I acknowledge the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains, and all First Nations people present today. Thank you to Philanthropy Australia CEO Maree Sidey for the invitation to address you today. I’d also like to acknowledge former CEO Jack Heath AM for his 3 years of service. I also want to specially recognise the thought leadership of Sam Rosevear and Krystian Seibert, who rejoins Philanthropy Australia after serving as an Associate Commissioner on the Productivity Commission’s landmark report into philanthropy.
Let me start with a story.
Sylvia Bloom was born in Brooklyn in 1919 and grew up as a teenager in the Great Depression. After attending public schools, she worked during the day and attended university at night. Much as she wanted to attend law school, the option wasn’t there. So instead, Bloom joined the new Wall Street law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Friendly, & Cox in 1947, where she worked for the next 67 years.
As a legal secretary, she also made financial investments for the partners. When they bought a large investment, Bloom took a small slice too. For much of her life, Bloom and her husband lived in a rent‑controlled apartment and commuted using public transport. They never had children. When she died at the age of 96, outliving her husband by more than a decade, Bloom’s estate was worth US$9 million. She left most of her wealth to the Henry Street Settlement, a non‑profit social service agency in the Lower East Side that provides social services, arts programs and health care services. It was the largest gift in the charity’s history, and they used it to create a program to help low‑income New Yorkers attain higher education through college preparation, tutoring, and support throughout college.
Bloom’s quirky and inspiring story reminds us that extraordinary acts of generosity can come from the most unexpected places, and that a life of quiet diligence can lead to a legacy that benefits many. Her example showcases the beauty of gentle generosity in changing lives.
Just like so many Australian philanthropists have done, and will do, her legacy continues to improve the world.
Like great music, philanthropy has the power to uplift and transcend, inspire and delight.
Indeed, I’d suggest that we can think of philanthropy as a special kind of symphony: a symphony of impact.
Imagine a symphony where each instrument represents a different sector of philanthropy. The strings play the melodies of social services, the woodwinds add the harmonies of environmental efforts, the brass sections resound with the notes of educational support, and the percussion keeps the rhythm of arts and culture alive. Together, they create a harmonious and powerful symphony that resonates across the entire community.
Once you have this picture in your mind, it’s easy to imagine the reverse. A society without charities would be like an orchestra missing entire sections. The melody of social services would be incomplete, the harmony of environmental efforts would be silent, the powerful notes of education would be absent, and the rhythm of arts and culture would falter. The richness of the performance would be lost.
But underpinning all of that is the fundamental challenge the philanthropy sector wrestles with, and that’s how do you get those players equipped and trained and on the stage.
When our government committed to double giving, we said we would do that as one participant in a partnership. In fact, it was a quartet that we envisaged, made up of government, business, philanthropy and the non‑profit sector.
Given your presence here today, I presume that you are part of that quartet. And I presume that you, like me, are currently thinking hard about what comes next, now that the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into giving has been completed and published.
That report, Future Foundations for Giving, drew on more than 3,000 submissions and comments. It was further shaped by a public hearings program that engaged:
- interest groups;
- the philanthropic, not‑for‑profit and business sectors;
- governments at Commonwealth, state and territory level; and
- the general public.
That’s quite an ensemble.
The report sets out a range of proposals for short‑term and long‑term reform, which the government will now consider carefully, so that our next steps are the best possible ones towards our goal of doubling giving.
Many of you will have been a part of that chorus of voices which the report has distilled – it’s out of gratitude and respect for those contributions that we will not be rushing our response.
Future Foundations for Giving is not just a report to government – the recommendations and findings have been framed with that quartet of government, business, philanthropy and non‑profits in mind.
Doubling giving will require that collective symphonic impact I invoked earlier. If we tune up well, make the right choices about the part we play, and pick the right score we’ll all share the credit for what we achieve.
We look forward to engaging closely with stakeholders, including those within the philanthropic sector, charities and others, to shape our response to the Inquiry, and we hope you will be working alongside us to guarantee its positive impact.
Our government has a goal of doubling giving. But this is not just a government objective – it’s a shared objective.
We know we have a critical role to play, as it’s only governments that can make policy decisions. But doubling giving is not just about policy decisions. It’s about much more than that.
Philanthropy has a role to play too, through the funding decisions it makes.
So do charities, who engage with donors and supporters across the country every day, inspiring them to give.
So do those who advise Australians to influence their giving decisions.
This is not to minimise the responsibility of government, or the important role we have to play – we understand our role is central and we take it seriously.
We know that we won’t be able to double giving if the foundations for giving aren’t firm.
That’s why we asked the Productivity Commission to undertake this once‑in‑a‑generation inquiry examining the policy framework supporting philanthropy.
And it’s why we’ve been working steadily to improve conditions for giving over the past 2 years.
I’ll come back to that.
