|
Meera Atkinson Australia has undergone radical social and economic change since the near-socialist days of the Whitlam government. Over the last decade in particular, people involved with community groups have begun conversations about their mutual struggles and dissatisfactions.
A few years back these conversations morphed into a serious consideration of how to go about addressing an entrenched lack of recognition of the non-government sector. A plan to hold a formal discussion was hatched. The theme was a big question that everyone had their own answer for: what kind of Australia do we want? Involving many groups represented by scores of delegates, the National Civil Society Dialogue is sponsored by four national organisations: the National Council of Churches in Australia (NCCA), the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). The first meeting, opened by former Governor-General Sir William Deane, took place in 2006. The second, held this year, tackled our “big issues” including topics such as what a fair, equal and reconciled Australia might look like; what might ensure fair wages, working conditions and economic well-being for Australians; fair and equitable communities; and Australia’s climate future. Organisers hope the dialogue will become an annual event. John Henderson, general secretary of the NCCA, has been at the forefront of the dialogues, which he says were developed as a way of responding to the dominance of the government and business sectors and the marginalisation of the so-called “third sector” — otherwise known as non-government organisations (NGO’s) or the community sector. “A lot of things are causing the NGO group to fracture rather than bringing it together,” John says. This includes funding policies and the way community groups are funded if they do receive government funds, “as well as the de-funding of advocacy groups and the move towards funding smaller groups rather than national groups. “That led to conversations of how we could have a common voice and look out for each other’s interests,” explains John. Sharan Burrows, president of ACTU, points out that the dialogue is not so much about ensuring the wellbeing of the groups involved as the wellbeing of the nation. “We’re seeing the gap between rich and poor, the uncertainty for working people with both job security and income security; we’re concerned about our young people and their opportunities for the future. Indigenous rights remain unfinished business and of course the indicators for Indigenous Australians are much worse than the mainstream,” she says. “You put these kinds of issues together and we thought it was time that the central groups came together to talk about where our policy priorities were and where our ambitions for a decent Australia overlap.” The dialogue is apolitical, a particularly important stance in an election year. Nevertheless the policies of government are very much under the microscope. Critical to the aims of the dialogue is a long hard look at the effects of economic rationalism and liberalism on Australian politics and society. “This is about the voice of Australian citizens through their civil society organisations and it’s about having governments listen to the concerns of people between the formal electoral process,” says Sharan. The dialogue is not all about the big-picture. It also wrangles with some very specific issues. For example, the second dialogue took place the week of the government’s announcement about its interventions in the Northern Territory. John says the interventions promptly became a prime topic of conversation and meetings were interrupted to support Indigenous leaders who had come down from the Northern Territory. “At one stage all the participants went up to Parliament House for a press conference where we stood behind the Indigenous leaders and said this is part of civil society, we ask you to listen to them,” says John. John also points out that the NCCA — which is the peak body for all mainstream Christian churches in Australia — occupies a unique place in this endeavour. “These groups all have disparaging interests,” John says. “A lot of them are single interest groups and this is where the churches differ. We have a broad range of interests. We can be honest brokers in the situation.” Another important part of the dialogues is the building of networks and understanding between the different players in the community sector. The crucial thing, as Sharan puts it, is that all the players, big and small, “share not just a set of values but a set of values and ambitions about the sort of future for Australia that we’d like for our children and our grandchildren.” These organisations oppose the division and alienation that economic and social injustice creates. To that end they have initiated a process to strengthen their voice against that division and alienation. The delegates of the National Civil Society Dialogue see it as their duty to call on political representatives to protect vital democratic processes and seek inclusive solutions that benefit all Australians. Their intention, in the immediate future, is to engage the different levels of Australian Government in this process through the Council of Australian Governments network. The long-term aim is that society at large recognises NGOs as a legitimate sector, and a sector that has a right to be involved in policy formation. “The goal is to get a unified voice for this sector so that when policy is formed it’s not just government and business, but government, business and community,” says John. “The conversation is just beginning.”
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
