Page 4648 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which probably becomes a bit of a dead hand on the spirit of volunteering, the spirit of generosity, of people who want to be like that.
Ms Porter: That shows how much you know about volunteers, Mrs Dunne, absolutely diddly-squat.
MRS DUNNE: I know a fair amount about volunteering because I do it and feeling that I will be professionally managed when I go out to volunteer is not something that prompts me to do it. I know that most of the people with whom I volunteer are not out there with the burning desire and satisfaction of being professionally managed. They do it because of their commitment to the organisation and the cause in which they participate.
Really, what has happened here today is exactly as members of the opposition predicted: Ms Porter’s MPI, ostensibly about the importance of volunteering, is nothing more than a Trojan Horse. It is another opportunity for her to continue the argument that she started yesterday in this place in her welfare-to-work debate. It is really just another stalking horse for giving another serve to the commonwealth government because they do not like it.
Ms Porter: A bit sensitive, aren’t we?
MRS DUNNE: No, it is not a matter of sensitivity. The commonwealth government can stand up for itself. I would really like to point out the flaws in Ms Porter’s argument. Ms Porter’s argument essentially boils down to this: if the punishing crusade of the Howard government had its way, there would be nobody on unemployment benefit and therefore there would be no-one to volunteer. The logical consequence of that is that there are people in the community like Ms Porter who would prefer people to be unemployed so that they can make voluntary, cost-free contributions to the community. They actually want people to be on unemployment benefit so that they can volunteer.
Ms Porter: I did not say that, Mrs Dunne.
MRS DUNNE: The logical consequence of your argument and the logical consequence of Volunteering Australia’s argument before the Senate committee is, “We would rather have people unemployed than in gainful employment that addresses issues such as poverty and poverty cycles in their lives and in their family’s lives so that we can have more volunteers.” The logical consequence of Ms Porter’s arguments are, quite frankly, derisory.
Ms Porter spent a lot of time talking about other mechanisms for volunteering and how anything that the commonwealth government has its hands on is obviously wrong. There are lots of mechanisms and increasing numbers of mechanisms whereby the commonwealth government is trying to encourage corporate philanthropy to allow employees to take time off from their employment to volunteer, because that creates a benefit not only to the community, but also back in the workplace where people come from. There is much work being done in the federal government to allow that to happen but, because it is being done by the wicked, punishing, crusading Howard government, it must be wrong. Really, what Ms Porter does today is demeaning to volunteering. She uses the volunteers and volunteering as a—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .