nickng

COP 31 Base Camp

News

COP31

Base Camp

“Unlocking climate transformation in Australia and the Pacific: Shaping the potential of COP 31”, Sydney, 1 November

Interested in what you can do about climate change and what role your organisation might play in COP31 which is likely to be held in Australia in 2026?  Then this is a key event for your diary.  Sydney, 1 November, 1.00pm-5.30pm. 

Please join COP31 Collaboration cross-sectoral partners to learn more and contribute to a discussion on how we make the most of Australia’s bid to co-host COP31 in 2026 with Pacific.  

We want community voices, community resilience and community issues at the centre – and that will only happen with your help. Hosted on the sidelines of Impact X – small $50 charge to help cover costs – let ImpactX/us know if that is a problem.

Register here:  COP 31 Base Camp (impactx.tech)

COP 31 Base Camp Read More »

Reforms to government contracting? Once in a blue moon – but still not likely

News

Published in The Community Advocate: Reforms to government contracting? Once in a blue moon – but still not likely

Reforms to government contracting? Once in a blue moon – but still not likely

Urgently needed reforms to government contracting have been buried in the too hard basket for too long. The time to act is now writes David Crosbie.

Over a decade ago the Productivity Commission called for major reform of government contracting.

Even before the Productivity Commission report, the Community Council for Australia (CCA) and many others had constantly called for reform in the way government departments manage their relationships with the charities and not-for-profit sector.

We are still waiting for real change.

When I think about the kinds of changes we need, I am reminded of a story about how different funders manage risk, expertise and relationships to get the best return on their investment.

Drug users tend to be impulsive, especially with money. If you are helping drug users to rebuild their lives, then addressing financial capacity issues, including building credit ratings through savings patterns, budgeting, use of credit cards etc, is a useful endeavour.

When I was responsible for a large drug treatment service, I managed to get two sets of funding worth around $100,000 each to work with recovering drug users in this area of financial capacity.

The first financial capacity building funding I obtained was from a major bank. The contract for the two-year project was less than three pages long.

The reporting and acquitting of the grant involved writing a project outcome report saying how we spent the grant, whether we achieved the project objectives and what we thought the impact might be.

The second financial capacity building grant I obtained was from the Health Department.

It came with a 50-pages-plus contract requiring quarterly reports and audited acquittals showing no more than a 10% variation in proposed budget expenditure.

Of even more concern was that all rights to any of the material we produced would be owned by the government, the project could be ended at any time at the discretion of the government, the government was broadly indemnified against any kind of risk from the project, and public statements about the project had to comply with a series of government requirements.

I went back to the Health Department and suggested that a contract involving this level of reporting and accountability just created more work and made the project less viable.

They didn’t agree, saying that as a government agency they took their responsibility in spending taxpayers’ money very seriously, and they needed to manage all possible risks.

I went back to the bank, and agreed to their contract, but also pointed out that their contract was relatively short. I asked them if they took their responsibility to manage risk seriously.

The person I was dealing with laughed and said they were a bank and managing risk was part of their core business.

They also said that within banks, risk management happened before contracts were awarded: “Once the money has been paid it’s going to be difficult to get it back. You manage risk by being careful in who you give money to.”

Their final line was: “The purpose of a contract is not to manage risk, and even if it was, a more complex contract would not mean better risk management.”

The Productivity Commission report into the NFP sector in 2010 highlighted significant problems with government contracting of charities and NFPs, including the way government contracting was having a negative impact on productivity and responsiveness.

“The efficiency and effectiveness of delivery of services by NFPs on behalf of governments is adversely affected by inadequate contracting processes,” the report found.

“These include overly prescriptive requirements, increased micromanagement, requirements to return surplus funds, and inappropriately short-term contracts. Substantial reform of the ways in which governments engage with and contract NFPs is urgently needed.”

The urgently needed reforms to government contracting have been buried in the too hard basket for over a decade.

Meanwhile, charities and NFPs continue to deal with government officials who insist every possible risk needs to be managed – not through expertise and partnership, but through a voluminous set of unenforceable catch-all contract conditions that make little practical sense to anyone.

There has been some good work done to address some of the problems with government contracting.

The Not-for-profit Reform Council in 2012 developed a two-page contract for services that covered all the legal requirements of government agencies contracting NFPs.

This contract was developed in consultation with five key departments and their lawyers, including lawyers from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. The contract was briefly trialled in some smaller programs where it worked well, but it was never adopted across government.

“The urgently needed reforms to government contracting have been buried in the too hard basket for over a decade.”

The current government has agreed that reforming government contracting is a core issue for charities and NFPs.

In fact, the need to reform government contracting is reflected in three points of the government’s own ten-point plan for charities and NFPs that it took to the last election:

  • 5. review and reform the funding models for contracted services to support longer-term planning and better service provision;
  • 6. recognise that non-profit organisations are always better positioned than for-profit corporations to provide community services. In the procurement of community services, Labor will remove the practice of competing on labour costs by ensuring tenders and grant programs are sufficient and appropriately funded to provide for adequate and safe staffing levels, and fair and reasonable wages and conditions.
  • 7. recognise that community led organisations have been an essential part of delivering services and building community capacity. Labor will prioritise funding for specialist services, including specialist services delivered by women, LGBTIQ, First Nations, disability and CALD groups.

