In Canada, there is now the Round Table of the Voluntary Sector, as I've already mentioned, which enables the sector to come together, discuss issues of common interest and concern, and negotiate with government. The Treasurer and Minister for Finance both work with the Round Table. The major political parties have agreed to develop policy in conjunction with the Round Table, which has been funded by government to the tone of $92m over four years, to conduct consultation throughout the community on policy issues, and to facilitate a dialogue between not for profits and the government.
Despite this huge financial commitment by government to the Round Table, most of the not for profits represented don't have enough money to run their own core services―a familiar problem world-wide. Whether this is the best use of money remains to be seen. It is also a very different role for most of the not for profits involved. Conducting national consultations on behalf of government, is a very different role to service delivery, and some might argue, not an appropriate task to be taking on. But in the end, as one senior not for profit activist in Canada said to me, "you either get in there and try to have some influence, or you don't." The progress of the Canadian Round Table will be of interest to us all.
The UK/Canadian models are not perfect, but they prove that co-operation can happen and mutual interests can be met.
Future Challenges and Strategies
In Australia, as elsewhere, we have yet to engage in the debate about how the not for profit sector takes its place at the table of policy formation and nation building. There are many questions to be answered along the road of building a sectoral voice. Who are the representatives going to be? How will they be selected? How do we ensure their accountability? How do we ensure that tiny, unstructured organisations have a place beside the large, almost corporate style organisations? How do we manage often diametrically opposed groups, in terms of ideology and purpose? How do we manage the direct competition between groups―for funds, for clients, for types of services?
These are large questions, but not insurmountable. They are dealt with by other peak bodies. Business councils, for example, manage to represent big business and small business, businesses in different sectors of the economy, as well as direct competitors in like sectors. In the end they identify the issues that all business has in common and they present to government in a united voice. The not for profit sector should be able to do the same.
There are many issues of common interest to not for profits, despite their huge diversity―issues such as how to ensure that core costs are met on an ongoing basis, how taxation policy should incorporate their needs and those of the broader community interest, employment practices, etc. The latter is particularly pertinent point for further discussion. The not for profit sector is consistently under-funded, it is constantly asked by government and by communities to do more and more. People who work in the sector are burnt out and often "discarded;" while others take their place only to go through the same cycle. Somewhere along the line, the sector has to come together to find strategies collectively to change these wasteful and destructive patterns. When issues are presented to government in a united voice, rather than in several thousand small voices, they are much harder to ignore.
