430 million reasons why the social sector needs to ‘up its game’ with federal Parliament
Over $430 million was donated to political parties last financial year and, for good or for bad, not one of these dollars came from the social purpose sector. Given that most donors expect something in return for their donation, this means it will be increasingly challenging for the social purpose sector to get cut through on their advocacy and engagement issues in the years ahead.
While news stories cover the big donors, what is most interesting to examine in regard to advocacy for social purpose is looking at the particular sectors who have donated the most money, and their subsequent impact on advocacy.
Donation numbers would suggest that the environmental movement will have a tough time getting its message through this year, as over $85 million has been spent by mining, minerals and energy – far surpassing every other industry.
Health campaigners and promotions will struggle against the almost $2 million investment from pharmaceutical and medical, and against the $5 million in political donations invested by alcohol, clubs and gambling. Big pharma then adds another $2 million to this list in the health space.
Finally, when you round out the list with financial services (over $2 million), the big four banks (over $1 million) and add in a dash of guns and weapons (over $200k) and tobacco ($24k), you begin to get an idea of who and what the sector is up against.
This has substantial implications for the social purpose sector. How do you campaign to a politician who has just benefitted from thousands (or millions) from a particular industry? How can you secure change on gambling, alcohol or clubs legislation when these organisations are pumping millions into the pockets of decision makers?
More and more we are seeing not-for-profit and social purpose organisations go for broke in their government engagement – increasing pressure to achieve outcomes for funders. But is the implementation of tighter regulations around using government money for advocacy (gag clauses) and the fact that the not-for-profit sector cannot currently match the depth of skills, networks or relationships of commercial Australia and its lobbyists creating a perfect storm in 2020?
We know from experience that strong, intense, focused advocacy can have substantial effect in Australia. Imagine if the social purpose sector had raised their voices in support of the mineral resources rent tax as loudly as the mining companies and Minerals Council who opposed it did? What could the resulting $24 billion have delivered if spent on social welfare, justice, employment, education and healthcare instead of going to the shareholders of mining companies? While we will never know the answer to that question now, we can all see that money and lobbying is playing a larger and larger role in politics, requiring us as a sector to be smarter about how we campaign.
Read: the full article at Pro Bono News
Disability Employment Australia sources and promotes articles and information that we deem relevant and interesting for our members. The views represented in the news items are the authors and not necessarily that of Disability Employment Australia. Disability Employment Australia claims no authorship or ownership over the articles and does not gain financially from their promotion.