The Albanese government has also committed to reviewing the recommendations of the Productivity Commission report from 2010, which include at least five major recommendations about the need to reform government contracting.

The problem our sector now faces is that aside from the Assistant Minister for Charities, Dr Andrew Leigh, nobody within government seems to accept any responsibility for boosting the productivity and effectiveness of our sector.

Who are our champions within government? What is the point of highlighting reforms that were urgently needed 10 years ago, and are even more urgently needed now, when there is nobody to action them, and no resources to support them?

The Productivity Commission report argued: “An Office for Not-For-Profit Engagement is needed to bring these reforms to fruition and to provide a home within the Australian Government to progress ongoing sectoral and governmental reform.”

It’s a blue moon this week. Maybe we are slowly moving towards some overdue urgent reforms for the charities and NFP sector? Then again, maybe not.

Reforms to government contracting? Once in a blue moon – but still not likely Read More »

The Australian Government is getting better at impact investing – just not at home

News

Published in The Community Advocate: The Australian Government is getting better at impact investing – just not at home

The Australian Government is getting better at impact investing – just not at home

Stronger charities and not-for-profits able to better access the capital they need to improve their services makes sense but a lot more needs to be done, writes Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie.

A couple of decades ago I spent some time working with peak bodies in Asia to better use information in responding to alcohol and drug harms.

One of the many things I learned was that sometimes our approach to development assistance in our international aid programs can be more insightful and better informed than the approaches we apply at home in Australia.

In our approach to reducing alcohol and drug related harm in Asia, it was acknowledged that the drivers of behaviour are a complex interaction between individual factors, culture, economics and social realities.

This meant we knew one-dimensional approaches like a ‘just say no’ campaign with the hill tribe communities around Chiang Mai would not work. And yet in Australia, there were many who strongly advocated for exactly this zero-tolerance prohibitionist approach.

In practice, our international aid funded harm reduction programs were more evidence-based than many of the drug programs funded by our Australian Government at home.

I raise this example only to contextualise what I now see reflected in the newly announced federal government international development funding.

The Government will establish Australian Development Investments (ADI), a new vehicle providing up to $250 million as a catalyst for private impact investment in the Indo-Pacific.

ADI greatly expands the Australian Government’s capacity to mobilise private sector investment to expand small and medium enterprises in the Indo-Pacific region to drive climate and gender outcomes.

ADI provides early stage and concessional investment to impact investment funds. These funds in turn give critical early-stage finance to businesses in the Indo-Pacific. This finance helps these businesses to innovate, grow their employment, and deliver goods and services to their communities.

ADI builds on the results of the Emerging Markets Impact Investment Fund (EMIIF) pilot, which achieved some remarkable outcomes including 10,737 jobs created of which 42 per cent are for women, 20,000 students with improved educational services, over 1 million micro enterprises provided with finance.

What we are talking about here is bringing new capital into small and medium organisations including charities, community groups and businesses to promote the achievement of positive economic and social outcomes.

The question that needs to be asked is: If it is good enough for our government to fund $250 million in impact investment funds to strengthen communities in the Asia Pacific, why isn’t the same rationale leading to increased support for impact investment in Australian charities and NFPs?

There are at least three areas where the Community Council for Australia believes there are significant benefits for the Australian community, if charities and NFPs had better access to investment funds.

Carbon reducing energy transition

Cost-saving and carbon-reducing energy transition is clearly one area where investment can unlock many benefits to organisations, communities, and the planet.

Many larger charities and NFPs may be able to recoup the upfront investment in energy saving technologies available in things like LED lighting, solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles over a period of time – usually five to ten years.

Small businesses involved in energy transition are provided with tax incentives that significantly shorten the time it takes to recoup the upfront costs including accelerated depreciation and instant write offs.

A charity or NFP needs to divert funding from its main purpose to meet upfront energy transition costs or borrow the money.

Government-backed impact investment finance at low interest would be appealing for many smaller organisations who would be able to recoup energy transition costs over time.

When charities and NFPs can reduce their carbon emissions and associated costs, it is a win for everyone, but it requires initial upfront investment that is often difficult for charities and NFPs to source.

Additional revenue streams

A second area where impact investing may be beneficial is the development of potential additional revenue streams.

It is often the case that establishing new revenue streams (including fundraising) can take time and initial investment before they are established as a reliable source of income.

Providing access to government-backed longer term investment funds at low rates would enable some charities and NFPs to invest in building different approaches and revenue streams that take time to mature.

For example – an aged care provider might need additional funding to build a dementia ward with additional beds. Over time these beds will provide a revenue stream, but finding the upfront capital can be difficult.

