Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bruce has proven himself to be a sensationalist. His motion is full of unproven assertions and pessimistic forecasts about the future of Australian volunteerism. The most bogus claim in this motion is that the restructuring of the Stronger Communities grant program will somehow diminish the volunteer movement in Australia. This is false. The federal government will fund the restructured Strong and Resilient Communities grant program with $18 million—true. The federal government will also continue to fund the Volunteer Grants program with $10 million—true. Volunteer management programs will be able to apply for funding under the new grants structure. Volunteer support services will compete with other organisations, as is fair, for federal funding.

The restructuring of the program will not—and I quote the member for Bruce—'threaten the viability of the thousands of volunteering organisations'. These words betray a fundamental misunderstanding of volunteer work in Australia. In fact, the member for Bruce contradicts himself in the preceding paragraph where he states:

… 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 …

There are a few clangers in that sentence. He concedes that volunteer work is 'time willingly given, for the common good and without financial gain', yet states that 'it does not happen free'. Well, we know that it comes at a cost to the volunteer in time, energy and personal resources. That is the point of volunteer work: serving others in the community. But that is not what he means. He is not talking about the sacrifice of individual Australian volunteers; he is talking about the cost to government. Instead, according to the member for Bruce, volunteer work requires the investment of resources to maintain a professional, responsive and efficient volunteer workforce. He is arguing that volunteer work is only made possible by government money, by a professional volunteer workforce. That is a contradiction if ever I heard one.

But in Victoria, under a Labor government, all things are possible and indeed permissible. Witness the attempt of the Andrews government to dismantle the Country Fire Authority. Government always knows best, doesn't it! This goes to the heart of the matter. The member for Bruce argues that volunteers play an important part in delivering government priorities. He takes a government-centric view of the world—big brother knows best. They prefer to co-opt volunteers to their cause. We should not be surprised that this world view animates those opposite. But don't take my word for it. Listen to the verdict of Labor insiders who have seen the folly of their party's big government instincts. The late Peter Walsh, WA senator and Labor minister, was credited with saying:

Public enterprises have much more to do with stuffing featherbeds for their management and staff than they do with their public interest.

Peter Walsh would find himself out of step with today's Labor Party, who plays government at the centre of Australian life.

We on this side of the House take the opposite view. We have a vision of limited government, where we believe volunteers are best placed to care for the needs of their communities. Our priorities reflect the people we represent. That is why we have the Volunteer Grants program—to empower and support the many volunteer organisations that have grown up in our communities, fiercely independent of government.

In recent weeks I have had the privilege of visiting volunteer organisations in Canning that have been beneficiaries of the Volunteer Grants program. I think of Pat Smythe at the Peel Bowling and Social Club, whose club received money for its work with bowlers with disabilities and Alzheimer's disease. I think of the Riding for the Disabled Association in Orange Grove, which enriched the lives of young people with disabilities, through therapeutic and sporting horse activities. I was there only last Wednesday afternoon. To see the delight on those children's faces was something special. They do not ask for any government support, but we give it to them because we recognise the value they contribute to our community. People like these can see and serve the needs in their local communities in a way that Canberra never can. This government is empowering volunteers to do that very thing.

Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just a little over a week ago, on the day I returned to the electorate from the last parliamentary sitting, I hosted the very first Annual Volunteer Awards in Longman. It was a fantastic evening, on which the hard work the volunteers of our electorate have done our local community was recognised. It was a great way to celebrate National Volunteer Week. Over 100 people attended to recognise and congratulate our volunteers and the work they do.

A live in and represent a really great electorate, an electorate that proudly supports volunteers, who are the lifeblood of our community. We are a community of really hard working families—we are a small business owners and retirees who want the very best for our families and our community. But with an average median total personal income of only $27,000 a year, or just over $500 a week, many of our constituents live with disadvantage. They struggle to get by and they rely upon services provided by organisations and their volunteers.

