becomes more dangerous and unstable, is something that I have never been able to understand. The best description of the world today, with its exploding population, pollution, and dimishing resources, is that of one where the four horsemen of the apocalypse (War, Famine, Pestilence and Death) are saddled up, ready to ride forth. Please persuade me that I am wrong.

I disagree with you Tanya. Charitable groups and political groups are totally different beasts. The charity is supposed to be providing benefits to the needy in our community and for this they receive special tax treatment and sometimes funding. The political group is there to promote the ideas and interests of its members which isn't necessarily in the community interest.

I don't see this as a left or right issue. The same rules should apply to right wing church groups as apply to left wing green groups. I think the government started this course of action in response to the charitable status of the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace, but they are not the only culprits.

Personally. I believe political groups should not accept funding and should maintain complete independence.

The best description of the Western world today: exploding pollution from unbridled use of resources (selfishness), and a dimishing population.

The four horsemen of the apocalypse (War on truth, Famine of values, Pestilence of excess and culture of Death) are saddled up, but who or what is going prevent the gate from being opened?

It won't be a distracted & apathetic public who see the ALP and Lib/Nat's giving themselves extra electoral payments and who are still dumb enough to vote for them.

it's very easy to get public input to the direction of australia: just institute democracy.

actual democracy, that is-

law and general policy set by citizen initiated referendum.
direct election of ministers of state.
public affairs conducted in public.

no political party will bring us democracy, any more than hyenas will recommend a vegetarian diet.

tanya is just promising 'more fish from labor', her gang isn't issuing fishing poles.

Yes Tanya
Its termed feeding the chooks.
Speaking of Labour an funding they were afraid to turn up at the AWB enquiry and to honestly disclose to the public the ownership of Live Animal Exports by AWB
Who said Wheat, or is it weak!
What a pity there were ARAID OF LOOSING THEIR Funding from disclosing the connection to the public.

Oh Diddims! Fancy Being so desperate to score a few points with the public and then find out you have to keep your mouth shut.

When you know that 90 percent of the public want live exports banned and its a political hot spot bUT you have to head for the hills when asked to inform the poblic.
Shame on you Kevin and Beazley.
But dont lose your funding now will you?
Thats what control of public money does Bernie.
Keeps the truth from the people who own the money.
Then again you already knew that didnt you.
Family first have the answer. Just use the name church and suck up to any political agenda that suites them
Plenty of funding that way Bernie.!

As anyone who works in welfare knows: it is impossible to do your job without some degree of advocacy. For example, in welfare and youth work, sometimes you have to make a stand when injustices are negatively affecting people's welfare. It is your job to look out for the people as part of your duty-of-care. Whether welfare workers know it or not, they are doing advocacy, and make a stand from time-to-time.

The opposite is social disingagement. The people associated with the apathetic NGOs just "give up" and just sit there like tired bean bags.

They know how to write grants and dabble their report figures for more funding, but their outcomes are a fabrication.

It is a shame that in NSW, many NGOs funded by the State Government prefer to employ members of the ALP. Everyone in inner Sydney knows the organisations that I am talking about. One organisation funded by the NSW Government is so dominated by the ALP, its CEO and the President of that organisation considered running for ALP preselection for the 2007 State election before the Deputy Lord Mayor finally took the ALP preselection.

The ALP goes by the Bill Clinton model. The best way to shut the activists up is to employ them. Then they are bound by confidentiality and responsibility, effectively gagging them.

This is also an expensive way to control activists, many of whom are given meaningless "fat-cat" jobs, with little rationale for such hefty wages.

So which way do we go? Do we shut them up by employing them meaninglessly by funding their NGOs? Or do we de-fund the services and the people miss out? Or do we expect restraint from NGO's political affiliation?

The issue is not advocacy. The issue is many NGOs have political bias which affects the judgement of their professional standards. If you fund NGOs, then you need to give them "arm's distance": that gives them some breathing space. But their responsibility for that right is to show some political neutrality. I have not seen this in NSW funded NGOs.

