News

Disability savings directed straight to defence in a mixed Budget

News

Disability savings directed straight to defence in a mixed Budget

CCA CEO David Crosbie reviews the 2026-27 Federal Budget writing in the Community Advocate

There are few surprises in the federal Budget. The flagged reforms are welcome, although tentatively made, and there are some good investments in new and existing programs, but it’s disappointing that the savings measures are dominated by disability.

While governments and ministers may profess support for an issue or a cause, the real test is whether they prioritise that issue or cause enough to allocate taxpayer funds to addressing it. And when governments have to find savings, as all governments do, where do they take the money from?

We knew the government was going to make cuts to the NDIS. The media has been awash with examples of fraudulent exploitations of the disability insurance scheme by a very small minority of providers, along with dire projections of cost blowouts. This has lent support to the government’s wish to introduce restrictions and caps to the scheme.

Unless the states and territories are suddenly willing to reinstate some of the disability expenditure they removed when the NDIS came into being, many people with a disability are facing a reduction in services as a result of this Budget.

Half the Budget’s $63.8 billion in savings is coming from projected NDIS expenditure reductions ($36.2 billion). Of course the NDIS could be more efficient and effective, but $36 billion is a lot of money.

Defence alone eats up a lot of these savings – $53 billion for drones, underwater and other programs, and an additional 380 departmental roles and 320 for the Australian Submarine Agency.

It’s hard to argue against the reforming measures in this Budget, including the capping of capital gains discounts and negative gearing on investment properties. The savings from these measures will take many years to flow through to the Budget, and those currently enjoying these tax perks will continue to do so, but at least this budget has made a start in addressing the inequity in the housing market between investors and those seeking somewhere to live.

Another overdue equity measure is a minimum tax on the distributions of trusts. Trusts should not be established as vehicles to avoid tax.

There are many good measures in the Budget, some of which benefit charities and NFPs and the communities they serve. There are too many individual program boosts to cover all of them but well done to those who gained additional resources to apply to their mission.

The Community Council for Australia has been involved in the push for better migrant skills recognition, which has gained some funding in this budget. This measure sits alongside moves to streamline red tape and approval processes for business to boost productivity. There is no mention of streamlining charity compliance requirements to boost our productivity.

There are also improvements in access to social housing for young people, and there is some additional strengthening of the child support payment system. Medical research gets a boost.

International development is facing another round of reprioritisation with cuts to some programs – the United Nations Development Programme, the Global Partnership for Education, UNAIDS and the Pandemic Fund – but a boost to more regional programs.

“There are many good measures in the budget, some of which benefit charities and NFPs and the communities they serve.”

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said on Tuesday night, “We’re investing an extra $1.2 billion to close the gap, doubling the number of jobs created as part of the Remote Jobs and Economic Development program, improving housing quality, and expanding our support for grocery stores in remote First Nations communities.”

For me, the investment governments make to support Indigenous Australians is always a focus at budget time. We need to both increase our efforts to address disadvantage and be more strategically targeted. I welcome the measures that meet these criteria, although much more is needed to address the shocking rates of Indigenous incarceration and the removal of Indigenous children in Australia.

One reform that has again been overlooked is the need to raise the rate of our social service safety net. We know from experience during COVID that raising the rate is a very effective way to reduce cost-of-living pressures while also providing increased opportunities for those requiring basic income support.

In the Treasurer’s address to Parliament, he talked about “backing the aspiration and innovation of small business”, a theme we often hear at Budget time.

I wonder if we’ll ever hear a federal treasurer delivering the Budget say instead, “The government is investing more in the sector that not only supports Australia’s economic growth and productivity, but also builds real resilience, strength and well-being in communities across Australia: the charities and NFP sector.”

We live in challenging times. Our environment is under pressure, the world order is shifting, technology is changing our lives. At Budget time we face the reality that governments don’t have all the answers, and they operate within a set of relatively narrow political and economic constraints.

This Budget again reminds me that if we want to achieve the kind of Australia we want to live in, we may need to become better advocates and do things differently.

Read on the Community Advocate:  https://www.communitydirectors.com.au/articles/disability-savings-directed-straight-to-defence-in-a-mixed-budget

 

Disability savings directed straight to defence in a mixed Budget Read More »

Silence now could cost you, and the communities you serve

News

Silence now could cost you, and the communities you serve

CCA CEO David Crosbie writes for The Community Advocate, 15 April 2026

One of the most important lessons from the Covid 19 pandemic was to ask for what is needed. This may seem obvious, but in the asymmetrical world of charities and not-for-profits, the reluctance to ask can be a major barrier.

As we begin to grapple with the ongoing impact of fuel shortages and higher prices, many charities and not-for-profits (NFPs) are facing tough decisions.

The fuel shortage will affect charities and NFPs in various ways, and each organisation will need to develop its own responses. We know that for most, budgets are going to be affected.

The Community Council for Australia (CCA) is aware that some of our members are already making cuts to services. Some charities are considering travel restrictions, adjusting their travel payments to staff, and reducing face to face engagement.

In many organisations, the response may require revisiting existing funding agreements and contracts.

Charities and NFPs tend to be reluctant to approach their funders with a problem. While most are used to asking on behalf of their communities, asking for themselves can seem self-serving or awkward.

