The tension of being government funded in a world reliant on advocacy
Not-for-profits can advocate with confidence while maintaining trusted government partnerships.
By Neil Pharaoh
News organisations have been struggling with a broken financial model since the advent of the internet dried up the “rivers of gold”, otherwise known as classified advertising.
Part of the debate around a new model that would work – and the contribution to be made by tech giants like Google and Facebook who benefit from the content produced in newsrooms – is the conflict with government funding.
While the ABC is of course government funded, there are protections put in place to ensure that taking government money does not create a tension with the role of journalism in holding the government to account.
For many non-profit organisations, government is not simply a partner but the dominant — sometimes sole — revenue source.
Boards and executives understandably worry that speaking up may jeopardise financial stability, particularly where funding agreements are tightly specified or perceived to be fragile. Even when advocacy is lawful, evidence-based and clearly aligned with the public interest, fear of repercussions can prevail.
The consequence is quiet self-censorship. Civil society insight is withheld at precisely the moments when it is most valuable — during policy design, reform and implementation — especially in areas where service pressure is a direct result of upstream government decisions.
At the same time, there is growing recognition that systemic change cannot be led by any single organisation. Australia’s federated system of government makes this both more complex and more necessary. Federal, state and local responsibilities intersect in ways that demand coordination, shared evidence and collective voice. While this structure can fragment advocacy effort and diffuse accountability the good news is it also creates multiple points of influence for organisations that understand how to navigate it.
Effective advocacy increasingly depends on collaboration across organisations, jurisdictions and roles, not isolated campaigns or singular leadership. This requires maturity, clarity of role, discipline of method and confidence in engagement.
Importantly, the widespread diagnosis that “the system is under strain” has opened space for more constructive conversations. Across recent philanthropic adviser discussions and sector consultations conducted by Tanck, a consistent theme has emerged: organisations want clearer guidance on how to engage government safely, strategically and credibly.
As one adviser observed, not-for-profits are often “heavily reliant on government funding and fear advocacy may hinder it — but the right tools and frameworks could open informed, safe conversations at board level about what’s possible.”
This is both a cultural and structural barrier and a significant opportunity.
Taken together, these dynamics point to a sector that is constrained. The barriers to voice are real, but they are increasingly being named and interrogated. This moment presents an opportunity to reframe advocacy not as a risk to be managed, but as a democratic responsibility to be exercised well.
Reclaiming influence will require stronger governance-level conversations, clearer role definition within federated systems, and greater confidence that advocacy, when done properly, strengthens rather than undermines the institutions on which the sector depends.
This article was written as part of the development of Tanck's 2026 whitepaper together with Perpetual Wealth.
Tanck offers advisory services in government engagement, advocacy, stakeholder strategy, and communications.
We share our political expertise and government experience so you can achieve your funding and policy goals.
