[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ruby Jones. This is 7am.

In Australia the not for profit sector employs over a million people, and it’s growing.

Much of this growth is driven by NGOs accepting enormous government grants to deliver essential services to our most vulnerable.

But these grants come with strict contractual obligations - which effectively prevent organisations from holding government agencies to account.

Today, contributor to The Monthly, Russell Marks on how charities are becoming complicit in their own silencing.

It’s Tuesday November 2.

[Theme Music Ends]

RUBY:

Russell, could you start by telling me a bit about why you wanted to investigate what’s happening in Australia’s not-for-profit sector?

RUSSELL:

Yeah, sure. So I've been working on and off in the sector for more than a decade now, and there seem to be two main ways that the not for profit sector gets talked about in Australia. So one narrative comes directly from the sector's executive leadership, which regularly tells a story. And it's certainly not an untrue story about how hostile governments are and how they're constantly under threat of funding cuts and attempts to silence them and to prevent them from advocating for change.

There's another narrative which seems to come from the political right in Australia, which tends to see the not for profit sector as kind of made up of self-interested rent seekers.

But my experience and the experience of a lot of people that I've spoken to over the years and particularly for this story, suggests that there's another story which rarely becomes part of the public conversation.

Frontline staff regularly talk amongst themselves about significant levels of dysfunction in their own organisations and about how often they effectively silence themselves by agreeing to funding contracts, which very much compromise the organisation's ability to advocate on behalf of their voiceless clients.

RUBY:

Mmm OK. And can you tell me a bit more about the work that you did in the sector, and what you saw first hand how organisations were making compromises that impact the people they’re supposed to represent?

RUSSELL:

Sure. So I've worked for four not profit legal services in different parts of Australia. All of them have grown significantly in size and scope, which sounds great. It means that they're helping more and more people. But in reality, a lot of it is about or seems to be about growth for its own sake. Often with adverse consequences for clients.

So one legal service that I worked for, for instance, provided legal advice to people who don't speak English as a first language. That's a worthy cause. But the advice was all given in 45 minute clinics, during which the client would explain their legal problem. And then we'd need to go and research and provide verbal advice all within the 45 minutes. We never wrote anything down for the clients, and it was often weeks before the client's court dates. I doubted after a little while whether any of the advice that we ever provided was very useful to the clients, but as lawyers, we felt run off our feet.

Now this seems largely a problem with what's called the service agreement. And essentially it's a contract between a service provider. So a non-government organisation on the one hand and a government or a government department on the other. The contract, which has organisations agreeing to do certain things in exchange for funding dollars. And so suddenly, instead of doing the kind of advocacy work that's so fundamentally important to a functioning civil society, not for profit organisations are frequently signing up to service agreements, which effectively mean that they're doing the government's bidding.

RUBY:

And is this something that is happening across the board? Is it a common story among different kinds of not-for-profit agencies and charities?

RUSSELL:

You could probably fill a book with all the stories, everyone, everyone who I've ever spoken to, everyone who I've ever met. Every place I've ever worked at seems to have a variation of this. This kind of story either are a small or a big story. Quite often a big story. And often people are telling me that they can't believe that it hasn't hit the news yet.

So often people end up in a state of little mini despair, whether they go around in circles trying to figure out what to do about a particular problem, and then they eventually leave and then discover the same problem somewhere else.

RUBY:

Mmm. And so this problem that you’re describing - this situation where organisations act in the government’s interests, not in the interests of their clients - to what extent is this all caused by these agreements that have been entered into with government agencies? Is that the thing that is tying their hands?

RUSSELL:

Yeah. And it's a good question, and it's hard to know the extent of the problem.

One big reason behind this problem appears to be that 50 per cent of the income for the non-government sector comes from government departments. It's possible that many, and I should stress not all organisations are essentially compromising their ability to advocate for change by accepting this money.

There's been a long standing fear among the NGO sector that if they speak out, they perceive that they're at risk of losing their contracts and it's not a fantasy.

Archival tape -- Save The Children worker:

“Most of us had worked in Statutory child protection before we came to Nauru so it was very frustrating that we could not do or make recommendations even though we were highly trained.”

RUSSELL:

And the big story here, the big example is Save The Children's experience, Save the Children signed a $36 million contract with the Gillard government to provide services to asylum seekers.

But then the Abbott government wanted Save The Children to agree to what it called a communication protocol, which would have gagged from speaking out about conditions on the island and also wanted to halve its funding.

Archival tape -- Scott Morrison:

“The government must have confidence that service providers act with professionalism in accordance with their contractual obligations. They are employed to do a job, not to be political activists.”

RUSSELL:

Save the Children refused those demands.

Archival tape -- Acting Save The Children CEO Tinkler on an ABC radio interview:

“It's documented that self-harm has occurred, including children sewing their lips together. This has not occurred as a result of any coaching or fabrication. The reason this has occurred is because kids are in detention.”

RUSSELL:

Then its CEO, fronted a press conference in defence of his staff, who had been falsely accused of coaching asylum seekers to fabricate claims of abuse.

Archival tape -- Reporter:

“Are you worried you'll lose the contract?”