While life can be tough, the volunteers of our community groups and organisations know that, in providing support, we have a great opportunity to really create a difference in people's lives. That is why I am opposed to this redesign from the Department of Social Services, which is seeking to take funding from the Strengthening Communities grants program, a program that to date can be seen as nothing but successful. The grants program, which provides around $18 million per year to projects that address disadvantage and build opportunities in communities around Australia, has been a vital source for our nation's volunteer organisations.

Within the program there is a specific funding system, or stream, for volunteer management programs. It is this funding that will be abolished, on 1 January next year, under this government. Effectively, this will mean that volunteer support services will be forced to compete with other worthwhile community services for funding. Further, this redesign removes any guarantee that these crucial volunteer support services will receive any money at all from the grants program. As the Strengthening Communities program is currently the only source of federal money for volunteer management services, this could easily result in the government providing absolutely zero funding to these organisations, from January 2018.

This government must surely concede that it is alarming that the peak body for volunteering, Volunteering Australia, states that the change that they intend to make to Strengthening Communities:

… will rip the heart out of local volunteer support services.

This funding cut is likely to have a devastating effect. How can the government call this redesigned program the Strong and Resilient Communities grants program when the changes will make our communities less strong and less resilient? This is a government who frequently likes to tell us that nothing comes free. Yet here they are making it more difficult for our volunteer organisations to obtain Commonwealth assistance for the work that they do to help our communities.

I know that Labor and those opposite tend to have opposing beliefs a lot of times and across a lot of issues. But I believe there are really core areas where bipartisan support should be expected, and I know my community expects it. Supporting those who already do so much for our community is not just a good decision because there are positive social or economic outcomes; it is because it is just the right thing to do. Today, I call upon the government to recognise the importance of funding volunteer management services and, in turn, the importance of recognising their volunteers, volunteers who contribute approximately $290 billion a year to the economy. Further to that, I call upon the government to retain that funding as part of their federal budget.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an outrageous comment from the member for Longman to suggest that this government does not care about volunteers. Volunteerism is at the central core of this government's beliefs. The federal government does recognise the importance of volunteering. It is central to my vision and to that of the government. It is central to our vision to provide the very essence of our local communities with appropriate funding so that they can get on and do what they do best, and that is to look after our fellow citizens.

In my first year as the federal member for Fisher, the Turnbull government has invested significantly in local communities in my electorate. Let's just have a look at some of those. This month 100,000 volunteers across Australia have benefited from $10 million in Commonwealth government grants. In Fisher alone, more than $30,000 was awarded. Recipients included: the Landsborough State School P&C Association, which received $3,200 for training volunteers; $4,800 for the Caloundra family drug service and support group, also for training; $2,100 for Girl Guides in Maleny for transport costs of volunteers with disability; $5,000 for Maleny District Sports and Recreation Club for landscaping and gardening; $1,600 for the Maleny Neighbourhood Centre for computer and kitchen equipment; $4,182 for the Landsborough Area Community Association for computer equipment and fuel costs; $4,926 for the Maleny and District Men's Shed for first aid equipment and tools; and $6,500 for St Vinnies in Caloundra, Maleny and Landsborough

Last month, the Alex Surf Club, of which I am a proud patrol captain, received $15,000 under the Solar Communities program to install rooftop solar photovoltaic panels, as did the Maleny Golf Club. Speaking of surf lifesaving, in February, five different surf clubs in my electorate received $5,000 each as part of $25,000 they will get over five years from the Commonwealth Beach Safety Equipment Fund—Alexandra Headland, Dicky Beach, Kawana Waters, Metropolitan Caloundra and Mooloolaba.

In December 2016, the Maleny men's shed were awarded $4,954 from the federal government's National Shed Development Program. The money was used to buy equipment to help them to make the Maleny Historical Society a success and develop the Maleny Historical Village.