Line of credit access

Another area where impact investing can make a difference is provision of a line of credit facility that would enable larger charities and NFPs to smooth out income streams (and risk) over longer periods, freeing up greater investment in the capacity of the organisation to serve their community.

In research CCA undertook during the pandemic, we found about 50% of our larger members would be keen to take on a longer-term low interest line of credit that they could draw down on if income streams temporarily reduced.

Access to a line of credit over a five-year period for instance, might lessen the risk of relying on fluctuating revenue streams like fundraising and bequests returning a set income within 12 months.

There are many good examples of impact investment approaches in Australia, and globally, that are providing real benefits to many communities by leveraging capital for public benefit.

“Stronger charities and NFPs able to access the capital they need to improve and enhance their services makes good sense.”

The Albanese government has recognised the value of impact investment and the capacity to leverage new capital in the expansion of our international development program.

The Australian government is now invested in leveraging new capital to generate increased public benefit, but not in Australia.

If the Australian government could provide the same opportunities for impact investment in Australian charities and NFPs desperate for upfront capital to leverage their own good work, it could make a real difference.

The Australian Impact Investing Taskforce’s original recommendations included: “… the Government co-financing an impact investment wholesale fund to catalyse and scale for-purpose solutions and setting up a social enterprise growth fund in order to develop a pipeline of businesses tackling social and environmental issues.”

Stronger charities and NFPs able to access the capital they need to improve and enhance their services makes good sense.

An investment in this area would not only benefit our sector, but also generate income, jobs and tangible benefits to the communities that charities and NFPs serve.

If we are serious about improving productivity in Australia, governments around the nation should be falling over themselves to establish accessible impact investment funds to leverage the huge social and economic potential waiting to be realised when we invest more in our charities and NFPs.

The Australian Government is getting better at impact investing – just not at home Read More »

Is ALP policy just decoration?

News

Published in The Community Advocate: Is ALP policy just decoration?

Is ALP policy just decoration?

While the federal government is well disposed toward the charity and NFP sector, it’s time to start delivering on promises made before the last election, writes Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie.

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) are spending three days this week working on their national policy.

From a charities and not-for-profit perspective, the general direction of the policies and the priorities outlined seem quite positive for building a more inclusive and engaged Australia.

The key headings in the draft policy are framed around ideas most charities and NFPs would support:

Chapter 1 – An economy that works for everyone – outlines the economic vision for the ALP. It emphasises the importance of creating an economy that works for everyone and ensures no one is left behind. 

Chapter 2 – Opening the doors of opportunity – emphasises the importance of all Australians having equal opportunities in workplaces and education. 

Chapter 3 – Protecting Australia’s Climate, Environment and energy security – emphasises the importance of implementing climate change and energy policies that are aligned with the Paris Agreement. It also highlights the need for a robust national environmental protection framework that both conserves and restores the natural Australian environment. 

Chapter 4 – A strong and healthy Australia – re-affirms the ALP’s commitment to a robust and universal health system. 

Chapter 5 – Bringing people together – is about human rights, multiculturism, Voice and other actions to promote inclusion.

Chapter 6 – Strengthening Australian democracy – highlights the importance of safeguarding and enhancing Australia’s democratic foundations. 

Chapter 7 – Australia’s place in a changing world – covers various aspects of foreign policy, national security, international cooperation, and humanitarian efforts.

Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie says it’s time for the ALP government in Canberra to start delivering on what they promised the sector before the election.

In all these areas, charities and NFPs play a critical role, even if they are not mentioned.

The sub-points under these headings mention community needs – but mainly in relation to infrastructure investment being informed by local priorities.

Community programs are also mentioned, but mostly in relation to youth empowerment through community engagement.

The ALP have already adopted what is effectively a ten-point plan for the charities and NFP sector in the national policy platform they took to the last election. What they haven’t done is implement it.

No-one wants to be critical of a relatively new government and a genuinely committed and knowledgeable Assistant Minister, and we can say that most of what is now occurring within government represents a vast improvement on our previous anti-government leadership.

We should also acknowledge however, that the actions of the current government to date clearly demonstrate that charity and NFP reform is not a priority issue.

“A strong and effective charities and NFP sector is fundamental to the economic and social wellbeing of Australia.”

Here are the ten areas the ALP have already endorsed as national policy. From a charity and NFP perspective, these are ten areas we can judge government performance against:

  1. establishment of an expert body to ensure the views of civil society are reflected in policy reform and initiatives to strengthen and build nourishing communities.
  2. review the Recommendations of the 2010 Productivity Commission Report on the Not-for-ProfitSector.
  3. development of a national working with vulnerable people (WWVP) registration to ensure consistency and traceability across jurisdictions and to improve the safety of vulnerable people.
  4. work across jurisdictions to create a modern and standardised national fundraising framework, reducing red tape and improving charities’ access to donors and philanthropists.
  5. review and reform the funding models for contracted services to support longer-term planning and better service provision.
  6. recognise that non-profit organisations are always better positioned than for-profit corporations to provide community services. In the procurement of community services, Labor will remove the practice of competing on labour costs by ensuring tenders and grant programs are sufficient and appropriately funded to provide for adequate and safe staffing levels, and fair and reasonable wages and conditions.
  7. recognise that community led organisations have been an essential part of delivering services and building community capacity. Labor will prioritise funding for specialist services, including specialist services delivered by women, LGBTIQ, First Nations, disability and CALD groups.
  8. ensure not-for-profits are free to advocate on behalf of their cause without fear of being deregistered as a charity and that advocacy itself is protected as a government funded activity of community organisations.
  9. acknowledge and support the significance of volunteer recruitment and management in Australia, particularly in responding to natural disasters and COVID-19 and ensure that frontline volunteers are given suitable access to workplace safety needs, such as covid-19 vaccinations and protective equipment.
  10. support the not-for-profit sector in bridging the technological divide, so that more organisations, regardless of size or location, can access the digital economy and the productivity gains that technology can deliver.

With the possible exception of the increase in funding and support for a national volunteering strategy (9), and the partial implementation of fundraising reform (4), there has been little real movement on any of these policies.

Parliament House Canberra

 

There is no expert body advising government on policy reform (1), no review of the 2010 Productivity Commission Report recommendations (2), our progress on cross jurisdictional collaboration to cut red tape is glacial at best (3 and 4), no evidence of any change in government approach to contracting to take into account the clear research on ‘paying what it takes’ or providing enough time within contracts to establish services and achieve contracted outcomes (5 and 6).

As more and more State governments seek to stamp out any protest actions that might inconvenience people, the whole idea of ‘advocacy itself being protected’ (8) is now questionable.

In critical areas like cybersecurity (10) it feels as though the sector is going backwards while huge amounts of government money are being invested through tax concessions and other incentives to assist business in managing what is now a serious global risk.

There is no Cybersecurity support program for charities who often hold even more sensitive data on individuals and families than business or governments.

If I could give just one message to the ALP Conference in Brisbane this week, it would be it is time to start delivering on what you promised us before the election.

A strong and effective charities and NFP sector is fundamental to the economic and social wellbeing of Australia.

Having a government that embraces values that are shared with so many charities and NFPs has been welcomed across our sector. But ignoring our needs and delaying reform is undermining the good will of many charities and NFPs.

Regardless of how much we might all agree with the lovely sets of words, and the repeated expressions of support, without action these words are mostly decorative.

And that is not good government policy.

More information

Labor Fringe 2023 event

Is ALP policy just decoration? Read More »

We need a stronger public service. Here’s why

News

Published in The Community Advocate: We need a stronger public service. Here’s why

We need a stronger public service. Here's why

Pexels andrea piacquadio 3760067

A better Public Service is vital to improving the effectiveness of charities and NFPs, says David Crosbie.

When you think of the big challenges that lie ahead for our country and our planet, it seems obvious that we will need stronger leadership, a more effective charity and NFP sector, and a more competent and better resourced public service if we are to thrive in the coming decades.

Climate change and growing inequality are just two of the big issues confronting Australia.

We are also facing a lack of skills available in our workplaces, global inflation and cost of living pressures, the growing threat of cybersecurity and a failure to bridge the many gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

Responding effectively to these and other complex issues requires quality information and a capable public sector.

In some countries, conservatives have deliberately attacked their own governments by undermining trust in government agencies, setting the public sector unachievable goals with diminishing resources and attacking the roles public servants fulfill.

Australia has had a taste of this approach over the past ten years with the deliberate running down of the Commonwealth public service.

Public service austerity and smaller government was sold as a political winner, but the endless cycle of cuts, resignations, political pressure and decreasing morale has hollowed out Australia’s public service.

Parliament House

Robodebt and the over-reliance on consultants are just two of many examples of the price we pay for this anti-government approach.

There are many critical dimensions to the role of the public service that go well beyond policy development or the regulation of markets and industries. In almost every area there is necessary interaction and overlap with charities and NFPs.

Unfortunately, at present, the public sector is often failing to meet even the most basic of service standards.

This week The Guardian published a story outlining what many charities recognise as a typical example of how hard it can be to navigate and access urgent government services.

Having exhausted her super savings and almost run out of money, Maryanne Watts applied for Jobseeker.

“Watts says she spent at least an hour waiting on hold every time she called, which was at 8am – the minute the phone lines opened for the day,” wrote Stephanie Convery.

“If she called any later, she received a congestion message. After six weeks of relentless following up, Watts’ ‘urgent’ application was finally approved.

“For some people, though, the wait is vastly longer.”

“A better Public Service is vital to improving the effectiveness of charities and NFPs.”

There are similar stories about delays in processing immigration visas, aged care applications, NDIS applications and Veterans Affairs applications, to name just a few.

Government delays in responding to climate emergencies are also a major concern in many communities – particularly for people living in isolated and vulnerable locations.

This week’s story is in the National Indigenous Times, about Fitzroy Crossing residents, but it could be about many communities.