Archival tape -- Acting Save The Children CEO Tinkler on an ABC radio interview:

“Look, obviously these issues instead of degree of tension into the relationship, but Save the Children as a part it in many parts of the world in difficult circumstances amidst conflict, amidst policies we disagree with. So we'll keep putting the interests of children first.”

RUSSELL:

Ultimately Save the children's contract was not renewed.

RUBY:

We’ll be back in a moment.

[Advertisement]

RUBY:

Russell, we’re talking about the role of charities and not-for-profits in Australia. It seems like their fundamental role - advocating for clients - is under threat. In some cases - like with Save the Children - speaking out can lead to organisations losing contracts with government agencies. So it seems like the process of even engaging in these contracts is the problem - so when did government agencies tendering out to not-for-profits in this way.

RUSSELL:

So it's hard to know for sure. But competitive tendering as an idea really came out of the competition reforms of the 1990s, which was also a time when government departments really began to adopt the principles of what's now referred to as the new public management. The idea that government departments should be steering the boat instead of rowing it.

Archival tape -- John Howard:

“We will invest a further $60 million over four years in the non-government organisations treatment grants program..”

RUSSELL:

The Howard government was very big on this idea, very much attracted to the idea, particularly when it came to the work of non-government providers.

Archival tape -- John Howard:

“The foundation of the delivery of all of our aspirations in these important social welfare and human services area is a strong and growing economy. If you don’t start with that you can’t even get to the top of the hill.”

RUSSELL:

But really, all governments now have drunk the Kool-Aid.

Concerns were raised during the 1990s, when competitive tendering began to be applied to the the non-government or charity sector, concerns about governments contracting out risk, contracting out lines of accountability. Those lines were being blurred.

Some non-government organisations were promising to deliver services at well below what they should safely cost. All of these problems have been known for a very long time, but nonetheless, more than two decades later, competitive tendering is now rife.

These organisations are competing with each other in a space where the consequences are real for a lot of people. People experiencing homelessness. People experiencing domestic violence. People experiencing poverty. Children experiencing abuse.

The consequences of a lot of the service agreements that organisations are signing with government made that mean that the people who need help from these services are essentially being betrayed by them.

RUBY:

So Russell, when you think about the way that this is all panning out, where do you think culpability lies? Is it with the people who are at the top of these charities, the CEOs, the executive managers, the board members, because surely they're the ones that, you know, sign these agreements and have a say in the direction that these organisations are heading?

RUSSELL:

So, we've arrived at a kind of problem where there's a lot of recognition on the front line that these problems are endemic, but often it seems to the people on the front line that a lot of these problems aren't being discussed higher up the organisations.

One worker on the frontline told me that they don't know how their executive leaders would even know about many of the problems and concerns that they experience at the front lines. There's a team leader and a programme manager and an area manager and various other levels of management before you get to the executive levels of the organisation.

So unless organisations are structuring themselves, to ensure that there are really good flows of information coming from the front lines and are ensuring that people who work on the front lines are not afraid to report bad things that are going on or to report concerns about conflicts of interest or any other concerns that they may have. You kind of get a situation where a not for profit organisation starts to look a lot like their for-profit cousins.

RUBY:

Does it seem to you like there is much hope of things changing? How did people who work in these organisations speak about it?

RUSSELL:

I guess it feels on the front lines that if people were to speak in a way out of turn on some of these issues, they would be whistleblowers. And we know that there's a lot of cost to whistleblowing.

Often, I've spoken to people who have raised particular concerns with their immediate managers. Sometimes those concerns are being addressed. At other times they're being told, Look, we're going to prioritise our service agreement with the government rather than address these concerns about a conflict of interest which are affecting our clients.

People are worried about their jobs, but people are also worried if they speak out that there may be consequences for the organisation at a whole. They're worried about their clients who are getting support. They're no doubt getting some help from these organisations and often quite a lot of it. If the worst case happened and the organisation was defunded, for instance, as a result of someone speaking out and criticising their organisation, I imagine that would be a very difficult thing to live with.

RUBY:

Russell thanks so much for your time.

RUSSELL:

Thanks, Ruby.

[Advertisement]

RUBY:

Also in the news today…

Archival tape -- French President Emmanuelle Macron:

“So I had a very direct discussion with Prime Minister Morrison about this issue.

I do respect sovereign choices, but you have to respect allies and partners. And it was not the case with this deal. And I think this is detrimental to the reputation of your country and your Prime Minister.”

RUBY:

French President Emmanuelle Macron has accused Prime Minister Scott Morrison of lying to him about the $90 billion submarine deal with France that Australia terminated last month.

Archival tape -- Reporter:

“Do you think he lied to you?”

Archival tape -- French President Emmanuelle Macron:

“I don't think, I know.”

RUBY:

In response to Macron’s comments, made at the G20 summit in Rome, Morrison denied that he lied to the French President.

Archival tape -- Reporter:

“He says he doesn't think he lied to him. He knows you lied to him.”

Archival tape -- Scott Morrison:

“I don't agree with that.”

RUBY:

And, at the summit G20 leaders endorsed a global corporate tax deal that will see a minimum 15 percent tax on corporations, including internet giants like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple.

The new tax rule will come into effect in 2023.

I’m Ruby Jones, this is 7am. See ya tomorrow.