Yes I agree with Tanya Pilbersek that its a real disgrace that the poor have no advocates in our current system, because if you criticize the government you lose your funding. This allows great injustices to be perpetrated. Literally its a case of out of sight out of mind.

Politic's is part of everyday life. It is everywhere and impacts us all.

I think it is a shame that in a country like "fair-go" Australia, that discussing issues that effect us daily, has become "risky".

It is unfortunate that you are deemed as ALP, Democrate,Green or even "radical" if you speak-up on issues that are disturbing you or a section of the community. ie: Corruption, Structural Violence, Health Reform, School Fees, Rates, Bank Charges, Petrol Prices, War, Conflict or Anti-War...

The present public service be it National, State or Local is cloning itself, disreputable, without proper respect or attentiveness to anything that directs vital principle, civic transference and unity in social and political awares.

With a world in conflict, there is (as we speak) even less comfort increasing on the homefront.

Pherdus,

I don't know if I can convince you, because you seem to have made up your mind. But I see the world far more optimistically than you do.

I disagree that standards of living are falling, I think they are rising more rapidly than ever before.

Pollution can be mended.

Populations will be controlled just as soon as having a large family is no longer the only form of social security in the poor world.

Yes, there will be more instability and danger. But ordinary people are being forced to get more and more intelligent and capable every day, just to keep even low-level jobs.

We have never had smarter people or better tools.

Certainly people can be stupid and foolish at times, but I don't think we've _ever_ had a better chance to take hold of some power than now.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

This article by Ms Plibersek clearly shows that the ALP too needs a weak community sector.

"Governments should hear from citizens every day and should do all they can to make it easier to participate in democracy, not harder", says Ms Plibersek.

No, governments should get pushed around by bodies of strong, powerful citizens, who take democracy into their own hands, instead of waiting for the ALP to give it to them.

People who make the compromise of working in a government, or semi-government, job to do needed work (like, say, working in youth shelters) need informal allies who are not directly dependent on Government funding. The allies can do the speaking and the people in the government-controlled jobs can pretend it wasn't their idea at _all_.

The more of us who act like this, the more we'll do to change the sort of things that saintfletcher describes so well.

---

Ludwig, it is possible (not likely, though) that the ALP could be convinced to support Federal optional preferential voting, as a tactical move to hurt the National Party.

It causes no end of institutional problems for the (already disunited) Queensland state-level National-Liberal coalition.

Don't hold your breath though, there would be a lot of conservative/knee-jerk opposition to the idea, from ALPers who are used to the current system.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

Tanya i agree with you, but will the situation change under Labor?.
We hear about truth from some, even Howard, under Howard's regime, his political propaganda is truth, whether you like it or not.
Public money becomes private money due to power and greed sharing, by corporates and politicians.
All advertising whether it be corporate propaganda, political propaganda or any other propaganda, is paid for by the people, and they are totally denied and ignored, when Howard mouths his favourite statements such as "It is in the interest of the Nation", or "In Australia's interest", "Productivity", "Aspirationals" .
The Australian people are swayed by gingoistic and misleading messages, at the start of the day, all day and "at the end of the day", by those who only have there own self interests at heart, and who are very manipulative and own the biggest propaganda machines to achieve their, for profit, or, for political, gains.
There really are not as many choices for people, as they have been led to believe, the feeling of being relaxed and comfortable, will become much more difficult.

Methinks the author confuses Lobby groups with charities.

Freedom of expression is guaranteed, but so is freedom of association.

Tanya

Can you please tell us just what components of your article are personal expression and what are Labor policy.

I think it is very important for us to understand this, so that we may know what Labor would do in the way of improving democracy if it wins power.

Thankyou.

I completely agree with Ludwig on this one.

An opposition has the job of attacking the current government. It also should be preparing for future government.

