Ignored NFP bill deserves our attention

Despite its sexy ‘bear pit’ moniker, few would argue that much of what happens in NSW Parliament is decidedly unfashionable, and ignored by the majority. Didn’t catch debate on the Impounding Amendment (Unattended Boat Trailers) Bill 2015 earlier this week? Thought not.

The legislature’s private members bills, we suggest, exist squarely within this vacuum. But one that made its way into Hansard in recent weeks has certainly piqued our attention.

Tales from The Lost World of private members bills…

On June 26 2015, Shadow Attorney-General Paul Lynch introduced the Non-Profit Bodies (Freedom to Advocate) Bill. As its straight shooting title suggests, the bill would ensure state funding agreements with not for profit bodies cannot include clauses restricting the recipient from advocating on law and policy issues. It bears a very strong resemblance to a Federal Government Act from 2013, covering Commonwealth-Not For Profit funding agreements. We endorsed that measure as “very good for the quality of our democracy”, for reasons also captured in Lynch’s second reading speech on the NSW Bill:

“A strong, innovative, independent not-for-profit sector is essential to getting government policy right and building a fairer community.”

More particularly, as the resourcing body for Tenants’ Advice and Advocacy Services in New South Wales, the Tenants’ Union exists in symbiosis with those front line organisations. Those are very much the kind of services whose work the bill intends to protect. And their capacity to engage in systemic advocacy can undoubtedly complement and enhance our own. Indeed, many TAAS services have played an active role in the discourse surrounding the Residential Tenancies and Housing Legislation Amendment(Public Housing - Antisocial Behaviour) Bill 2015 - providing submissions, explaining the impact of the proposed reform to Members of Parliament, and liaising with colleagues elsewhere in the community sector. The ongoing More Bang for Your Bond campaign – a joint initiative of the TU and tenants’ services – is another fine example of the work we do together.

Regrettably, the Bill met an untimely fate in the Legislative Assembly. In outlining the Government’s opposition to the Bill, Attorney General Gabrielle Upton described it as predicated on a “false and misleading” premise. The Attorney General further opined:

“We are notional trustees for [funding] dollars, and that responsibility means that they must go to the areas of greatest need where they can make the greatest difference to the lives of the people in our community…Those principles specifically seek to ensure limited funds for public legal assistance are directed towards legal representation, casework, and advice for disadvantaged and vulnerable people.” 

But this is, in our network’s experience, a false dichotomy. Our systemic advocacy work is always informed by the experiences of renters as revealed through advice, casework, and representation. Moreover, we see campaigning for improved laws and policies affecting renters, and engaging in client work to ensure best outcomes under the current regime, as pursuits of the same end – in the Attorney General’s words, ‘making the greatest difference to the lives of the people in our community.’ This is only possible through both systemic and client advocacy. Not to mention the quality of the investment. As the ALP’s Jo Haylen noted in the same debate, not-for-profits 

“provide critical services to our most vulnerable across every sector in the community…According to the Australian Bureau of statistics they contribute $43 billion to Australia’s gross domestic product and engage more than 4.6 million volunteers each year.”

Nonetheless, it follows that a legislated freedom to advocate is likely not to come to be for our sector in this 56th Parliament - the Bill banished to footnote status in its history.

But we continue to support its content as vital to ensuring maximum effectiveness for the tenancy network, and indeed the state's non-profit sector as a whole. 

Support Ending HIV. Support the HIV/AIDS Legal Centre

The TU supports the Ending HIV campaign resourced by ACON.

Please visit the campaign site and join in the social media promotion of the cause.

We also support our colleagues at the HIV/AIDS Legal Centre, which is currently fundraising.

As HALC supporter Michael Kirby observes,

One of the least appreciated downsides of HIV/AIDS is that it can cause serious legal problems for the people involved. This is why, from the start, I have supported HALC. I still do. It helps some of the most vulnerable members of the community.

Please consider helping out at HALC's crowdfunding page.

Cuts to community legal centres

The Federal Government announced yesterday that the Community Legal Services Program (CLSP), which funds community legal centres (including the Tenants' Union of NSW), will be cut by almost $20 million over the next four year years.

Funding to other legal assistance services, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and the Legal Aid Commissions run by State and Territory Governments, is also being cut.

Amongst the CLCs, the EDOs and New South Wales's Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) are singled out for particular cuts: none of these services will receive CLSP funding beyond June next year.

As an exercise in government cost-cutting, this does not make a lot of sense.

The essential work of CLCs is to solve legal problems – problems that would otherwise cause greater cost, to the individuals affected and to the administration of justice.

So, for example, when we're giving advice to tenants who are having a problem getting repairs done, part of the advice is: 'keep paying your rent'.   

This is to keep a repairs problem from also becoming an arrears problem – and, possibly, a tenancy termination problem, and a moving-out-fast/finding-accommodation/risk-of-homelessness/actual-homelessness problem. 

Landlords and governments may be surprised at how often CLCs prevent problems from ending up before the Tribunal, and before the counters of Housing NSW offices.

We know firsthand the value of the work of the EDO NSW and PIAC. 