The Productivity Commission last produced a detailed analysis of the sector in 2010, its Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector: Research Report. In a conversation with the lead commissioner on this report, Robert Fitzgerald, I once asked him what was a finding that he thought was worth noting but had largely been overlooked or downplayed. He suggested I look at Appendix E, where there was a survey about perceptions of the relationship between government officials and leaders from NFPs. The key finding of the survey was that only around one third of NFP leaders felt they had a very good relationship with their relevant government officials, yet over two thirds of government officials felt they had a very good relationship with NFPs.

The obvious explanation of this significant perception disparity is that charities and NFPs avoid expressing their honest views to government officials in case it negatively affects their opportunity to receive funding. And this makes sense. Why jeopardise potential funding by expressing a negative view of government processes or activities?

During the covid 19 pandemic, many charities and NFPs had to pivot face-to-face activities to online and restructure the way they delivered their services to their communities.

One of the things that stood out for CCA during this period was the willingness of funders to allow real flexibility in budget expenditure. This flexibility enabled funding provided for specific programs or services to be re-purposed and used to better meet the needs of both the organisation and the community during the pandemic.

Interestingly, this higher level of flexibility was provided by all levels of government as well as most philanthropists.

The one requirement that needed to be met for this flexibility to be applied was that the charity or NFP had to ask, and many did. Charities and NFPs felt comfortable raising issues with their funders because there was a sense that we were all dealing with a major crisis together.

Now Australia and the world are facing another challenging set of circumstances that’s likely to have a significant and sustained impact across our sector. It may not be at pandemic levels of disruption, but the capacity of many charities and NFPs will be tested.

Now is the time to consider asking funders for what is needed. There are different ways to ask, including becoming part of a collective request, as has happened with emergency relief organisations that have received a 15 per cent boost in funding during the current months.

Peak bodies such as CCA have been asking for additional flexibility and support for charities’ travel costs. We have adopted a more collective approach based on adapting to meet the changing context, managing the impact of increasing fuel expenses, and ensuring the principle of pay what it takes.

CCA is aware that individual charities have sought both additional funding and flexibility to divert and re-purpose funding from government departments with various levels of success.

What each organisation needs and the nature of its funding and its relationship with funders will determine how best to seek additional flexibility and support.

There is an impressive line-up of vested business interests seeking various forms of compensation and special dispensation in response to the fuel shortage.

Asking may test a relationship, it may be uncomfortable, it may create the risk of being denied. But if the need is real, not asking is unlikely to be a better course of action.

So ask.

Read in The Community Advocate: silence-now-could-cost-you-and-the-communities-you-serve

Silence now could cost you, and the communities you serve Read More »

Purpose and values matter, now more than ever

News

Purpose and values matter, now more than ever

CCA CEO David Crosbie writes for the Community Advocate.

This week during an interview I was asked why values and purpose are so important in our sector. My response was that values and purpose are fundamental for every sector. Values and purpose sustain and nourish our systems, our communities, our organisations, our families and ourselves.

Unfortunately, there are now many examples in Australia and around the world where the loss of values and purpose is obvious, which is why we all need to be particularly vigilant in our own organisations to ensure we stay on track.

Earlier this month, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) published its investigation report about the six individuals referred by the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme.

The findings? “The Commission found that 2 of the 6 individuals engaged in serious corrupt conduct, and that the remaining 4 did not engage in corrupt conduct.”

Apparently only the two most junior officials referred to NACC bear any responsibility for wrongdoing because senior officials have nothing to gain through trying to please their minister.

The minister was told by advisers that legislation might be required to implement Robodebt, but he instructed the department to find a way to make significant social security savings without requiring any legislation. The senior officials then pretended no legislation was required for Robodebt – so they could meet their minister’s brief.

Reading parts of the NACC report is a perplexing experience, too strange and too verbose to outline in any detail here. It’s a fiction of postulation, inventing motives or lack of motives, and using these inventions to avoid finding that those most responsible should be held accountable. Here is just one paragraph, part of a longer explanation of why Kathryn Campbell (the former DHS Secretary) would not deliberately have deceived anyone because she was already very senior, had a great record, had nothing much more to gain in her career, and therefore had no motive, and without motive she must be innocent:

“Motive is no more an essential element of corrupt conduct within the meaning of the NACC Act than it is of a criminal offence. But just as in crime, so too with corrupt conduct, where the only motive for engaging in corrupt conduct is so improbable as to be near inconceivable, it comes so near to the point of proved absence of motive as to bespeak the absence of intent.”

Many people suffered needlessly as an outcome of the actions of those who developed, implemented and maintained the Robodebt scheme. Innocent people died. But there is little to no accountability for government ministers who proudly promoted the scheme, or the most senior government officials who enabled and prolonged it.

This week’s ABC Four Corners program on the way universities have outsourced decisions to consultancy firms and the negative impact this has had on students and staff provided yet another example of purpose lost in false performance goals.

According to the ABC, Australian universities paid over $1.8 billion in consultancy fees to large multinational management consultancy companies in 2024. Partners and senior staff from these consultancies worked their way into universities (a target market) and became part of the management and governance structures. They applied an ‘education as a commodity’ lens to the functions of universities and implemented plans involving the sacking of hundreds of staff and cutting of hundreds of courses at universities including the Australian National University, the University of Wollongong, and the University of Technology Sydney. Not one of the vice-chancellors of these universities was prepared to be interviewed.

Again, the question for me is who is responsible or accountable for decisions that may be harmful or counter to the core purpose of an organisation, and how is that accountability exercised?