I too would like to see Labor policies what would contribute to the Australian democratic tradition. The only policy I am aware of is the series of republican plebicites. Does anyone know if that still going to occur all in one term, as explained by Mark Latham?

(Republican Group: http://www.copernican.info)

• Tanya Plibersek: "An authentic democracy depends on its citizens being given a variety of ways to have their say"... Precisely why we need to examine conscientious citizen's commonsense logic! Which dictates on your local Electorate Office to enact a vital umbilical-cord-interface between the electorate and periodically chosen MP, who must adhere to the Representative Democracy notion. Where just as vital on MP was to serve the people, and not merely the executive rulers of the day. While applying vested democracy aim in relation to the real economy generation, along the just-law and-a-solem order maintenance within the social responsibility to the informed community. Solidly set on the equal-citizen-rights for the principle essentials as: Subsistence, Health, Housing, Education and Employment opportunities (onset by the crucial remedy against the stonewalling by mainstream media).

Thus inevitably your local Electorate Office to form communication exchange bureau for active citizens participation within the unhindered need-of-contribution via local parliamentarian's domain, towards the people's-common-good. With an-ultimate goal on mind for a direct, participatory-democracy by people and for the people. Onset to embody our collective responsibility, to eradicate the parasites, who over the years painstakingly feathered their nests within the ivory towers. Subject to elders-of-zion preselection process via invisible hand-picked treacherous leeches and their filthiest derivatives rest. Conditioned to serve evil echelon masters, while forging this marvellous nation (if not for archaic vast-wastage-industries) into oblivion.

One may be excused for having dejected perception at-times of being just an-alien-visitor here from some-distant-planet. Thus having to-face a user-pay consequences. Which must-be contemptible for the conscientious citizens within a country where ensuing generations of youngsters grow and proceed into the adulthood without having a single elevated role-model. Someone to look-up-to (as our maverick Mark Latham), towards the impending achievements to-come. Yet when vagabonds wouldn't care, many forsaken, disenfranchised citizens still got-to-face the utmost uncertain future to-come. While being blacklisted on unemployable's heap all along, they take a stance to survive and proceed with life in the Ghetto Australis, within so paradoxically awesome land of plenty, we call it home

As to the diminished democracy exposé, please proceed to ... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4625#47660

Wendy

'Have you forgotton where! the funding comes from?
The people Burnie. '

Wendy, this is the sort of stuff I want to hear from you. Bloody marvellous!

Thankyou Liz

From you thats certainly a compliment.

It seems to have gone over most peoples head but Alby Shults and Eric Abezts['special ministers'who report directly back to John Howard wrote savage letters to branches of the RSPCA threatening they would loose their tax deduction if they campained against Animal Cruelty?

This is only one example but its clearly the pattern for all N.F.P.

Interesting that they feels they have that right.

Perhaps it might be because they donate a grant to National branch of RSPCA to pay their CEOs with by way of contract.

So if that pays the wages and they supply a car and holidays how can the RSPCA be a non Government organisation?

Couple that with the fact that dPI [state goverments] do farm animal inspections and not the RSPCA you would have to wonder why?

We the public are conned into donating funds for RSPCA ban Live Exports and intensive farming rallies?

I wonder if thats the way the Government pay the CEOs wages in the first place? > with the publics donations perhaps?

Who Knows but it puts a whole new meaning to > Be Quiet or you will loose your funding.

Whos kidding Who?

Liz

That Sould have reading whos kidding whom.

When I spoke to the Ministers adviser [three times] to make sure I understood about loosing funding the proticols he explained it was just at certain times.?

It seems that its only if Not For Profitt groups step over the line and do their job at certain times of the year and certainly not before an election.

How dare the RSPCA look after the welfare of animals just before a federal election.

Of Course animal cruelty is not important to the Government who support Amanda Vanstones cruel piggery and hundreds of other Ministers and staff who have direct interests wich is clearly a conflict of interest as they then vote on codes of practise.