Governments need to improve their responses to floods, fires, cyclones, and other climate emergencies, but this will require extra resources.

Preparing communities; building social infrastructure through local charities and NFPs; strengthening physical infrastructure including energy and communications; protecting the supply of food, water and shelter; creating community-led response and recovery capacity: all these activities require a better informed and skilled public sector.

One good performance indicator of public sector administration is the number of freedom of information requests outstanding, which, as The Guardian reported, has escalated from 3,313 in 2018 to 9,202 in 2022.

While we talk about the need for increased productivity in Australia, the role of the public sector in reducing or increasing productivity is rarely discussed.

For many charities and NFPs, the time wasted filling in forms to comply with overlapping or duplicated fundraising regulations and other pointless red tape is a good example of how a poor-quality public service affects productivity and the sector’s capacity to effectively serve our communities.

We can collectively address many of the challenges we are facing by working together and strengthening government capacity as well as building effectiveness in the charity and NFP sector.

This will happen only if we invest more in our public service, and increase its skills, understanding and capacity. While there are some signs that this is beginning to happen under the current government, we still have a long way to go.

As charities and NFPs we often need to point out the failings of government and hold it to account, and we often struggle with a public sector that is under resourced and ill informed. But we need to find ways to work constructively together if we are to address the local, national, and global challenges we will all face over the coming decades.

A better public service is vital to improving the effectiveness of charities and NFPs.

As humans living on a warming planet with growing inequality, we need better governments and public services, just as we need stronger charities and NFPs holding us all together.

We need a stronger public service. Here’s why Read More »

Putting the public good in public policy

News

Published in The Community Advocate: Putting the public good in public policy

Putting the public good in public policy

When groups of highly paid people from the public service and major consultancy firms sit in expensive offices sharing PowerPoint presentations and agreeing with each other, it doesn’t mean something is changing for the better.

The cosy relationship between senior public servants and consultants is not just about money, although no one can doubt that money is a primary motivation within the big four consultancy firms.

The amount of taxpayer money given to the big four firms for management advisory services has increased by more than 1,270% in a decade, according to new analysis from the Centre for Public Integrity.

“In 2012 the federal government spent $44 million on these services, which include audits, project management and strategic advice. In the past financial year, the bureaucracy spent $605 million, with the largest share of that money going to KPMG,” reported the Guardian’s Australian edition.

A lot of this government expenditure is related to audits, and the Department of Defence is one of the biggest spenders, but we also know that part of the increasing expenditure is about government drawing on major consultancy firms to support policy development and implementation.

Whatever the actual figures are, governments are clearly more comfortable spending money on expensive big four consultancies in the development of policy input than they are in seeking expert input and advice from charities, community organisations and academics.

This is reflected in the marketing of consultancy firms’ services to government. For example, this is a blurb from one of the major firms:

“Good policy development requires sound processes, evidence and insights. Our consultants help you develop policy by analysing evidence, engaging with stakeholders to understand their issues, to generate, develop and test new policy solutions, and to support implementation. …. Our consultants work with you to consider key decisions, including identifying the most effective way to implement policy to achieve the desired outcomes and identifying the right organisations and people to be involved.”

We rarely see charity and community group expertise marketed in this way.

Part of the success of consultancy firms in this area is that together with the public service, they have developed a shared perspective on what makes good policy.

It is difficult to accurately characterise or generalise about this shared consultancy and public servant perspective, but it is often more about ticking the boxes and meeting perception requirements than about delivering public benefit.

Senior government policy makers tend to define good policy as a set of words we can all agree to. While keeping everyone onside can be a political goal, the problem with policy where everything is still possible, where the words rule nothing out, is that it is useless policy.

Safe, all-encompassing, everyone-agrees policy requires no change, no improvement, no shift in anyone’s behaviour.

In most areas of public policy, the problem is not about knowing what needs to be done, but about the lack of action consistent with what is known to be required.

A spin-off from the safe-set-of-words approach to government policy is the window-dressing approach.

The goal of window-dressing policies is to be able to say the government is actively addressing an issue of concern without actually doing anything to address the issue of concern.

Whether the government is considering options for the future, planning to become involved in an area, keen to address problems moving forward, looking to prepare a report, or aware of the issues and seeking solutions, all these statements mean nothing if nothing is actually being done.

In most areas of public policy, the problem is not about knowing what needs to be done, but about the lack of action consistent with what is known to be required.

In a public forum this week I was asked a question about how I defined good government policy, especially given government policy failures like Robodebt.

My response was to talk about authenticity, and there is one critical element that tells me whether policy development and implementation is authentic: prolonged engagement.

Good policy needs to be informed by experience, and that can be facilitated in many ways. Ideally there is engagement from those whom the policy will apply to, but that rarely happens.

Involvement of those affected by policy often occurs long after policy goals and parameters have been set. If consultations do occur, they tend to be rushed and shallow.

Most good government policy is about delivering some form of public benefit.