In August 2016 plans were approved for the not-for-profit Sunshine Coast Community Sporting Hub, to be situated on Lake Kawana. This was supported by $5 million from the federal government. In early 2016, 19 local community groups, including Caloundra Rugby Union Club, Eudlo Public Hall, Mooloolah Valley Community Association and Rosies Youth Mission, shared $70,000 worth of grants. Other community groups in my electorate in the same period received $3,627 in grants to support groups which honour Australia's military history and personnel.

Though community groups in my electorate have chosen not to apply, a great deal of other support has been made available to them in the past years. To name only a small selection: The Community Heritage and Icons Grants program offers up to $10,000 for activities that promote the Glass House Mountains in our region. The Good Sports program offers funding for activities undertaken by local community sports clubs to reduce the impact of illegal drugs on our young people. Community Commemorative Grants, as well as Veteran and Community Grants, have been available to help groups that support our current and former servicemen and women.

This government should, and we do, congratulate all of these volunteers for their service to our community. is not a government that does not value volunteerism. Not only do we value it, we put our money where our mouth is, and we support all volunteers who give up their time so very valuably. Without volunteers this country would obviously cost a heck of a lot more money to run than it does now, and that is quite enough as it is. Imagine where we would be without volunteers. Imagine us being without surf lifesavers, without St John's first aid, without all the P&C groups. Where would we be as a community without them? Volunteers are so vital for our community, and this government supports them, lock, stock and barrel.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have lived a very lucky life, like many people in our community. I have good genes. I had good parents. We were not rich by any means, but I was well raised. I have not had the floor pulled out from underneath through the loss of a loved one or ill health or the many circumstances that can smash into you and break your life apart. Those of us who are members of parliament meet those people in our offices every day.

It occurs to me that there is a great irony in life that at the time when you do not really need to make big changes to your life, because your life is going well, you have all the capacity you need to actually make the change. You have friends, financial security and a belief and ability to control your life, at the very time when you need it least. It is ironic that at times when you really do need to pick yourself off the floor life can have taken that capacity from you, through grief, through extraordinary loss, through illness or just through grinding poverty, when you do not have the capacity or the energy to make your life better.

Volunteers step into that gap, not with their money but with their spare capacity. That is what makes volunteers special. They are people who believe they can change the world and have the capacity in them to do it, who lend that capacity to someone who does not. That is what they do, and that is what makes it valuable. They do something that taxpayers cannot pay for—their community—they lend their spare capacity. They are remarkable people. We all have many of them, and we thank them every day.

I think that the government's policy decision to remove the funding from the volunteer management services shows it does not understand that bringing together the person with the capacity and the person without the capacity is not as easy as it looks. It is easy through organisations that we know well, such—St John Ambulance, perhaps, Salvation Army; the really well known organisations—but what if you are a person who has unique skills: you have accounting skills, an ability in social enterprise, and you are looking for a good match? That is what these volunteer services do; they are actually the matchmaker. They put together the person with the capacity and the person without the capacity in a way that only a professional organisation can do, because the infrastructure in the organising role that these volunteer management services do is about who they know, what they know and their networks within the community. Those kinds of networks, which are the genuine infrastructure which supports volunteer services cannot be done on a volunteer basis, because they require longevity of relationship building, of comprehension, of understanding your community; skill and experience in knowing where those matches are; and, of course, knowing all the laws that governments do impose on volunteers, such as insurance, food handling, health and safety—all the things that a volunteer might need to learn before that person can go in and give their capacity to someone in need. They may need training in working with people with trauma, for example. They may need a greater understanding of working with people with mental illness. There are lots and lots of things that volunteers need.

The providing of that training, the seeing of those gaps and the filling of those gaps is a professional job. That is what it is, it is a professional job. It is currently handled by the Centre for Volunteering. In my community it is handled by Leep incredibly well. There are very few organisations in Parramatta that do not use the services of Leep to augment their volunteer staff and to train them for the work they will do. They are incredibly important organisations. To assume that the entire volunteer sector can just appear out of the ground without that kind of overview, without the skill in knowing the needs of the community and the unmet needs and without there being a matchmaker is a little naive.

