Philanthropy in Australia is at a crossroads. The resignation of Sydney Writers’ Festival chair and major donor Kathy Shand over aspects of its politicised agenda is a case in point. Private donors who fund up to half a million dollars every year are considering following suit in protest at the divisive nature of the event.
The festival, according to an anonymous donor quoted in The Australian Financial Review, should primarily be “about inspiring curiosity, a love of reading and an exchange of ideas” but it has increasingly been pressured by some directors and staff keen to emphasise “polarising topics”, especially those related to Israel.
This polarisation is endemic across the sector, and the politicisation of philanthropy has led to donors realising that their gifts are being hijacked to publicise causes they do not agree with. It’s particularly distressing that the Jewish community is facing hate in the very cultural arts they fund.
Philanthropy can be a force for incredible good, but increasingly, philanthropic support for arts and culture in Australia has been the vehicle for political activism, personal feuds and exhibitionism. Too many recipients of the voluntary donations of private donors have forgotten that the money they receive is not for them to do with as they please.
Artists accepting either private philanthropy or taxpayer-funded government grants have become so accustomed to using other people’s money to engage in their own ideological frolics, that when they receive the slightest sign of pushback from donors, they shout “don’t mess with my creative integrity”. This has become particularly noticeable following October 7, 2023.
The Australians who funded the No campaign at the Indigenous Voice to parliament referendum gave just 20 per cent of the $60 million that was given to the Yes campaign largely by foundations and corporates. While they were named, they were quite rightly not shamed for putting their funds where their beliefs lie.
But when philanthropists similarly exercise their choice to not fund arts organisations like the Sydney Writers’ Festival or the Sydney Theatre Company and a litany of others, there is an outcry about artistic freedom. These bodies need to recognise that their political posturing is hurting philanthropy and causing donors, so vital to their work, to disengage. This, in turn damages the sector as a whole. Donors will avoid controversy and keep their hands in their pockets.
There would appear to be an orthodoxy in philanthropy that clearly veers to the political left. Events of the past few years have been eye-opening for many donors, and it is up to the philanthropic sector to respond appropriately and professionally. If the not-for-profit sector wants to grow philanthropy it should be open to more diverse views – certainly, conservative-leaning philanthropists concerned about antisemitism feel less and less welcome in the not-for-profit sector.
It was not long ago at a philanthropic sector event in Melbourne that I witnessed a grant manager of a prominent foundation proudly detailing how she directs funds to causes she personally believes in over those of the original donor’s intent and calling on others to do the same – describing it as “their duty”. According to the Australian Environmental Grantmakers Network, philanthropy directed to climate and environmental causes has increased at 10 times the rate of overall philanthropy.
“The more these insular and privileged groups use charities for their own hobbyhorses, the more it confirms how out of touch they are.”
For the past 60 years, philanthropy in the United States, where the tradition of charitable giving is far more deeply embedded and individuals see philanthropy as a civic duty, has hovered around 2 per cent of GDP – that is, $US390 billion ($620 billion) adjusted for inflation according to the US organisation Philanthropy Round Table. In Australia, philanthropy sits at just 0.8 per cent of GDP.
What is happening today is a wake-up call for those charities. In 2022, Australia was ranked fourth on the world giving index, with three in five Australians making a financial donation to a charity. If charities remain relevant and do good works, they will be supported by generous Australians. Those that are irrelevant will not.
Frankly, charities that have such little respect for their donors deserve to fail, and the taxpayer should not be forced to step in to rescue them.
The more these insular and isolated charities, run by privileged groups whose views do not reflect those of the wider community, sneer at certain causes – or worse, use charities for their own personal hobbyhorses – the more it confirms how out of touch they are. The more vibrant the philanthropic sector is, the more reflective of the views of the generous individuals upon whose support they rely, the more good works will be done. That, after all, is what philanthropy is all about.