But first, let’s acknowledge that the Inquiry report also provides an opportunity for the philanthropic sector to think about its own choices about what happens next. The sector has resources to improve the capacity, effectiveness, and capabilities of those its funding supports. And you have autonomy to change your own approach to providing this support.
For example, 2 years ago, the Paul Ramsay Foundation adopted a policy of ‘Paying What It Takes’, designed to ensure it properly supports the indirect costs of its charity partners. This includes an interim standard of 30 per cent for indirect costs, with flexibility for lower or higher indirect costs where a clear rationale can be shown.
Some foundations are adopting gender or climate ‘lenses’ to shape their philanthropic strategies, with bodies such as Australians Investing in Women and Girls and the Australian Environmental Grantmakers Network working to shift practices in these areas.
Whether other foundations adopt such approaches is not for government to decide – but government is certainly not standing in the way of new, different and better approaches diffusing across the philanthropic sector.
We welcome it.
Charities are acting too, coming together to ‘Reframe Overhead’ and change the ways they communicate with donors about overhead costs. This leadership is very welcome, helping ensure that we don’t just see more giving, but also better giving.
The choices the government will be making over coming months will certainly matter – and we will be engaging with you all, to help us make those choices.
But all of your choices – such as those made by the Paul Ramsay Foundation to fund evaluation trials, those made by the Minderoo Foundation to undertake field‑building work, even the charities contributing to the Reframe Overhead initiative – these choices also matter.
To return to our symphony metaphor, you can think of it like the call‑and‑response in Bach’s Art of Fugue, Vivaldi’s Four Seasons, or Handel’s Messiah. An idea emerges from one part of the orchestra, and is soon taken up by the rest. In some compositions, a few fresh notes from a soloist seems to shape the direction of the piece.
What we’ve already done
A moment ago, I promised I’d say more about the work our government has already been doing to improve conditions for giving.
So, what are those foundations we’ve already put in place?
We’ve always known the Productivity Commission’s work would be a key composition, but it was never meant to be the only symphony in the philanthropic concert.
The Productivity Commission grouped their recommendations around 4 pillars:
- improving the system that determines which charities have access to tax‑deductible donations;
- enhancing the regulatory framework for charities and ancillary funds;
- improving public information on charities and donations; and
- improving access to philanthropic networks for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
We’ve already taken meaningful steps that have anticipated some of the Commission’s final recommendations.
We’ve streamlined the deductible gift recipient application process for environmental organisations, harm prevention charities, cultural organisations, and overseas aid organisations. By bringing the application process into line with all other categorises we’ve reduced the regulatory burden on applicants and put decisions on eligibility back in the hands of independent tax office officials.
To enhance the regulatory framework, we’ve worked with state and territory governments to develop national Fundraising Principles and implementation plans for reforms that will streamline and harmonise fundraising rules across jurisdictions.
To improve public information, we’ve boosted funding to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to deliver an improved General Social Survey. This expanded and enhanced survey will paint a bigger and more detailed picture of Australians’ wellbeing. This will be a valuable resource that will help charities plan and target their work.
The new General Social Survey will include new questions on participation in volunteering and involvement in cultural events and cultural activities. And it will provide insights that reflect the impact of giving and participation, and the footprint of purpose driven activity.
To improve the deductible gift recipient system, we’ve created a new pathway for community foundations to access tax deductible status.
Future Foundations for Giving was tabled only 3 weeks ago, well ahead of the parliamentary deadline. We wanted to allow a reasonable window for a direct conversation with the sector as we consider its recommendations.
I’m optimistic we will soon be able to start building on the work that we’ve already done to establish those 4 pillars the Productivity Commission Inquiry identified.
We’ll need time to consider where our effort can have the best impact, as will you.
But even while we’re doing that, further regulatory reform regarding the Australian Charities and Not‑for‑profits Commission secrecy provisions will be progressing through the Senate. Before the end of the year we’ll have the key guidelines for the Community Charity deductible gift recipient category available for public consultation.
Creating this new category was number one on the Philanthropy Australia wish list ahead of the 2022 election. The more you learn about Community Foundations the easier it is to see why.
In delivering that new category we signalled one of our own key priorities.
At this conference 2 years ago, our new Labor government was preparing its first October Budget. We’d pledged to double giving, but we hadn’t yet announced the Productivity Commission’s part in that.
At that conference some helpful provocations were made. Perpetual’s Cat Fay asked the question why not focus on doubling impact rather than giving? Sidenote: we’re doing that too.
And Maree Sidey, at that time CEO of Australian Communities Foundation, challenged the key protagonists of the double giving project to be clear about its ‘why?’
That is ‘For what reason? For what purpose?’ did we want to double giving.
For the government, the commitment to double giving is a way of investing in the charity sector.
That’s one of our reasons, one ‘why’.
