Australian charities are avoiding political advocacy and “self-silencing” out of a fear that dissent will attract political retribution, a new report has found.

Published by Pro Bono Australia and the Human Rights Law Centre, the Civil Voices report found that charities and non-government organisations operate in an “insidious” environment where “self-censorship” is rife because of funding agreements, management pressure and the “implied repercussions” of political speech.

One of the report’s co-authors, University of Melbourne associate professor Sarah Maddison, said the findings were “fairly insidious”.

“We’ve moved away from the really overtly hostile period of governance of the civil society sector,” Maddison said. “Instead what we are seeing is that the sector itself has taken on board some of those concerns into a mode of operation that we’re calling self-silencing.

“Our once vocal, sometimes strident, advocacy sector, bringing the voice and the experience of Australia’s most marginalised communities to the fore and helping government make better policy, has been effectively silenced both by governments and now by itself.”



The report surveyed 1,400 people in the charity sector, and found 65% of state-based NGOs feel restricted in what they can say publicly by funding agreements, compared to 42% of national organisations.

As well, 69% of organisations believe organisations that dissent from the government risk having their funding cut, and 53% believe NGOs are pressured to amend public statements to be in line with government policy.

While some charities are limited in their advocacy by explicit funding agreements, Maddison said the responses showed “public debate is further limited through self-censorship because of implied repercussions stemming from fears of government funding cuts or loss of DGR status”.

Responses revealed groups were “erring on the side of caution” when it came to advocacy, with some organisations indicating they were, for example, “a benign organisation and not politically active” or suggesting they are “not into lobbying in potentially controversial areas”.

Twelve per cent of those surveyed reported feeling internal pressure from either charity boards or management not to engage in political advocacy.

The report comes as charities gear up to fight what they see as government attempts to limit their ability to advocate.

Last week the federal government introduced legislation to parliament that would ban or limit the use of donations from overseas for advocacy in Australia, and an Treasury inquiry is seeking to limit how much advocacy environmental groups and other charities can engage in.

That followed a parliamentary report into the 2016 federal election, which called for a ban on foreign donations not just to political parties and “associated entities” but also to “third parties”, which could include any organisation or charity that advocates changes to policy in Australia.

Treasury has also suggested environmental groups should be forced to spend up to half their money on “remediation” rather than campaigning.

Emily Howie, a director of legal advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, said the Civil Voices report demonstrated the extent to which government action was undermining debate and democracy in Australia.

“Community organisations have enormous expertise to contribute, drawn from the work they do, whether it’s running a homeless shelter or protecting the environment,” she said.

“When you sideline the not-for-profit sector from public discussion, you silence the voices of the most marginalised people, undermine policy making and, ultimately, diminish our democracy.”

Howie said the new law could have “absurd consequences”.

“Unfortunately, this announcement is consistent with a broader, undemocratic trend of government attempting to silence the not-for-profit sector, through gags in funding agreements and threats to hamstring advocacy groups’ ability to fundraise,” she said.

“All governments find criticism of them inconvenient or uncomfortable, but that’s part and parcel of a good democracy.”