Rudd is removing so called gag clauses in contracts for non-profit organisations bidding for govt funds. This is apparently going to help freedom of speech which was so eroded during the Howard years, or so they would have us believe.
In reality this is a difference that makes no difference. There is always a way to shut up a charity: stop giving them charity. There is no law to say we have to donate, so ultimately the person with the money (Rudd in this case) has the power.
The clauses in the contract merely stipulate that penalties will be incurred during the course of the contract, not at it's end. If a charity is attacking govt policies then the government, whether Howard's or Rudd's, can, and presumably will, simply not renew the contract when it runs out. (I am assuming here that Rudd will apply the same principle to charities as he did with civil servants during his time in QLD: put them in the dog house). All this clause does is bring the inevitable consequences of biting the hand that feeds forward, so that we dont have to wait for the contract to run it's coarse before giving it to someone else.
Removing these clauses is nothing but a gesture that will not free anyone up to say anything they otherwise would not have said. Rudd still had the money and is merciless with dissenters.
In the clause's defense, it is not an attack on freedom of speech, it's an attack on hypocrisy necessitated in a climate of moral manipulation in the media. Most not-for-profit organisations will be creatures of the left (they are not-for-profit after all). They would have been much more likely to attack a conservative government than a socialist one (dispite Rudd's noises we know his govt is of the latter persuasion). Howard could have stopped given to charities all together, but he's a nice guy, so instead he gave them the money they wanted and asked them nicely not to return the favour by bad-mouthing him in the press.
Paradoxically, these "gag clauses" actually increase freedom of speech because the power relationship between the donator and the beneficiary of charity is written down and exposed for all to see. The Right are much more transparent in these regards because they can admit to themselves, and others, that power relationships actually exist. Socialists like Rudd on the other hand always claim to be wielding power on behalf of some oppressed minority. They like to pretend it's not really power at all, but moral authority invested in them to dispense summary justice. 'Right is Might', you might say.
By contrast a conservative admits there is dissent. We do not pretend it's just confusion. We do not assume re-education will bring opponents on the the 'right' path. We do however reserve the right openly and honestly to dissagree, and if we have the power, to do otherwise without apology. A conservative listens to the arguments and decides. Socialists force people into a false unanimity and only then have the courage to act.
No removal of a puny punitive clause can convince me that Rudd is the friend of free speech, or that Howard was its enemy. We all know Howard's huge contribution to freedom of speech was cultural not legal. He lifted Australians out of their haze of self-censorship. We now say what we think without checking to see if our mates, or the media, approve of it first.
Well, more often anyway.