Most university staff are committed to education and developing our country through innovation and the increased realisation of human potential. Similarly, most senior government officials are dedicated to providing informative advice to governments, even if the advice they provide is not what governments might want to hear.

But in both the cases above there appears to be a clear loss of values and purpose.

Universities should not put profit before education. Public servants should not lie or mislead to please their minister. Ministers should not act unlawfully or deceive their Cabinet colleagues or the public.

For most charities and NFPs the values are clear, the purpose is clear, and there are effective governance and management structures that reinforce both. But what happens in our organisations when this is not the case?

The most common examples of charities losing their values and purpose tend to involve people in charities pursuing personal financial gain, sometimes illegally, or through various forms of nepotism, exploitation or other misconduct.

The reality is that while charities and NFPs invariably exist to benefit their communities, there will always be a very small minority of people who act in their own interests and harm others.

There is also constant pressure on charity and NFP leaders to give in to alternative goals, pursue income over purpose, take an easy road or shortcut, and seek to please rather than making a difference.

The most trusted leaders in our sector have invariably learnt not to compromise on purpose, not to turn a blind eye to minor misconduct or loss of values, to encourage through role modelling a clear focus on purpose, and to discourage misconduct through establishing and maintaining accountability, ownership, and responsibility.

Loss of values and purpose doesn’t happen overnight; it often creeps slowly via many small, barely noticeable steps until it finds a foothold, a way to undermine and insert new incentives, a way to drive decision making well beyond purpose.

Purpose and values matter, creating value matters, and being valued matters. All of these need our constant attention, especially in a world that seems to be drifting under a cloud of ego-driven nihilism.

Read in The Community Advocate: https://www.communitydirectors.com.au/articles/purpose-and-values-matter-now-more-than-ever

Purpose and values matter, now more than ever Read More »

Global Fuel Shortages and Charities/NFPs

News, Submissions-post

Global Fuel Shortages and Charities/NFPs

The Community Council for Australia is requesting that the essential role of charities and NFPs be factored into any measures relating to fuel shortages in Australia.

Introduction

No-one knows what will happen with fuel supplies to Australia. We do know governments have already begun planning for what could be a difficult time with urgent meetings of the National Cabinet, a new Fuel Supply Taskforce, initial behind the scenes planning around possible restrictions and targeted support packages for at-risk businesses and other groups.

It’s important to note that charities are a major employer (over 1.5 million staff and 3.5 million volunteers), have a large economic footprint (turn-over $220 billion+ per annum and assets above $435 billion), and play a critical role in the lives of millions of Australians and the communities they belong to.

There are five aspects of primary concern for charities and NFPs if fuel shortages become more acute and sustained.

In addressing these issues, CCA seeks to ensure charities are actively consulted about proposed measures to address what may be a significant challenge for many Australians.

1. Increased costs

Increased costs impact all charities and NFPs. Many need to use transport in their service provision, and many rely on goods and commodities that are likely to substantially increase in cost. Most charities and NFPs are already stretched very thinly to provide their valuable services. Most have very limited budget flexibility. An un-budgeted increase in costs will impact the capacity of charities and NFPs to continue to effectively meet community needs.

2. Reduced volunteers/staff availability

Many people who volunteer or work at charities rely on private transport. If the cost of fuel increases and availability decreases, some volunteers (and staff) may choose to save their fuel for essential purposes. This will again reduce the capacity of charities and NFPs to continue to meet community needs.

3. Increased demand for emergency relief and essential services

The COVID experience highlighted that in times of economic pressure, demand for emergency relief and other support services increases significantly. Vulnerable people become more vulnerable when new challenges arise, and this can be seen across a broad range of services. Demand for domestic violence support, for instance, is likely to increase if economic pressures rise. An unplanned increase in service demand is very difficult to respond to if there is not an increase in funding for charities and NFPs.

4. Declining income

Many charities and NFPs rely on donations, sponsorships and philanthropy to enable them to provide vital services to communities. Australia is already seeing a significant drop in consumer confidence and typically this translates into less fundraising and philanthropic income across the charities and NFP sector. At a time of rising costs, the likely decline in donations will undoubtedly hit some charities.

Another source of income for some charities and NFPs is fees for the services they provide. As we saw in the COVID pandemic, when people travel less and participate less in group events this can negatively impact the income streams of many charities and NFPs that rely on fee for service type income.

5. Reduced social cohesion and increased vulnerability

Charities and NFPs are the backbone of many communities and especially vulnerable population groups. Charities and NFPs bring people together to provide opportunities to positively engage, build understanding, offer important services, support and hope. When the pressure on community relationships increases, it’s important that charities and NFPs have the resources they need to ensure individual, family and community resilience is supported and encouraged. A reduction in the capacity of charities and NFPs to respond to vulnerable community needs during a fuel shortage crisis would not only lead to more harm, it would also translate into higher costs for governments in the medium to longer term.

Conclusion

CCA believes our governments at every level will be able to steer an appropriate course through what may be very challenging waters over the coming months, but governments cannot do it alone. Business has a role. Charities and NFPs have a role.

At CCA we believe the best way to maximise the contribution of charities and NFPs in addressing challenges is to actively engage with the sector to ensure what is needed is being provided. CCA is happy to play a role in this engagement.

Should the situation deteriorate, it’s charities and NFPs that will again provide the fundamental services that connect people and offer support to those most in need.