I would like to acknowledge the many organisations in my community that work with volunteers: Lifeline, Shakti et cetera. They are incredible organisations that do great work. I do not have time, unfortunately, to talk about them all today, but I would urge the government to rethink this decision. It is a relatively small amount of money for organisations that dramatically increase the volunteer participation in our community. They are incredibly important roles and they cannot be done on a volunteer basis, because they need the continued longevity of their relationships and their knowledge.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Congratulating our volunteer organisations and the support services that help match volunteers to organisations can never be hard work. In Australia, but particularly on the northern beaches of Sydney, which I represent here in parliament, volunteerism is in our blood. In Mackellar I am proud to say people more often than not solve their own problems. They see something in the community they are not happy with, they see someone in need, so they get together and actually make a difference.

Take, for example, and this is but one of many, the Mums for Mums Group. It was started by a couple of friends, mothers whose children all attended Newport Public School. One of their own was diagnosed with brain cancer. A couple in their prime, working and raising healthy and happy kids. It could have been any one of them. Offering sympathy is easy. Who could not be sympathetic to such a plight? Actually helping and making a real difference day in and day out through what can be a long, steep road is the hard part.

Unwilling to stand by and watch, this group of mothers decided to band together and help. Discreetly and respectfully, they started supporting the family with frozen meals that could easily be popped in the oven after a hospital visit. They organised a cleaning service to help unburden an overwhelmed father trying to keep his family together. They helped take care of the kids. They were there providing support every step of the way. Seeing what a difference their help made, they were asked again and again to help families in the community who had fallen on hard times. They grew into a group of energetic parents learning how to raise money, how to organise and how to provide support. Tragically, after having gone into remission, brain cancer claimed their friend's life.

I am honoured to have been joined by my colleague Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and the state Minister for Education, Rob Stokes, to support the Mums for Mums campaign, selling brain cancer beanies just last week. They are raising money not just to continue their own work but also to support the Sydney Neuro-Oncology Group in memory of their friend.

In supporting this campaign, we hope to raise awareness so that everyone can do their bit. Every single one of us can dedicate some of our time to helping someone or something else—whether it be spending a Saturday patrolling our beaches, a Sunday back burning the bush, a Thursday night helping out a the local women's shelter, a morning at the Be Centre for traumatised children, an afternoon at the Sargood centre or whether it be joining groups like the Mums for Mums or the Surfing Mums of Newport.

I am proud to be part of a government that recognises the enormous contribution volunteers make to each of our communities, which is why we are improving the delivery of community development funding through the redesigned Strong and Resilient Communities activity, now more closely aligned to the Commonwealth's constitutional authority. We are truly committed to supporting community based organisations that are tackling complex social problems on the ground day in and day out. SARC will help support community organisations wanting to increase people's sense of belonging and engagement within their own local communities, helping to foster cohesion. It will improve their chances of getting people who are often in desperate circumstances the help they need and their lives back on track.

We have maintained our support for these community organisations with $18 million in government funding every year. Under the new grant system, support service organisations will continue to be eligible to apply for funding to support the management and referral of volunteers for projects that meet SARC's objectives. In fact, we have increased the amount volunteer support service organisations can apply for to $150,000 per year per project. It is our hope that SARC will help fund innovative, community led solutions to social and economic challenges, because there are often no better placed people to help their community than their own—locals who know the people, who know the systems, who know the pitfalls and who are invested in seeing their own thrive and can put their heart and soul into their projects, knowing that this government supports them.

The funding application is competitive because, as much as we would like to give endless amounts of money to every organisation wanting to do good, the government is not an ATM. The supply of taxpayer money is not endless and, just like in the real world, tough decisions must be made. Including a competitive process in the allocation of grants ensures the money contributed by hardworking Australians is put to the best use that it can be, will have the maximum impact and will help the most people in the best way. As Margaret Mead said:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting.