Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) pursuant to a decision of the 2016-17 federal budget, the Department of Social Services is currently undertaking a redesign of the Strengthening Communities grants program, to be known as the Strong and Resilient Communities grants program from 1 January 2018;

(b) the Strengthening Communities grants program currently provides around $18 million per year to projects which address disadvantage and build opportunity in communities around Australia;

(c) under the current grants program, there is a specific funding stream for volunteer management programs, which in 2017 will fund volunteer support services in local communities to a total of around $7.4 million;

(d) the Department of Social Services has proposed that this volunteer management stream of grants funding will be abolished from 1 January 2018, meaning volunteer support services will be forced to compete with other worthwhile community services and removing any guarantee that they will be funded at all;

(e) this is the latest reduction in funding allocated to volunteer management since the decision was made to transfer responsibility for volunteering from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Department of Social Services in 2014, a move which volunteering peak bodies and representatives opposed; and

(f) the national peak body for volunteering, Volunteering Australia, states that this move will 'rip the heart out of local volunteer support services', which play an important role in Australian communities by leading volunteers in a wide variety of organisations and services, from the human services and the arts to environmental, animal welfare and sporting groups;

(2) acknowledges that:

(a) approximately 5.8 million Australians, or 31 per cent of the population, volunteer, with Dr Lisel O'Dwyer of Flinders University estimating their annual contribution to Australia as $290 billion;

(b) volunteering plays an important role in delivering the priorities of the Government, with volunteers contributing many thousands of hours per year to the aged care workforce, the disability services, schools and hospitals, art galleries, libraries and sporting clubs—bolstering economic participation, mitigating isolation and loneliness and increasing social inclusion and participation;

(c) while volunteering is defined as 'time willingly given, for the common good and without financial gain', it does not happen free, and requires the investment of resources in volunteer support services in order to maintain a professional, responsive and efficient volunteer workforce; and

(d) the withdrawal of funding to volunteer management services will threaten the viability of the thousands of volunteering organisations and will have a huge impact on the community; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) congratulate community-based volunteer support services for the work that they do to support strong, healthy and resilient Australian communities through an effective and professional volunteer workforce, and

(b) recognise the importance of funding volunteer management services and Volunteering Australia's campaign to retain funding for volunteer management as part of the federal budget.

I do not think I would have to convince any member here—even those opposite, with whom we may often disagree—of the value of volunteering. We can all bring numerous local examples of great works done in our electorates, but, when you look across the nation, together the numbers are truly staggering. At latest count, an estimated 5.8 million Australians volunteer their time—about 31 per cent, a third of the Australian population. The estimated value of that is $290 billion of economic and social good, which is an astounding figure.

In that context I am disappointed, therefore, to read Volunteering Australia's comment on the Liberals' budget, which was to record their great disappointment that 'volunteering has been overlooked in this budget'. Volunteering Australia put forward a range of sensible suggestions in their prebudget submission, but the government failed to take them up.

One in particular I think is important to talk about. That is the removal of the Volunteer Management Program. This provides dedicated funding for regional volunteer coordination and support services. The definition of volunteering, I think, is apt—that is, time willingly given for the common good without financial gain—but it does not come for free. Volunteers need professional coordination and support, and the removal of this dedicated funding available for that coordination and support really fails to understand or value the critical role which these organisations provide for numerous very small community groups. They provide advice, support, regulation, insurance and training, but also, through them, thousands of volunteers actually first connect with the little organisations that they support. They will come in through these portals or regional organisations, get a bit of training and guidance and get matched with a good local cause.

The South East Volunteers, based in my electorate, led by the wonderful Ann Burgess, serve the whole of Melbourne's south-east including the electorates of Chisholm, Hotham, Isaacs and Holt and further afield. They stand to lose $150,000 of funding when the changes come in on 1 January and will be forced to compete against numerous smaller groups. Indeed, the current suggestions from the discussion paper and response are that there will be no ongoing funding, and groups will have to go back to that tired old game of making up 12-month projects to do work which is just fundamental and should be funded separately.

In my view, it is a badly thought-through decision. It is time the government came clean on their plans, and it is not too late to listen and change the approach—it is only a modest change in the scheme of the new program—before the new arrangements kick in on 1 January.

Volunteering does, as I said, have enormous benefits across Australia. Every hour of every day in every community, people are willingly and freely giving up their time, for no compensation, to make a difference, and it touches every section of Australian society: social services and welfare, emergency services, sporting services, arts, culture, the natural environment, heritage, animal welfare and more. I would like to identify four distinct types of value. There is value in the activities themselves, which is really self-evident for any of us in this chamber when we move around our communities, whether through the outcomes or the money saved. There is enormous value for government in delivering programs and policies such as for disability, aged care, environment or, most critically and entrenched even further in this budget, employment services. There is value for individuals—not only the sense of belonging, purpose and meaning that it provides but also through employment pathways, which is a well-recognised pathway into permanent employment. Importantly, there is value for society because it builds social cohesion, social capital and that sense of community belonging.

There are myriad locally in Bruce. I will just mention one in passing because it is on my mind since I went there on Friday. It is wonderful, special place called Cornerstone in Dandenong. Operating for 25 years, it is a not-for-profit Christian organisation which has provided a safe place for those in need to meet to seek comfort, companionship and aid. The people who visit come from challenging backgrounds and are often homeless, suffer from drug addiction, mental illness and social isolation or are people who have just run out of money that fortnight. For 25 years, more than 500,000 meals have been given out and yet, sadly, that building, which has been home, has to be sold. I would like to record my thanks and appreciation for the incredible act of generosity of the Rado family, who have made this building in central Dandenong available, rent free, for 25 years. It really is a generous act. Friday was a celebration of the place—not the building, but the spirit of the volunteers and the visitors, and the companionship and social bonds that have been formed there.

The final thing I note is that, because of the government's confused process and lack of clarity, there is enormous concern about the imminent narrowing of the kinds of groups that may be assisted. There are signs from the discussion paper that funding may only be available for social welfare activities. That would be a major change and would cut out many groups, including sporting, environmental and animal welfare groups. I call on the government to reconsider its approach.

See this speech in context