41. Community Grants

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the state budget.

Last week I said that there was not much to grumble about in the budget, and at the macro level that’s true. But there’s always devil in the detail. In this case it’s cuts to natural resource management grants to community groups.

These grants went to farmers and landcare groups, to Aboriginal communities, to schools, to local progress associations, to friends of parks groups and more – 106 grants last year to protect and restore our environment. Small amounts of money that make a big difference on the ground.

And that broad list of recipients shows that this sort of environmental work is not just good for the planet, it’s also good for social and economic development.

But on TV last week the Minister, Ian Hunter, was telling us that cuts had to be made and that he had a choice of cutting those good community grants or losing 12-14 environment department staff. Ok, it is a hard choice, but it’s a lousy justification.

Spending and cuts are always about priorities, and on top of massive cuts to the environment department and programs in recent years (the Conservation Council of SA was moved to nominate Park Rangers as an endangered species), it’s pretty clear that this government just does not prioritise the environment.

But even within the environment budget, what are we to make of this putting the department in front of the community?

The Minister is right that those department officers would do important work, but what analysis was done on the benefits of the community grants program?

I ask because there is huge value-for-money where programs harness and support volunteer efforts. That is true for the environment, for sport and rec clubs, and across the community services sector.

But in our economic system, if something (like volunteer work) doesn’t have a dollar value then it is not valued (I did a PhD on that in a past life!), and these cuts are just another example of governments under-valuing the contribution of the community sector.

Perhaps that is why we are called the third sector – it is where we come in budget priorities after business and government.

So while the budget overall was a good response to South Australia’s economic circumstances and to federal government deficit shifting, when it comes to cutting environment programs, what can I say:

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 1 July 2014

40. Grumbling about Grumbling

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about not having time to grumble.

It has been a few weeks since I last grumbled on air, but it is not as if there has been nothing to grumble about.

The vicious story of the federal budget has continued with more details on how it will hit those on low incomes much harder than those on higher incomes.

The cuts to health and education continue to threaten vital services as the federal government simply shifts deficits to state governments without addressing long term revenue and federation issues.

And one of my colleagues looks like losing her job because the federal government prioritises researching medical machines that go "bing" over preventative measures that stop people getting sick in the first place.

And beyond the budget, the federal government continues to push on with its plan to abolish the national charity regulator with a farcical report from its Senate Committee members who simply ignored 80% of the submissions put to them, including those from most of the major charities and their peak bodies.

But I have been away, and then there was a national conference, a SACOSS constitution to write, state bureaucrats to wrestle and a state budget to wade through (which actually didn’t contain too much to grumble about). With that and with a hundred other things to do, there just hasn’t been time to grumble.

You may only hear two minutes worth, but it takes a lot longer to have a really good grumble.

It’s not just gratuitous whinging (well, hopefully not most of the time). A good grumble needs research, topicality, a framework, and most importantly, a challenge about why we do things the way we do and maybe even a hope that we could be better.

And that takes time and energy.

But looking ahead, post-budget and settled back at work, I am Greg and I will be grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 20 May 2014

39. Federal Budget

Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about the federal budget - of course. But where to begin?

Perhaps with “class warfare”. Yes, I know the language is extreme, but when former Treasurer Wayne Swan proposed taxing mining super-profits and some other fairly minor tax changes, he was accused of class warfare. So what are we to make of a budget with corporate tax breaks and a massive attack on welfare? If taxing the rich is class warfare, what is attacking the poor? The language of class warfare may appear silly, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I could also grumble about particular things in the budget:

• the cuts to hospital and schools funding,
• the introduction of fees for visits to the doctor,
• the scrapping of funding for preventative health programs,
• the increasing costs of PBS medicines,
• the changing of pension indexation so that those older Australians or those with a disability will fall behind the rest of the population,
• the increasing of the age to qualify for Newstart, leaving independent adults stranded on the pitiful Youth Allowance
• the introduction of a 6 month starvation period before young people can qualify for income support,
• the cuts to legal aid, the National Rental Affordability Scheme,
• the cutting of funding to a range of advocacy organisations…

And more - so much to grumble about.

But what can I say that has not already been said in countless commentaries and in marches across the country on the weekend – including by SACOSS’ Ross Womersley.

Well, unusually, I want to point to some good news in the budget. The forward estimates show that government revenue is predicted to return to historic average levels in 3 to 4 years. That’s important because declining revenues in recent years have undermined the ability of government to provide vital services.

But if these revenue figures are correct, then where is the emergency that required so much budget pain?

Significantly though, this revenue return is largely a product of forecast economic growth rather than any serious revenue strategy. The only long term revenue building measure in this budget (apart from the token tax on high income earners) is an increase in fuel taxes.

But ABS figures show that those who are unemployed or on study payments spend proportionately more on petrol than other households do.

So again, it is the poor who will bear the biggest burden of this budget – more ducks quacking?

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 20 May 2014