During the drafting of Shelter NSW's Shelter Brief on 'Heritage and Social Housing: implications for repairs, maintenance, modifications and redevelopments', the EDO was an invaluable source of advice on the law. Heritage protection in New South Wales is largely effected through planning law, and as contentious as planning law is, everyone agrees that it's complicated – bloody complicated! 

Citizens who grapple with this area of the law without expert guidance such as that provided by the EDO can easily make mistakes that are costly for themselves personally, and for the courts that administer proceedings. 

PIAC's work ranges across different areas of the law. In relation to housing, it operates the Homeless Persons Legal Service, which solves legal problems for homeless persons individually – quite often the problems that make them homeless – and helps put the experiences of homeless persons across to government agencies, such as Centrelink and Housing NSW, to improve their service provision.

Without PIAC, the EDOs, and other CLCs, this work would not get done, and these problems would not get solved, to greater cost to vulnerable persons and the whole of the community.

Not-for-profit Sector Freedom to Advocate Bill

You wouldn't know about it from the media, but last week the Federal Parliament did something good – in fact, very good, for the quality of our democracy.

The Not-for-profit Sector Freedom to Advocate Bill 2013 was debated in the House of Representatives, where it was supported by both the Government and the Opposition. The Bill originated in the Senate, where it also received support across the chamber.

When passed the Bill will prohibit Commonwealth agencies from including in agreements with not-for-profits terms that prevent them from 'commenting on, advocating support for or opposing a change to any matter established by law, policy or practice of the Commonwealth' (cl 5). It will also void any such terms in existing agreements.

This is an excellent reform and Federal MPs should be proud of it. The NSW State Government should introduce it in relation to State agencies and not-for-profits, including community legal centres.

NSW State Govt axes Welfare Rights Centre funding

The NSW Welfare Rights Centre is a community legal centre that helps people deal with the social security system. If Centrelink thinks you've done something wrong – or you think Centrelink's done something wrong – you ring Welfare Rights.

For decades Welfare Rights has been funded jointly by the Commonwealth Government and the NSW State Government. Now the NSW State Government has cut its contribution. The NSW Family and Community Services Minister, Pru Goward, says funding this sort of service is the Commonwealth's job, not the NSW State Government's. Five frontline staff will have to go.

Social security payments come from the Commonwealth; they go to citizens of New South Wales. New South Wales citizens spend their payments on goods and services at New South Wales businesses. They pay rents to New South Wales landlords – in many cases, to Minister Goward's own Housing NSW. They pay for kids' uniforms and excursions in New South Wales schools.

The NSW State Govt should fund the services provided by Welfare Rights to New South Wales citizens, because they're New South Wales citizens. But aside from that, it makes good sense to fund these services, to help make sure those payments keep going to New South Wales businesses, schools, landlords – and the NSW Government. 

We're asking the NSW State Government to rethink. You can too, by contacting Minister Goward and your local State MP.

[UPDATE 22/4: And on Friday 3 May, you can voice your concern in person at the 'Save Welfare Rights' emergency rally, at 12.30 outside the NSW State Ministerial offices in Governor Macquarie Tower.]

New guideline catches CLCs' law reform work

The NSW State Government has indicated that it will implement new guidelines for the State's 40 community legal centres – of which the Tenants' Union is one. The main thrust of the guidelines is about getting legal services to disadvantaged and vulnerable people – which is a big part of what we're all about.

But one of the proposed guidelines is a real worry. It says:

Funding [to CLCs] may not be used for lobbying activities, public campaigning and providing legal advice to activists and lobby groups.

It's a worry becauses CLCs engage in activities that may be said to answer each of these descriptions – and always for the benefit of our clients and the wider public interest. But the guildeline would restrict against it.

For example, the Tenants' Union engages in discussions with members of the State Government, other Members of State Parliament, government officers and industry stakeholders on matters affecting tenants, marginal renters and residents of residential parks. We do so with the purpose of reforming tenancy law and policy for the benefit of our clients and constituents, and we understand from feedback from senior members and officers of the State Government that this assists in the development of good law, policy and practice. But isn't this 'lobbying'?

We also take our proposals for policy and law reform into public forums. A recent example is our work drawing public attention to the need for boarding house sector reform – reform that the O'Farrell Government has enacted and is now in the process of implementing. But isn't this 'public campaigning'?

Finally, in the course of responding to requests from tenants for advice, we from time to time respond to requests from tenants who identify themselves as 'activists'. In all events our advice is objective and directed to resolving the tenant's present problems effectively, efficiently and within the law. Sometimes it is to discourage unlawful activities, or inefficient or ineffective legal proceedings. But isn't this still 'providing legal advice to activists'?

Each of these types of activities is a valuable service to our clients and constituents, to the State Government and to the wider community. But the guideline proscribing 'lobbying activities, public campaigning and providing legal advice to activists' will cause us to reconsider undertaking these activities.

This would cause very substantial practical problems for us: for example, at what point does the making of a submission on law reform become lobbying or campaign, and how do we weed out 'activists' from all the tenants who seek our legal advice? It would also cause a substantial detriment to our clients and constitutents, by reducing the representation of their interests in policy and law reform processes, and to the State Government and the community generally.

If you're worried too, please let the Premier, the Attorney-General, and your local MP know about it.