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

35. Age Pensions

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about proposals to raise the pension age.

I am not necessarily against changing the pension age, or tightening some of the restrictions so that we are not subsidising relatively wealthy people, but it is such a mono-dimensional debate.

“Be prepared to work until your 70” the headline says – but what does it mean for people who aren’t working? We already have a real problem of mature age unemployment – people who may have worked for 30 or 40 years, but who find themselves out of work and facing age discrimination in the employment market.

Sure, if you are a CEO, an academic or a highly paid consultant there might be jobs for 60 year olds which value that lifetime of experience, but for many people, if you are made redundant or out of work in your 60s it might be near impossible to get another job.

For those people, raising the pension age is not about the inconvenience of staying in work longer, but living for longer on the much lower unemployment income support rather than getting the higher benefits of the age pension. The difference is about $120 a week in the base rate, so raising the pension age may sentence older unemployed workers to another 1, 2 or 5 years of living below the poverty line.

If we are going to have a conversation about raising the pension age, can we have a real discussion which includes:

• how we are going to change workplace cultures to provide job possibilities for older employees;
• whether we can create a part-time job pathways for older workers to ease into retirement, or to just share work more fairly; and 
• how we can index pensions so that pensioners do not begin to slip backwards relative to the rest of the population – in the same way that those on CPI-indexed benefits like Newstart and Austudy have been left behind.

And finally, if we keep people in work longer, who is going to do the vast amount of volunteer caring and community work that younger retirees do – because there is no doubt that retirees care for grandchildren, aging parents and siblings, and are the backbone of many community organisations?

These are genuinely hard issues. Much easier to just cut benefits to vulnerable people in order to fill a revenue hole at the same time as we cut mining and pollution taxes.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.


This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 15 April 2014

33. Knights and Dames

Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about knights and dames. Yes, it is predictable, and in the week since Lord Abbott’s non-surprise policy, there has been much derision of the re-introduction of imperial-style honours.

And rightly so. But do such things really matter?

It is a bit pathetic, slightly embarrassing, but mostly it is just funny.

But what I actually want to grumble about is who gets the titles of Sir and Dame. Any honours, whether they are Australian or British imports, are supposed to be about recognising great service to the community, but do the retiring or incoming Governor-General really qualify?

I don’t mean personally, but I thought the position of Governor-General was itself a sort of recognition of service, and a very well paid one at that at around $400,000 per year. Do we also need to knight them?

Quentin Bryce’s career before being Governor –General included being a successful barrister, a CEO, a senior government official and Governor of Queensland. All well remunerated. Similarly, the new resident of Yarralumla has been well recognised and rewarded for his high-profile military career.

Both G-Gs have contributed community service beyond their careers, but mostly their qualification for honours are their career achievements. Well, I am sorry, that is just their day job.

Lots of people make enormous contributions in their day jobs - creating the infrastructure, goods and services that we all use, and they are rewarded and recognised far less than those most likely to be knighted.

So, if we are going to have a system of honours, could we recognise people who make a contribution to our community beyond their day job?

There is no shortage of them – volunteers who keep community groups of all sorts running; those who care for relatives, neighbours and sometimes strangers; and activists who spend their lives being ostracised for trying to make the world a better a place.

All these people give up time and money to make their contribution. No wages, no social recognition, no rent-free cottages by the lake. And no knighthoods. 

Of course sometimes these community contributors (usually the safer, more conservative ones) get minor honours, but as we have seen with our be-knighted governors-general, the big honours are reserved for those who have already been recognised and rewarded.

To those that have, shall be given. It is called a class system.

I am Greg and I am grumbling.

And vale Tony Benn – a champion, but not a knight or Lord of the realm.


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