CCA ask that our concerns and issues be fully considered in any measures to address the emerging challenges of a global fuel shortage and its impact upon Australia.

See also coverage in The Community Advocate, 25 March: All hands on deck says CCA as rocketing fuel prices hit charities already running on fumes

Global Fuel Shortages and Charities/NFPs Read More »

I don’t fear AI, but I fear what some people might do with it

News

I don’t fear AI, but I fear what some people might do with it

CCA CEO, David Crosbie writes in the Community Advocate.

Like many of you, I’m starting to slowly incorporate more AI tools into my work. I claim no particular expertise or knowledge of AI, but I am an amateur user, and I have had opportunities to participate in many discussions about how AI is now being used across our sector.

Most of the AI use across our sector appears to be both intuitive and useful. According to Infoxchange’s Digital Technology in the Not-For-Profit Sector Report, “AI use has become mainstream across NFP operations. Sixty-seven per cent now use generative AI, with 43% of organisations using ChatGPT. One-third are using Copilot. Three out of four (75%) are deploying AI for content creation, reporting, writing and editing. The use of applications with built-in AI has risen from 12% in 2024 to 27% in 2025.”

The major challenges to AI adoption in our sector appear to be cost (training, time and software) and the way AI challenges the existing knowledge base, data systems and privacy settings within organisations.

There is also a major gap between AI use and the development and adoption of AI policies across our sector, with less than 15 per cent of charities and NFPs having clear AI policies.

It’s important to note that charities and NFPs are invariably seeking to use AI to better serve their communities, strengthen resilience and capacity, and support flourishing individuals, families, communities and our world. Charities and NFPs use AI for good.

What concerns me is not the use of AI in our sector, but the application of AI by people who use it to increase their power and wealth.

We’ve seen this pattern of technological advancement before.

I may occasionally miss the feel and smell of sets of encyclopedias on the bookshelves, but I enjoy being able to go online and have access to almost instant knowledge wherever I am (subject to Telstra’s misleading coverage maps). The internet is now an invaluable part of daily life for me and most people, but it comes at a price.

I feel as though there is an increasing and uncomfortable level of personal surveillance that has been normalised in our lives. We are all subject to ongoing manipulation to get clicks, to watch another clip, read another line, to buy that product, and even the inevitable attempts to scam us have become an accepted daily reality. AI is already driving the algorithms that shape many of our interactions, much of our information gathering, and a lot of our economic and social activity.

“We can negate some of the negatives of AI if we stand for our values against the dehumanising exploitative use of AI, and continue to adopt and adapt AI in partnership with our communities.”

The development of the attention economy has also effectively undermined truth and distorted our information systems to the benefit of a very limited number of international billionaires. These super powerful oligarchs, by their own admission, are not humanists. They see empathy as counter-productive to their goals, and any form of government or collective approach to well-being is opposed and undermined. They thrive where fear and outrage are both magnified and monetised.

This loss of privacy and ongoing sense of outrage marketing can sometimes feel like a loss of agency. But the price we pay for the wonders of the internet is not just personal. One of the most concerning potential outcomes of the creeping application and adaptation of AI driven by a small number of cashed up powerful commercial interests is a rise in inequality.

Or as Bernard Marr wrote wrote in “The 15 Biggest Risks of Artificial Intelligence”, published in Forbes in 2023, “The risk of AI development being dominated by a small number of large corporations and governments could exacerbate inequality and limit diversity in AI applications.”

If the development and application of AI is largely controlled by a limited number of powerful people, it poses a risk to our way of life. This risk is not AI, it’s the people who are developing and applying AI to maximise personal power and wealth.

As many who are much more qualified than me have highlighted, regulations are needed to ensure transparency and strong, effective guard rails around AI and its application. The European Union’s AI Act is a good example.

But regulation of AI will only go so far if power and control remain concentrated and centralised. And that is where charities and NFPs can and do play a critical role.

Firstly, we can support our communities in holding AI companies to account, challenge their social licence and demand a level of return for the profit they make through our use of AI.

Perhaps more importantly, if we can work proactively with the communities we serve to develop and apply AI based responses to their issues and their needs, AI becomes another significant tool in building flourishing communities.

As a judge of the Australian NFP Technology Awards I have seen charities and NFPs using AI tools in partnership with their communities to improve engagement and provide more targeted and effective services. This use of AI benefits both organisations and the communities they serve.

It’s clear that we need more regulation of AI and better safeguards, but we can also negate some of the negatives of AI if we stand for our values against the dehumanising exploitative use of AI, and continue to adopt and adapt AI in partnership with our communities.

As many charities and NFPs are already demonstrating, AI can be a powerful tool to empower communities and better achieve their purpose.

I’m not afraid of AI, but I am afraid of what some people might do with AI if we let them.

Read in the Community Advocate: I don’t fear AI, but I fear what some people  might do with it | Community Directors

I don’t fear AI, but I fear what some people might do with it Read More »

Let’s talk about budgets, capital, and access to finance

News

Let’s talk about budgets, capital, and access to finance

CCA CEO, David Crosbie writes for the Community Advocate:

In all charities and NFPs – big and small – annual budgeting brings with it a degree of trepidation. The reality is that many charities and NFPs don’t know for certain what income they might achieve in the coming 12 months.

In managing this uncertainty, charity and NFP leaders and their boards tend to adopt one of three main approaches to forward budgeting.