After all Packers le Courst Murdoch are all cruel live animal exporting stealing our jobs and blocking farmers off from water to divert to cruel intensive insitutes. They dont have to print the truth so they dont see why the bullying carry right on through the system.

Gee Wiz lucky WE dont count on funding Bernie isnt it.

Every single human has a right to work all day any day they wish to support their Not For Proffit Bernie.

Howard certainly takes advantage of volonteers just look at the games careres and dozens of others.

Hush Hush Bernie but geuess what.
We the people pay for everything and if you want to control N.F.P. organisations then perhaps it should be given back to us in forms of tax deductions so each of us can support > What we want when we want
.
Threats will only get you this reply from real people.
Stick OUR money up your bum. Chum
Support RSPCA and STOP the CRUEL NATIONAL and LIBERAL party.
See you at the polls Bernie or is it Earnie?

Ah Tanya, my sympathy. You are still trying reconcile our lived reality (the defunding of uppity NGO's is established practice) with the rhetoric pumped out by the propaganda arms of the corp-state ('free and open democracy..'). Stop drinking the propaganda kool aid and you'll learn to trust the reality your senses bring you, only then will the workings of plutocracy make any sense. Running around now making quacking noises about a horse that bolted years ago just makes you look silly, better to turn your guns on the government for forcing up oil prices with Iraq & Afghan wars.

Crikey Liam, that's a tad pessimistic isn't it? stop drinking the propaganda kool aid?

Tanya's message is solid - whether or not she has the wherewithal to back up these claims remains to be seen. Perhaps if Labor got into power they would make changes to increase transparency, but then again, it is more likely they won't.

That being said Liam, you can't just assault a message for being too idealistic. If you don't at least have something to shoot for, you won't even try. That's when you're really screwed.

Now I don't think Labor would go about making the system more transparent and honest. Take Beattie for instance - he likes having his face plastered over the media (well, not when it involves dams) but he's actually a pretty secretive fellow.
Take a look at the FOI stats over the past few years and you'll see what I mean.

That being said, while large organisations, be they political parties or corporations or whatever, tend to crowd out the idealistic views of their members, those views are still there.

History is a pendulum and while one day it swings towards a McCarthyist style conservatism, the next swing of the stick brings a change toward leftist pseudo-socialism. Action and reaction I suppose.

I guess what I'm getting at, is don't just take a swipe at idealism because you're too cynical to believe it can work.

I'm something of a cynic myself, but realistically I know that the only hope for change is to embrace what you can.

Yahoo, TurnRightThenLeft...That ...while large organisations, be they political parties or corporations or whatever, tend to crowd out the idealistic views of their members, those views are still there."

Yes, a well put - completely balanced view. I appreciated these words - it is encouragement - wholesale.

I know you can be a "cynic" TurnRightThenLeft... and I guess this makes your critical point - even more valuable.

I agree, ... " realistically I know that the only hope for change is to embrace what you can", it is all we can do.

www.miacat.com

This is what Tanya says, but her fellow travelers in Macquarie Street wouldn't dare to cut funding to any NGO criticizing them?

NGO's need to be able to speak. Many of those they serve do not have the resources or connections to establish appropriately sized and resourced credible lobbies.

Well I am very disappointed.

I asked Tanya a straight question on 18 July and there has been no answer. In fact she hasn’t responded to any posters.

So we still don’t know which sentiments expressed in her article are her own, which are Labor policy, which have general agreement within the party or which are at odds with policy.
.

The lack of follow-up from authors is a real problem, which erodes the quality of the Online Opinion Forum.

It makes me wonder whether many article authors even read the comments. Afterall, these articles are published in newspapers and seem to end up on OLO rather incidentally, at least as far as the authors are concerned.

I think that all authors should be required to read the responses and put in at least one reply and preferably partake in the ensuing debate for as long as it lasts.