Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in recognition of a group of tens of thousands of volunteers who are, in many respects, the unsung heroes of communities throughout Australia. I refer, of course, to the Australian Neighbourhood Houses and Centres Association, which represents more than 1,000 houses and centres throughout Australia that are staffed largely by volunteers who are dedicated to improving the lives of others. These volunteers, who number some 600,000, are supported by a very much smaller paid staff who work from several hours per week to full time.

Community and neighbourhood houses and centres play a crucial part in the lives of many Australians, right across all age groups, and have a number of extremely worthy objectives: firstly, acting as platforms for social inclusion where individuals and families can become connected, find information, learn, and improve health and general wellbeing; secondly, providing a focus for building community capacity through health programs, community education, transitional programs leading to training and employment, volunteer involvement, children’s programs, action groups and involvement in local decision making; thirdly, practising preventative and early intervention strategies, working on the basis that a fence at the top of the cliff is far better than an ambulance at the bottom; and, finally, partnering with a broad range of organisations and government agencies to enhance their services.

The houses and centres offer unique opportunities to reach people where they live. They have extensive community and social networks and make amazing but often unrecognised contributions towards enhancing all of our lives. While there is no specific Australian data to support the value of community houses and centres, a New Zealand report shows conclusively that, for every dollar spent on funding organisations such as community centres, the return on the investment is between $54 and $72.

One of my most recent contacts with the Australian Neighbourhood Houses and Centres Association has been in relation to a national campaign seeking deductible gift recipient tax endorsement. Not having deductible gift recipient tax endorsement, or DGR, restricts the ability of community centres to access philanthropic and corporate funding, and also means that the vast majority are reliant on government funding and small-scale fundraising. A DGR study by the Australian Neighbourhood Houses and Centres Association notes that only seven per cent of Australian neighbourhood houses and centres have DGR endorsement, and yet it is estimated that by 2012 donations via philanthropy to the overall community sector will exceed $500 million.

The association says that unless the other 93 per cent of neighbourhood houses and centres are granted DGR they will, of course, miss out on the opportunity to seek this much needed and valuable funding. Obtaining DGR would have many positive benefits, according to the association, such as increased investment from the philanthropic and private sectors, less reliance on government funding, an increase in the number of community partnerships, a significant increase in social inclusion and community-strengthening programs, and stronger and healthier Australian communities.

In my own state of South Australia, the state peak organisation for neighbourhood houses and centres goes under the acronym of CANH, which is the Community and Neighbourhood Houses and Centres Association. Its vision is to act as a catalyst to assist communities to develop through participation, engagement and skills development. There are 96 neighbourhood houses and centres in South Australia, with 23 country members and the balance being in Adelaide. Some are council-managed, with the majority locally operated by the communities that they serve. All together they have some two million contacts per year. South Australian neighbourhood houses and centres contribute more than 15,000 volunteer hours per week, valued at over $15 million per annum. These centres are, like those throughout the nation, welcoming and nurturing bodies that are non-judgmental and offer an extremely wide range of services.

South Australia has been operating community and neighbourhood houses for more than 30 years, providing exceptional service on shoestring budgets and very limited human and financial resources. Like those throughout Australia, they too suffer from a lack of paid staff to manage the complexities and responsibilities related to supporting crucial volunteer and community programs. Some centres receive state neighbourhood development funding through the South Australian Department for Families and Communities and additional program funding through: the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology; the Office for Recreation and Sport; and the Department of Health. Others receive funding through their local governments in the areas in which they are located. But the sector has no single funding source and does not receive the necessary amount of base funding to deliver its full potential in partnering with government to achieve community-building outcomes.

The Executive Officer of CANH in South Australia, Ms Gillian McFadyen, and her small staff, recognise the amazing workload carried out by neighbourhood houses and centres—work which is done extremely well despite a lack of funding and sufficient human resources. Ms McFadyen is one who sees DGR as important to her sector’s wellbeing, but she also has three additional wishes that she would dearly love to see fulfilled. Firstly, she would like to see each of the state’s 96 centres have a minimum of two paid full-time staff: a community development worker and an administrator. Again, that is not an unreasonable request. That would ease the current burden under which many CANH centres struggle. She would like to see some continuity of funding. Short-term contracts are inefficient, and well-run, successful programs can be ended before lasting outcomes or sustainability can be identified. Staff cannot be retained, and a great deal of time is consumed in winding up programs only to recommence them if funding is successful. Minimum three-year funding cycles and three-month notification periods for continuation of funding would assist in resolving this.

Secondly, she would like to see community and neighbourhood houses in South Australia receive the recognition and respect they so richly deserve. I concur with this, for there is nothing quite so unrewarding as working as a volunteer and yet never receiving any formal or official thanks. And, finally, she would like to see something positive done about compliance and report writing. Because most of the sector’s funding comes from government sources, governments, quite rightly, demand that reports be submitted regularly on how the funding was spent. Many community centres work with multiple funding sources and contracts to deliver a variety of services and projects. Reporting is time consuming and complex because there is no uniform reporting style required. I know that many CANH centres doubt if the reports, when submitted, are actually even read. These three wishes are hardly onerous, especially the recognition of and respect for a job that is being well done. The writing of reports that one believes will never be read can be soul destroying as well as hard yakka. Data collection and writing reports takes up about a fifth of the time of the full-time staff—time that could more profitably spent in helping the community.

South Australia’s CANH is currently running an awareness program using four people who came to their local centres seeking connection: an Indigenous woman who felt alone and isolated and who, through her local centre, discovered her talent as an artist and is now teaching art to other Indigenous women; a widower suffering from loneliness and depression who, through his centre, discovered his talent at computing and photography and is now actively involved in a drama group; a young unemployed and ‘at risk’ street person who has become, through his centre, a fully employed project officer; and a single mother who, through her centre, developed her literacy skills to help her daughter with homework and now works as a CANH volunteer. She has found full-time employment in the beauty industry.

It is stories like these that warm one’s heart and make one realise the extent to which many in the community depend on organisations such as community and neighbourhood houses and centres. These are community resources that we cannot continue to undervalue. We must recognise them for their contribution to society through appropriate funding and resourcing. We are indeed fortunate to have them.