The first approach involves preparing a forward budget based on the income the organisation has already locked in to be paid over the coming 12 months. This is the conservative low-risk approach. For some, this is the only prudent approach. The limitation of this approach is that it reduces organisational capacity and minimises opportunities for the organisation to maintain or increase service provision to communities in need. The benefit is that the organisation is financially secure, and it requires less reserve capital.

The second approach involves preparing a budget based on a “best guess” or medium risk. In any 12-month period some funding contracts may end, but there is also a good chance that some will be renewed or new contracts will be obtained. Similarly, although income from fundraising, bequests and sponsorships may be uncertain, it’s not unrealistic to budget for an income stream based on past performance. The limitation of this approach is that if there is a surprise loss of a funding contract, or the predicted income doesn’t eventuate, the organisation is exposed and would need to be able to quickly draw down on reserve capital or reduce expenditure. The advantage is that more staff can be retained and more services provided to communities than in the low-risk approach. It also creates opportunities to push for more funding by leveraging the increased organisational capacity.

The third scenario is the optimistic budget, a more high-risk approach. It assumes most of the funding the organisation is seeking will be realised and the funding for programs due to end over the coming 12 months will mostly be renewed. This scenario enables the organisation to retain and reward skilled staff while adopting a “can do” expanded approach to building organisational capacity and better meeting community needs. This optimistic approach exposes the organisation to a higher level of risk if projected income streams don’t eventuate. It may also require higher levels of readily available reserve capital. But higher risk creates higher levels of opportunity.

Managing financial risk is not a challenge that is unique to charities and NFPs. Businesses also need to manage risk in their budgets and forward planning. But there are four important factors that make budgeting in charities and NFPs more uncertain and exacerbate the risks.

The first compounding factor is that charities and NFPs are seeking to fulfill a purpose and better serve their communities, not just generate profit or return on investment to shareholders or owners. This is a fundamental difference that makes the budgeting process more complex and demanding, but I will not explore it in detail here.

A second factor is the terms under which many charities and NFPs are contracted. CCA and others have for many years advocated for longer funding contract terms for charities and NFPs. Stop, start, short-term contracts reduce effectiveness and increase risk, and yet we’re still seeing many short-term funding contracts across the charity and NFP sector.

“Stop, start, short-term contracts reduce effectiveness and increase risk, and yet we’re still seeing many short-term funding contracts across the charity and NFP sector.”

Another difficulty with current contracting in the sector is the lack of timely notice about future funding. Time and again, charities and NFPs are left hanging until the last possible minute, or even beyond, before (government) funders renew contracts or make funding decisions. CCA has members who have had to carry staff and other program costs beyond the end of their funding contract period (at considerable risk) because governments or other funders couldn’t provide clear advice about whether funding would be continued.

A further compounding factor in charity and NFP budgeting is the lack of comparable financial data and industry analysis. In most businesses it’s possible to benchmark costs and income against those of comparable businesses in the same industry. Financial performance data is typically backed by industry-wide analysis and extensive predictive modelling about future markets, income and costs. This information is considered invaluable to those considering investing in an industry or a business. Risk is more accurately calculated through modelling of financial data across many scenarios over many years. Of course, businesses will always face a level of uncertainty about future income, but the level of uncertainty is significantly mediated when you have access to well-researched comparable predictive data and analysis to refer to. Charities and NFPs do not typically have access to this kind of modelling and analysis of risk.

A fourth factor is the capacity to leverage assets and manage income flows through access to debt financing including lines of credit.

A business faced with inconsistent income streams is able to draw on debt financing and lines of credit (loaned against their assets) to better manage risk, spread cash flow fluctuations and enable more consistent investment in their capacity. Farmers, for instance, often rely on lines of credit to enable ongoing operation despite inconsistent cash flows. Charities and NFPs rarely have access to the same financial tools and safety nets.

As noted above, banks and financial institutions draw on decades of industry data and analysis of comparable businesses to accurately predict and cost risk.

If a charity or NFP seeks to establish a loan or line of credit, banks are unlikely to have enough comparable data established over time across many organisations to inform their calculation and pricing of risk.

Charities and NFPs typically end up seeking bespoke deals that banks and others struggle to manage because these deals sit outside well-established commercial risk indicators.

According to the ACNC, Australian charities hold $489 billion in assets, and yet debt financing against these assets is the exception across our sector.

If we want to unlock financial potential, create new opportunities, build capacity and leverage the $489 billion in assets held across the charities sector, we need to change how we calculate risk in our sector, how we budget, how we invest in ourselves, how we invest in our future.

Targeted investment in more appropriate financial products could enable charities and NFPs to budget a little more easily, take more risks, and do more for their communities.

For CCA, that’s a goal worth pursuing.

Read on the Community Advocate:

Let’s talk about budgets, capital, and access to finance | Community Directors

Let’s talk about budgets, capital, and access to finance Read More »

Attention governments: There’s more to giving out grants than handing over the money

News

Attention governments: There’s more to giving out grants than handing over the money

CEO David Crosbie writes for the Community Advocate, 18 February 2026

Around 50 per cent of all funding for charities in Australia comes from government. The nature of this funding, how it is granted, the terms and agreements it requires, who gets it, how it is accounted for, and the performance measures and reporting all make a big difference to charities across Australia and the communities they serve.

Government funding is one of the most critical aspects of the ecosystem in which charities operate.

There is a lot of talk about philanthropy and fundraising in our sector, but seemingly much less talk about government funding. That makes no sense at one level. Philanthropy contributes less than one fifth of the revenue government funding provides (philanthropy accounts for around 8.5 per cent of all charity revenue).

And yet the lack of discussion about government funding also makes sense, because many charities are concerned about criticising governments when they are also seeking government grants. Government funding can not only make or break many charities, the way that grant programs are administered can completely distort the nature of charity service provision across Australia.

Four years ago, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) reviewed the then Streamlining Government Grants Administration (SGGA) program (grants hubs) approach to government grant giving. Below are the first two statements in the summary conclusion of the ANAO report. This is a long quote, but I think it makes important points that deserve acknowledgement:

Conclusion

11. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the SGGA Program improved the effective and efficient delivery of grants administration. Core deliverables were not achieved, and shortcomings in the design and operation of the (grant) hubs impacted on the realisation of the intended SGGA Program benefits (better outcomes for grant applicants and recipients, reduction in red tape, and efficiencies for government).

12. The design and governance of the SGGA Program was not effective. The design of the SGGA Program was not supported by a sound evidence base. Governance arrangements were established, but did not support achievement of program outcomes, benefits and deliverables. Planning was not seen through to completion, impacting the achievement of deliverables. There was a benefits realisation framework, but it was not applied. The SGGA Program could not demonstrate the achievement of intended outcomes due to a lack of measurable indicators, baselines and targets. In relation to core deliverables, DSS and Industry built two grants hubs, but did not deliver a single whole-of-government grants administration process with six different workflows, a data warehouse or market testing…

Operation of Grants Hubs, Australian National Audit Office

The ANAO report notes that in the year 2019–20 the programs it was examining granted $8.4 billion to 36,279 service providers through 768 separate grant programs.

768 grant programs seems like a big number, but these grant programs account for less than 10 per cent of the over $100 billion charities received in revenue from governments across Australia in 2023.

These big numbers not only reinforce the importance of government grants to charities, they also highlight that one of the most important roles of government is to properly administer government funds distributed through grant programs.

There are many well administered government grant programs operating in Australia. There are also some innovative grant program initiatives being rolled out by some government departments: ongoing funding partnerships, co-design of programs, long term core funding models, etc. These initiatives are welcome, but too many of these “exceptional” grant funding arrangements will come and go, exist for a time and then fade away under the pressure of government departments needing to find savings or roll out quick-fix programs and announcements to meet political ends.

Grant programs are arguably better administered now than previously with more extensive use of programs like SmartyGrants, but CCA is still regularly contacted by charities who have been through what could only be described as a distressing, time-consuming and dysfunctional government grant program experience.

The tendency for government to adopt short-term, short-changed funding arrangements that require extensive applications for limited funding that doesn’t fully pay the cost of the service or program provision being contracted is still not unusual.

If you look hard enough in the federal Department of Finance you will find a Grants Policy Branch, seemingly responsible for improving government grant processes. As the department’s website puts it, “The Branch is reviewing Commonwealth grants administration practices through the Modernising Commonwealth Grants Administration project. This looks to ensure Commonwealth grants administration is efficient, user focussed, technology enabled, data driven and fit-for-purpose.”

As a peak body, CCA has put forward questions about the work of the Grants Policy Branch through the Senate Estimates process. We await responses.

For CCA, one of the main concerns about government grants is the lack of active engagement or meaningful dialogue between the charity and not-for-profit sector and grant-giving agencies about how government contracting can be improved. There is no evidence that the Department of Finance Grants Policy Branch is itself adopting a “user focussed” approach.

The bottom line is that the productivity and effectiveness of the charity sector depend in part on the way governments run grant programs.

It’s critical our sector has meaningful dialogue with governments to ensure everyone fully benefits from the $110 billion worth of government grants going to Australian charities.

If governments across Australia are genuinely committed to greater productivity and effectiveness of their grant programs, a good first step would be to actively engage with the charity and not-for-profit sector about how they could improve their grant policies and practice.

We’d all be happy to help.

Read in the Community Advocate: https://www.communitydirectors.com.au/articles/attention-governments-theres-more-to-giving-out-grants-than-handing-over-the-money

Attention governments: There’s more to giving out grants than handing over the money Read More »

Them and us and we

News

Them and us and we

CCA CEO David Crosbie writes for the Community Advocate, 4 February 2026.

As we move into 2026, I can’t help but think the world is wobbling a little.

The Canadian prime minister received world-wide acclaim for his speech at Davos two weeks ago. As the leader of a middle power on the global stage, he pointed out that the previously established rules and conventions of the world economic order were no longer in operation. Perhaps even more importantly, PM Mark Carney said there was no going back.

In the UK, as in the US, populist politicians playing grievance politics and tabling the race card have gained significant support from key powerbrokers and the electorate.

In our country, political parties on the right are in disarray with the Trump-lite One Nation now leading the polls. Given the lack of support for One Nation in our major cities, it’s clear many people living in regional and rural Australia are feeling left behind. They are hurting (economically) and no longer believe their Australia is headed in the right direction.

The theme that resonates across these global and local shifts is one of division: them and us, our country over theirs, our state or region over theirs, our families over theirs, my interests over theirs. They are others, outsiders, interlopers, queue jumpers, criminals, activists, paid agitators. They are less than us. They are against us.

The politics of them and us is often fed and amplified by a small cabal of powerful vested interests who control media and messaging; people who profit from divisions, people who see government and collective interests as an impost, a restriction on their capacity to make what are often obscene levels of individual wealth.

Responding to a move by the Californian government last year to extend health care to migrants, Elon Musk said, “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy, the empathy exploit. … They’re exploiting a bug in Western civilization, which is the empathy response. Empathy has been ‘weaponized’.” The same man describes social security payments as a “Ponzi scheme”.

Watching and reading these views can be overwhelming. It’s easy to get lost in the arrogant cruelty of some of these ideas, the level of ignorance about the lives of others, the lack of insight into what makes communities and countries strong and productive.

If there is no longer an agreed world order, if there are no conventions that can’t be trashed for greed and self-interest, if the politics of envy and grievance dominate, what place is there for compassion, for caring, and for fanciful notions like equal opportunity?

As we look at the year ahead, it would be easy to become a little despondent. It’s important we do the opposite. The eroding of the values and principles that underpin our shared human experience can become an informing source of motivation.

I was brought up believing that we should do unto others as we would like them to do unto us, that doing good was its own reward, that profiting from someone else losing was in fact not winning at all, that we were all in it together. As a boy scout I was taught the Rudyard Kipling creed, “The strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.”

Mahatma Gandhi argued, “Unity to be real must stand the severest strain without breaking.”

Right now, it feels as though our unity is being tested, globally and in Australia.

The danger is that as our values are challenged, we sink into our own form of grievance politics, bemoaning those who don’t share our views, dismissing those who when faced with their own form of disadvantage embrace what they perceive to be opportunity.

 

The leaders I talk to in our sector understand the challenges. Most are informed by a set of shared humanistic values. They are driven by a quiet determination, have an understated sense of purpose, and operate with a clear focus on delivering for their organisations and their communities.

The work of our sector is clearly an antidote to the dog whistling grievance politics that serves the interests of a small minority already emboldened by individual power and money. Our work is about unity, about shared experience, about promoting opportunity and hope.

Collectively, we have a lot of work to do in 2026. We need to build engagement and strengthen the bonds that enable us to belong, to establish shared goals, to emphasise the “we” rather than them and us, and to act collectively.

As we turn away in disgust at the latest outrageous trampling of fundamental values, it’s important to remember that it is in our power to act differently, and by doing so, to make a difference.

Read on the Community Advocate: Them and Us and We | Community Directors

 

Them and us and we Read More »

An election surprise, a Press Club debate, and investment inertia: 2025 in review

News

An election surprise, a Press Club debate, and investment inertia: 2025 in review

CCA CEO David Crosbie, writes for the Community Advocate, 10 December 2025.

 

What a year 2025 has been, particularly at a national level where the Parliament and politics as we know it have changed significantly.

The federal election outcome caught most people by surprise. The current government is now in a very strong position in terms of numbers in the House of Representatives – although it doesn’t enjoy a majority in the Senate. This has made passing its legislative agenda through Parliament a challenge. This is now the norm: holding the balance of power in the Senate is very much the exception in Australian politics.

Even the learned commentariat didn’t anticipate the public and political demise of the Coalition as a serious alternative government as the year progressed. Like most people in Australia, the charity and not-for-profit sector is generally not supportive of the policies the Coalition are now championing, but we shouldn’t underestimate the negative impact of not having a strong alternative government.

When it comes to government policy making and implementation of reform, simply wanting to do the right thing is not often enough motive to drive change and investment. It takes a range of political, economic, legal and other pressures to drive sustainable change, and without a serious alternative government, these drivers of government action are diminished. Already I think we are seeing some signs that inaction is perceived as safer than action in important areas of government policy.

One of the highlights of 2025 from my perspective was the co-hosting of a not-for-profits pre-election forum at the National Press Club. The fact that one of the most significant political institutions in the country chose to provide a platform for issues associated with our sector two weeks out from an election was a major achievement.

As part of the National Press Club event, the Community Council for Australia (CCA) was able to launch a new and updated version of The Australia We Want, supported by the AMP Foundation. This was another important achievement that again staked out the ground around the values that matter to our sector and the communities we serve.

Unfortunately, the idea that our sector mattered was not a consistent theme in 2025.

One of the most disappointing aspects of the year for me was my experience advocating for a more flexible approach to employment of people on fixed term contracts within charities. Not only was I relatively isolated in arguing the case for the sector against unions and others, but the temporary outcome CCA achieved has still left many charities struggling to deal with difficult dilemmas over permanent versus contract staff. This issue is far from over.

One of the major concerns I have about this issue is that it highlights the lack of data about our sector. We don’t know how many people are employed permanently or on contract in our sector. Perhaps more importantly, we don’t know who the workers in our sector are, their gender, qualifications, ethnicity, and terms and conditions.

There are over 1.5 million people employed in our sector, and at least double that number of volunteers, but there is no sector-wide employment information, let alone a workforce development plan. In purely economic terms, I doubt any industry group that employed over 10% of all workers in Australia would be so under-researched and undervalued.

The lack of investment in understanding our sector reflects negatively on the relative importance that is placed on our sector, not just by government, but also by researchers and others. The paucity of information also reflects on the sector itself, and how much of our time and energy we’re prepared to invest in collective research and advocacy.

There were many good times and some not-so-welcome throughout 2025, but I continue to be uplifted by the amazing people I get to work with and at times represent.

