Post by Bruce<https://www.kmart.com.au/product/the-president-cleaning-sponge-43450817/>
Then you should have NO PROBLEM using it on your own swamp, right you
gutless, whinging Auztarded trollass?
https://ipa.org.au/ipa-review-articles/who-will-drain-the-canberra-swamp
Worryingly, Australia’s public advocacy machine shows no signs of
abating and has already scored a number of victories this year,
including the announcement in March that the Federal Government would
reinstate more than $50 million in funding for progressive ‘community
groups’. This arrangement is a perversion of the democratic process. In
funding advocacy groups, the government is lobbying itself with our money.
The civil service is supposed to be a neutral instrument of the elected
government, but it’s increasingly adopting a political character of its
own. The government enables this by funding and allowing the bureaucracy
to exert political influence, while excluding the people that elected
them in the first place. To their discontent, the excluded voters are
discovering their representatives are failing to adopt their mainstream
values, preferring the niche positions of the progressive elite. This
betrayal alienates voters from the institutions of democratic
government, further entrenching the insiders. When government only
listens to bureaucracy, it will choose bureaucratic solutions to
problems that are typically created by the bureaucracy in the first place.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ADVOCACY
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is a classic example of a
government agency undertaking political advocacy. Aside from its
conciliation function, one of the AHRC’s primary tasks is to ‘promote an
understanding and acceptance … of human rights in Australia’, to
undertake ‘research and educations programs’, and to ‘develop laws,
policies and programs’ for parliament to introduce.
Political advocacy by the AHRC has always been highly selective. It
argued for the introduction of hate speech laws in the Racial
Discrimination Act in a 1983 report, and again in a 1991 report. It was
a major participant in the inquiry into the Racial Hatred Act 1995,
which introduced section 18C into the Racial Discrimination Act 1975,
and has persistently defended the law in public debate since.
Generally, the view of human rights adopted by the AHRC is based on the
‘social justice’ concept. This justifies greater government intervention
in the public or private sphere, while manifesting itself in other areas
of public debate, such as asylum seeker policy, expanding the definition
of marriage, and increasing the size and scope of the welfare state.
One of the AHRC’s recent forays into public debate was during the
2016-17 parliamentary inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia, which
reported on the appropriateness of section 18C and the operation of the
commission itself. The AHRC had numerous opportunities to explain its
conduct before Senate estimates committees, but it used the freedom of
speech inquiry to present a 90-page submission, appearing twice at
public hearings in Canberra to defend their administration of the law
and the content of that same law the commission itself administers.
This is a total perversion of how parliamentary inquiries should work.
Inquiries are supposed to invite submissions from the public,
introducing direct public input from the community into the legislative
process. Allowing the bureaucracy to participate is both improper and
undemocratic.
IN FUNDING ADVOCACY GROUPS, THE GOVERNMENT IS LOBBYING ITSELF WITH OUR
MONEY.
The freedom of speech inquiry highlighted a broader problem of taxpayer
funded advocacy. In addition to the AHRC, 12 other state and federal
agencies made submissions, with appearances at public hearings by Equal
Opportunity Tasmania, the Victorian Multicultural Commission, Legal Aid
NSW, Legal Aid Queensland and the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination
Commission. All of these bodies made relatively predictable arguments in
defence of the wording and administration of the law.
Aside from these government agencies, a litany of government-funded
community organisations participated in the inquiry. Of the written
submissions, 42 belonged to government-funded groups favouring retention
of section 18C.
This network of taxpayer-funded groups inhabits the murkiest corners of
Australia’s swamp. These publicly funded organisations, researchers and
activists draw substantial amounts of money from the government, usually
in the form of grants. They then spend it on some form of public
service, such as legal aid, and inevitably become advocates. Granting
public monies to erstwhile private bodies blurs the line between public
and private.
Government funding of the non-profit sector is a significant chunk of
the economy. And Australian Bureau of Statistics data has shown a
significant increase in recent decades. In 1999-2000, the government
contributed 30.2 per cent of total non-profit sector revenue. By 2012-13
it had risen to 38 per cent, or around $41 billion in public money.
For example, legal aid service provider Caxton Legal Centre (CLC)
collected $3.1 million in total revenue in 2015-16. Of this, $2.98
million was received from multiple Commonwealth and Queensland
government grants. In September 2015, CLC co-convened an event at
Parliament House in Queensland to ‘consider the benefits of introducing
a Human Rights Act’ in the state. A later parliamentary inquiry into the
issue was announced and the CLC prepared a detailed submission to the
committee. How do these activities relate to the provision of legal aid
services for which it is so generously funded?
THIS NETWORK OF TAXPAYER-FUNDED GROUPS INHABITS THE MURKIEST CORNERS OF
AUSTRALIA’S SWAMP.
Australia’s progressive advocacy network has evolved to include
‘umbrella’ organisations, which are publicly funded like many of the
member organisations they represent. In the free speech inquiry, no
fewer than six government-funded ‘umbrella’ organisations made written
submissions (all in favour of retaining section 18C). One such group was
the Australian Council of Human Rights Authorities, offering a
collective submission for each of the state anti-discrimination
agencies. The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) receives a
core grant from the Commonwealth Department of Social Services (just
under $900,000 in 2015-16), but has members from state social service
groups and numerous national members including the Federation of Ethnic
Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA), which also receives funding
from the Department of Social Services. Meanwhile, FECCA collaborates
with the Australian Human Rights Commission and Victorian Government
agency VicHealth as part of an Australian Research Council initiative
called the Cyber Racism and Community Resilience Research Group, another
progressive group active in the section 18C debate.
This snapshot highlights how publicly funded advocacy organisations
support each other and amplify a progressive voice in the democratic
process. But while anti-discrimination advocacy has been a prominent
recipient of taxpayer funding, other policy areas attract interests
seeking progressive outcomes, including environmental and constitutional
change advocacy.