The Australian charity sector cultivates qualities that we need most for a fair, smart and connected society: compassion, entrepreneurism, resourcefulness, innovation and perseverance. Those are qualities we want more of, and doubling giving is a way to invest in their growth. For a government that wants fairer, better‑connected communities, it may be the smartest investment we can make.
Which brings me to another ‘why’ driving our double giving agenda. Recent tax data on giving shows that Australian donors have been giving more overall, but fewer Australians are donating. Indeed, this was one of the key findings of the Productivity Commission’s report.
This is a trend we want to turn around – because we believe that boosting the culture of giving, fertilising grass roots and democratising donations, will lead to more people engaging with key local and social issues, and more people getting a taste for the donor version of the helpers high.
To return to the symphonic metaphor, we don’t just want more music. We want more musicians.
Perhaps the catalyst will be youth oriented, low‑overhead digital donations platforms supported by harmonised fundraising principles, or seedling giving, or the Funding Network’s giving nights, or Australian Communities Foundations Impact Funds and giving circles.
Or perhaps the Paul Ramsay Fund’s investment in boosting evaluation capacity in the sector will indirectly attract new givers by strengthening the footing of impact investment models and effective altruism.
So, our answer to Maree Sidey’s question ‘why boost giving?’ is that more givers means more people investing their time or money in helping others and shaping their community.
Which brings me back to one of those steps we’ve already successfully completed on our pathway to the 2030 goal.
The community charity DGR framework is an innovation that should provide a clear signal of our commitment to reform. I hope it will be emblematic of the kind of social dimension we believe collective giving can generate and thrive off.
It’s been observed that when we compare ourselves to the United States, where philanthropy is of Mahlerian proportions, Australia’s goal to double giving can look like a chamber ensemble. When you’re looking to improve, it can be worthwhile trying to emulate the world leader, but we should also be mindful about what kind of giving culture is the right fit for Australia’s national character.
I’m coming to think that a better ambition would be to replicate Canada’s successes with the community foundations model.
Community foundations are giving structures that are community owned and managed, and that make grants to support specific needs of their local community. They draw on local networks and local knowledge to identify needs that government and service providers can’t register.
It feels more democratic, more egalitarian, and it matches the government’s ambition for charities and for philanthropy.
Our ambition for Australian community foundations is that they will recreate the success and impact of the Canadian model. As the Canadian Community Foundations website describes it:
‘In over 200 communities, community foundations strengthen community well‑being. They do so by consulting with and engaging regularly with community members and key stakeholders, incorporating a diverse set of perspectives to inform locally driven decisions, and championing solutions for issues that matter most to their community …’
The model has flourished in Canada partly as a result of changes to the tax system.
With the recent passage of our own bill to create a new deductible gift recipient category for community foundations, we’ve set up the same launchpad for this democratising and socially engaging vehicle for giving.
The Productivity Commission singled out Community Foundations for the way they can build social capital. The Productivity Commission noted:
Community foundations generate social capital through the local donor networks they develop. Their community led decision making allows local understanding to guide the allocation of funds, which can give smaller charities access to funding and grants with less effort and expense.
We’re not looking for one Leitmotif to double giving and boost social capital. But if we were, community foundations at a meaningful scale might be it.
The status quo tends to suit established players. But if we’re going to double giving, we need to find ways to boost new types of giving, and support organisations and practices that aren’t currently mainstream.
I started with the 20th century story of Sylvia Bloom’s quiet, individual generosity, and its outsized impact. As a coda, I’d like to introduce a 21st century story that captures a similar spirit.
Five Bucks is a one‑month‑old philanthropic start‑up, which aims to boost the numbers of young donors by signing people up to a modest $5 per week pledge to support action on climate, living standards and education.
Here’s how founder Brianna Kerr tells it:
In June 2024, I surveyed 159 people aged between 23–36 to learn more about their giving behaviour.
There were 2 result areas that struck me:
- Excitingly, 4 in 5 respondents felt they both wanted to and could give more.
- Not so excitingly, we don’t give as much as we’d like to because we feel cynical, distracted and compassion‑fatigued.
So, I thought: what if we committed to giving just 5 bucks a week to a group that could guide our money to have an impact on the big issues we care about?
Five Bucks is one young Australian’s invitation to her generation to join a community of givers. It provides a light‑touch gateway for a future generation of impact driven donors. Five Bucks was established as a named fund under the umbrella of the Australian Communities Foundation. We need more organisations playing this kind of accelerator role to back innovation. We need to try new things to find out what works.
In closing, I invite each of you to consider what part you’ll play in Australia’s symphony of impact. Whether your passion lies in a particular sector – the arts, the environment, education, or social services – or in the philanthropic scaffolding that attracts, invests and administers giving, together, let’s compose a future where our collective efforts create a legacy of lasting change.
In this room, we have the potential to create a symphony that can change lives. Let us play our parts with passion and dedication, knowing that together, our symphony of impact, encompassing the arts, the environment, education, and social services, can resonate throughout Australia and beyond.