I do want to end this very brief reflection on a positive note. One of the pleasures of my role is that most days I get to choose a cartoon of the day and review some of the best satire from around the world as part of CCA’s Daily Diary service to members.

I know many in our sector are continuously dismayed by the self-centred nihilism of the current US leadership, and to help soothe my despair, I have taken to consuming my US news in part through the very clever Diaper Diplomacy. I find it remarkable that when we take the actual voices and spoken words of the US leadership and put them into animated babies, they become comical. Even the most ignorant and offensive misrepresentation of reality seems bizarrely cute when a round-faced baby is the orator.

Finally, I want to thank those who have supported CCA throughout 2025, especially all at Our Community and the amazing Community Advocate journalists – Matthew Schulz, Nick Place, and Nick’s predecessor Greg Thom – for their patience with this writer who tends to deliver after hours and after deadlines.

I’m looking forward to a wonderful 2026 for our sector where we can all work to ensure our advocacy and effectiveness grow stronger.

 

Read in the Community Advocate:

An election surprise, a Press Club debate, and investment inertia: 2025 in review | Community Advocate, Institute of Community Directors Australia

An election surprise, a Press Club debate, and investment inertia: 2025 in review Read More »

Civil society calls for urgent action on the National Anti-Racism Framework

News, Uncategorized

Civil society calls for urgent action on the National Anti-Racism Framework

SSI, ACOSS, FECCA, SCOA, CCA and RCOA

One year after the Australian Human Rights Commission launched the country’s first national roadmap to eliminate racism, 54 civil society organisations are calling on the Australian government to urgently fund and implement the National Anti-Racism Framework.

Released by in November 2024 following extensive community consultation, the Framework outlines 63 recommendations for a whole-of-society approach to tackling racism across Australia’s legal, justice, health, education, media and arts systems.

Despite the significance of this milestone, the federal government has since taken no steps to resource or implement the Framework.

In a statement coordinated by the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS), Settlement Council of Australia (SCOA), the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA), FECCA (Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia), the Community Council for Australia (CCA) and SSI, the organisations call on the government to immediately commit to the Framework’s first two recommendations:

  • Fully commit to the National Anti-Racism Framework.
  • Establish a National Anti-Racism Taskforce to oversee its implementation, including dedicated plans to address racism against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other affected communities.

Former AFLW player and advocate, Akec Makur Chuot

“Racism has no place in a country that prides itself on fairness and opportunity. As someone who came to Australia seeking safety, I know what dignity and respect can mean for a persons future. The Australia of we are one, and from all the lands on earth we come to share a dream. That’s the Australia I hope we can get back too because this divided Australia I don’t recognise. Every community deserves to feel safe, valued and included – whether on the field, at work or in every day life.”

SSI CEO Violet Roumeliotis:

“Australia’s diversity is one of our greatest strengths, but racism threatens the cohesion that underpins it. We cannot afford to wait — national leadership, real investment and long-term commitment are needed to build a future where every person is treated with dignity and respect. The National Anti-Racism Framework reflects what communities have been calling for: coordinated, practical action. We urge the Australian Government to fully fund and implement the Framework without delay.”

ACOSS CEO Dr Cass Goldie

“Racism causes deep harm to people, families, and communities. The National Anti-Racism Framework provides a clear pathway to ensuring every person in Australia is safe, respected and treated with dignity. ACOSS urges the government to listen to communities, tackle discrimination wherever it occurs, and adopt the Framework’s recommendations without delay.”

Community Council for Australia CEO David Crosbie

The just, fair, safe, inclusive, equal opportunity and united Australia we want will never by realised by accident, or inertia.  The data tells us almost everywhere we care to look that racism is systemic and structural.  We see it in the overrepresentation of First Nations children in our justice system, the bias conscious and unconscious in employment, the fracturing and disadvantage in community.  Creating the Australia we want starts with implementing policy that will drive change, investing in community and acting proactively and with determination to create the kind of society we want to live in.  A framework for change does nothing sitting on a shelf – time to implement.

RCOA Deputy CEO Adama Kamara

Racism harms not just the individuals who experience it, but all of us. It undermines the ability of people from refugee backgrounds to settle, rebuild, and to successfully contribute to society. Racism sows mistrust throughout the community, and is damaging to the wider society. The National Anti-Racism Framework sets out the structural reforms that refugee communities have long called for.

SCOA Chair Melissa Monteiro

“Racism continues to undermine the safety, wellbeing, and full participation of many communities across Australia. Newly arrived migrants and refugees, in particular, face barriers that limit their ability to settle, to belong, and to contribute their full potential. The National Anti-Racism Framework is a vital roadmap that reflects years of consultation and the lived experience of the communities we serve. It is now time for decisive action. We urge the Australian Government to fully commit to the Framework and establish the National Anti-Racism Taskforce so that meaningful, coordinated reform can begin.

FECCA Chairperson Peter Doukas

“Racism is happening in classrooms, workplaces, hospitals, public spaces and online and it often compounds harms from discrimination linked to disability, gender, age, and socio-economic disadvantage. The Government needs to commit to funding and implementing the National Anti-Racism Framework’s recommendations. It is critical in improving health outcomes, strengthening community safety, boosting economic productivity, and building stronger civic participation.”

Sign on in support here.

Civil society calls for urgent action on the National Anti-Racism Framework Read More »