This can be economic, social, health, well-being, productivity or environmental, but whatever the benefit of the policy is intended to be, without ongoing monitoring, measurement, and evaluation it is difficult to argue the policy is authentic.

Just as engagement is important in the initial policy development, it is ongoing engagement over time that is the key to effective policy implementation and evaluation.

Prolonged engagement is also critical to continual improvement. Being prepared to engage with communities, using expertise to monitor and measure outcomes and impact, and modifying activities as required to better achieve policy goals should all be fundamental aspects of any good government policy.

Serious and prolonged consultation with communities, particularly disadvantaged communities, should generally be outsourced from the public service and big consultancy firms, and allocated to those who know and are engaged with their communities.

In most cases this will be charities and community organisations.

The story of government expenditure on consultancy firms is partly a story about the acceptance of superficial policy. It is also a story about government failure to recognise the immense value charities and community organisations can offer in developing authentic policies that result in real and sustainable public benefits.

That part of the consultancy story is not being told.

Putting the public good in public policy Read More »

From unity comes strength

News

Published in The Community Advocate: From unity comes strength

From unity comes strength

It’s time not-for-profits stood united and refused to continue accepting scraps from the table of power, argues Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie

“The strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.” – Rudyard Kipling

If there is one narrative that dominates charity and not-for profit imperatives, it is doing more for less. The pressure is always on to do more, but resources rarely match expectations.

Most for-purpose organisations manage their limited resources by drawing on the same miraculous skills that might have enabled a carpenter’s son to feed the masses with only a handful of loaves and fishes.

Even these skills may not be enough.

As charities and NFPs we are also expected to measure our impact, be more like business in driving efficiencies, achieve a digital transition, manage all our risks including cybersecurity, recruit and retain the best staff, enable volunteering and broader engagement, leverage our assets, and market ourselves on multiple platforms to diversify and increase income streams in an incredibly competitive environment.

We cover the cracks in our programs and services by working harder, longer, for less, in the hope we can keep serving our communities despite the lack of resources.

We do what needs to be done.

Why do we do this? Because we believe in our work, in the difference it makes, in the individuals, families and communities we change for the better.

An eminent visiting American professor once told me that the work I was doing with young offenders was exceptional.

Summing up his observations after spending time watching my organisation’s strengths-based approach to engaging with troubled youth, he said, “This is the best program I have visited in years. It is also the most vulnerable program I have visited in years. Your problem is that the work you do is not valued, by anyone really.”

Hungry dog
NFPs must ensure their voices are heard and stop competing for scraps falling from the main table.

Ten years ago, the then Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten pointed out the same problem about the value of our work in an address to the National Press Club. Having cited the statistics about the extent of the charities and NFP sector in Australia, he said, “Interestingly, despite your numbers, you don’t have the influence on national policy your weight should warrant. There is very limited public discussion about your needs or your issues as a sector.”

“One of the inherent difficulties for the Third Sector is that you are all so flat-out with the activities and services of your group that to some extent, overall sector issues have missed out.

“When I talk with people in the not-for-profit sector and ask them what they most need, they usually talk about the needs of their clients, the people they serve, their community.

“Making their organisation stronger or more sustainable is a second order issue, and the needs of the broader not-for-profit sector come a long way behind.

“Often small groups don’t recognise they are even part of a ‘sector’.

“Like all groups with asymmetric bargaining power, you need more unity.”

“We have become experts in doing more for less, perpetuating our own weakness.”

More unity.

Without unity, without collective action, our sector will continue to be relegated to the side lines and won’t be regarded as a serious player in framing national policy.

Groups like the Community Council for Australia are built around unity. It’s why Our Community is publishing the Community Advocate and supporting the Institute of Community Directors Australia.

When CCA brought together the Charities Crisis Cabinet, we drove changes in national responses to covid-19 that enabled many charities to survive.

This work was largely supported by volunteer efforts. Susan Pascoe, Tim Costello, and 20 other charity leaders gave generously of their time. Cat Fay at Perpetual allowed money previously allocated for other purposes to be used to support the behind-the-scenes work of the Charities Crisis Cabinet.

It wasn’t perfect, but it worked, because it was an effective and responsive collective voice into national policy.

Within government and within broader community debates about our future as a nation, the for-purpose sector has few effective collective voices.

Investing in unity and collective leadership in our sector is not seen as a priority within most organisations. If there is a choice between more money for programs and services, and more money to back a peak body or other collective action, most for-purpose organisations will not allocate resources to unity.

I am pleased to say that at CCA we have around 80 outstanding charities that have chosen to prioritise unity and invest in collective action. They are exceptional, and together we have achieved some good outcomes for the sector.

Unfortunately, too many charities find reasons not to join CCA.

CCA’s effectiveness as a peak body pales into insignificance when compared to that of the Business Council of Australia or even the Council Of Small Business Organisations Australia (COSBOA), a charity which has ten times the turnover of CCA.

COSBOA’s extensive government funding has included more than $5 million for a campaign to promote small business.

The charities and NFP sector cannot get government funding to develop a sector blueprint, let alone a national campaign to promote the sector.

Unlike COSBOA, CCA has never received any government funding.

Our sector has strong community backing, good evidence and arguments in support of our positions, and opportunities to make our case to governments and policy makers, but that is rarely enough.

Governments and policy makers have repeatedly demonstrated that they don’t see for-purpose organisations as a priority. That’s not surprising given how little we have invested in making our collective voices heard.

We compete for scraps falling from the main table. We meekly accept inadequate levels of funding and resourcing, dismissive approaches to our policy input, and polite assurances that deliver nothing of consequence.

We have become experts in doing more for less, perpetuating our own weakness.

Change will happen only if we take a different approach. Unity is strength. It’s up to us.

One more thing before I go

I note it is now free to become a member of the Institute of Community Directors Australia (ICDA).

For those organisations interested in membership of CCA, visit Membership – Community Council for Australia. Membership starts at $121 annually.

David Crosbie has been CEO of the Community Council for Australia for the past decade and has spent more than a quarter of a century leading significant not-for-profit organisations including the Mental Health Council of Australia, the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia, and Odyssey House Victoria.

He has served on numerous national advisory groups and boards including the first advisory board for the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission, the Not-for-Profit Sector Reform Council, and the National Compact Expert Advisory Group, which he chaired.

His diverse career outside the sector includes stints as a teacher in prison, a probation officer, a university lecturer, a farm hand, a truck driver, a bank teller, a public servant, and a musician in a successful rock band.

From unity comes strength Read More »

Is it time for charities to mean business?

News

Published in The Community Advocate: Is it time for charities to mean business?

Is it time for charities to mean business?

In his first weekly column for the Community Advocate, the CEO of the Community Council for Australia, David Crosbie, ponders the merits of treating charities and NFPs as small businesses.

Charities are at the bottom of the organisational status listings in so many ways.

We talk about charities and not-for-profits (NFPs) as the third sector – behind business and government.

Charities are not seen as major contributors to our economy or our nation, even though they employ over 1.4 million Australians, turn over more than $190 billion annually and hold $422 billion in assets.

The value of charities is best measured not just in economic terms, but in the impact charities and NFPs have on our health, wellbeing, resilience and community connectedness. Unfortunately, these important outcomes of our work are rarely documented or valued in any meaningful way.

The skills required to successfully run a medium to large charity are broader and more complex than the skills required to run a business, not that you would know that from the conventional narrative in which successful business leadership is exulted, while leadership in the for-purpose sector is seen as softer and less demanding.

A major survey by Imagine Canada on the charity workforce this year found that charity employees tend to be better qualified and lower paid than their equivalents in business or government.

Money is an issue not only when it comes to salary levels. While most businesses have access to start-up loans and other favourable forms of debt financing, charities typically lack access to the capital they need and struggle to access any form of debt financing.

The devaluing of charities is not just in our workforce, our leadership, or our access to capital. It is also reflected in the way governments are structured and deal with charities and NFPs.

Short-term “take it or leave it” contracts, few of which factor in the true costs of providing services, have become standard government practice in their funding of charities and NFPs.

Governments sometimes refer to these arrangements as partnerships, but in most cases feudal lords had more equitable relationships with their serfs than governments have with their contracted charities and NFPs.

There are no government charity departments. The charity sector has no home in government, no set of dedicated officials working to increase its productivity and effectiveness.

The same cannot be said for small business or even the public sector itself.

Most industry groups of any size have dedicated public servants working to advance their competitiveness and profitability whether it be in agriculture, mining, or tourism or even information technology.

Government entities research their areas and provide support and information to enable the expansion of markets in Australia and around the world. Aside from the charity regulator – the ACNC – there are no senior public servants who see their role as championing the needs of charities in government.

The most important policy document a government prepares each year is its annual budget. Before the budget is locked away, treasurers and finance ministers across Australia will ask their senior officials to provide options to enhance and boost small business.

They know that any good budget needs to provide incentives to small business. Charity incentives are very rarely even raised as an option.

In practice, this means business can access many levels of government support that are simply unattainable for charities.

A small business concerned about cybersecurity can access government support to strengthen its safety. Charities cannot.

A small business can access training incentives in areas of skills shortage. A charity cannot.

A business investing in research and development and other forms of innovation can access targeted government grants and even rebates. A charity cannot.

A small business seeking to smooth out its energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables can access national government grants and loans schemes. A charity cannot.

Charities should not be the organisational child in the room, smiling graciously as the grown-up business and government sectors pat our heads and tells us what good boys and girls we are for helping.

Government-backed digital transformation and enhanced data security programs are available to support small business. Charities are ineligible for most of these schemes.

There are ad hoc government and philanthropic grant programs in some of these areas in some jurisdictions for some charities, but they tend to be highly competitive, short term and woefully inadequate for the scale of challenges thousands of charities are dealing with.

I have raised all these issues with government and been told that charities already enjoy income tax exemptions and most small business incentive programs are based on writing off income and tax liabilities.

As charities are generally tax exempt, to provide similar incentives would require actual grant programs, which are more difficult for government to approve because they involve additional expenditure rather than the foregone revenue of a tax write-off.

Why be a charity?

It is at this point that I find myself wondering: why be a charity?

Could we do the same work and achieve the same goals and purposes while operating as businesses?

Given that charities generally generate very low surpluses, most charities would be able to write off most of their expenditure and therefore not be liable for any tax (the same as many companies). So why bother being a charity?

The one thing we can say for sure is that as small businesses we would be taken more seriously by governments and politicians. We would be part of the “engine room of the Australian economy” and that would make what we want and need important to government.

For instance, I am pretty sure that if small business had to deal with the shambolic dog’s breakfast of Australian fundraising regulations that charities have to deal with, they would have been fixed by now.

I believe in charities, in the whole idea of collective action to drive change, to build flourishing communities and make a real difference in the world, not just contribute to an economy.

I don’t want to be a business, making profit for owners, but I do want to be taken seriously.

Charities should not be the organisational child in the room, smiling graciously as the grown-up business and government sectors pat our heads and tells us what good boys and girls we are for helping.

It’s time we stood up for ourselves. What does that mean?

I will explore this idea a little more in next week’s column.

https://communitydirectors.com.au/articles/is-it-time-for-charities-to-mean-business

Is it time for charities to mean business? Read More »

Dermot O’Gorman, David Crosbie | Hosting COP31 could shift Australia and Pacific approach to addressing climate change

News

Dermot O'Gorman, David Crosbie | Hosting COP31 could shift Australia and Pacific approach to addressing climate change

Smoke haze has smothered most of Brisbane over the last week, in parts it was so bad people with respiratory conditions were advised to stay indoors.

The smoke blanket was the result of controlled burns as emergency services strive to prepare for what they fear will be a potentially disastrous fire season. It’s not the first Australian capital to be afflicted and it won’t be the last.

And as a result, the nature of the climate discussions in Australia needs to be about much more than adapting to our new climate reality. It’s important that we get more Australians involved, more community-level input, about the impact climate change is having in our lives and to empower people to make a tangible difference.

The government has just earmarked $4 billion in budget funding towards making Australia “renewable energy superpower”, but the reality is we need to do much more than transition to renewable energy.

If Australia is concerned about its future, it must also take a leading global role in efforts to curb climate change and help provide a platform for Pacific nations that are literally being swallowed up by rising oceans.

So how do we recalibrate the old climate debates, engage the public in grassroots discussion and also play a global leadership role?

Last year Australia announced its bid to co-host the 31st Conference of the Parties to the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP31) in 2026 in partnership with the Pacific.

While this may not have the electricity of an Olympic bid, nor the public spotlight, it is highly significant. It would bring overseas investment and fast-track Australia’s ambition to be a global leader in renewable energy.

But just as importantly we believe COP31 can be a catalyst for communities, businesses, social groups, individuals and families to participate and to have conversations about climate action, leaving behind the mire of climate wars, and moving co-operatively into a new decade of opportunity.

It is on this basis that a group of like-minded organisations came together in Canberra this month with the objective of delivering a whole-of-society approach to COP31.

The advisory committee brought together non-governmental organisations, academics, peak bodies, and business for cross sector collaboration in building recommendations for government on delivering COP31.

The committee will act as an organising hub for the purpose sector to build around COP31 and leverage this moment for Australians broadly. We want to see COP31 not as a meeting of policy wonks, but as a symbol of Australia’s capacity to be a global leader in climate solutions.

A UN climate conference is the largest multi-lateral meeting outside of the annual leader’s gathering and General Assembly in New York. It is a logistical undertaking akin to an Olympic Games and routinely attracts over 35,000 participants from around the world.

The climate COP has become a climate action carnival – rolling together a tradeshow, investment hub and knowledge sharing centre in conjunction with formal negotiations. And while a COP’s true value lies with its purpose in addressing climate change, the meetings also generate considerable economic benefits to the host country and city.

Yet winning the bid to host COP31 is not a given. A lot depends on a country’s international standing and action on climate change. This will be the challenge for Australia.

While the Labor government has enacted several significant improvements in climate policy since gaining office, there remains a gulf between Australia’s emissions reduction aims and what is needed according to the science.

The government must take several brave steps. First, Australia must exit fossil fuels out of our economy, second it must seize the economic and social opportunity that the renewable revolution represents, and finally it must become a world leader in international development and global diplomacy.

These steps will transform COP31 from a UN meeting held in Australia, to one in which Australia and the Pacific could lead the way in transforming world systems and light the way for climate action during this critical decade.

Australia has some catching up to do to truly capture this opportunity.

But there is time, there is energy, there is capital – and communities across Australia are calling out for more action.

COP31 is our chance to deliver real change for people, the climate and nature.

First published, Canberra Times, 5 June 2023

Dermot O’Gorman, David Crosbie | Hosting COP31 could shift Australia and Pacific approach to addressing climate change Read More »