A new application fee for Working With Vulnerable People checks has triggered a political battle. Photo: Miodrag Ignjatovic.
The Canberra Liberals have announced they will negotiate with the Crossbench to disallow a new fee introduced in the budget for Working With Vulnerable People (WWVP) checks.
The $11 application fee introduced through the 2025/26 budget has received criticism from ACT Volunteering and ACTCOSS and triggered a petition sponsored by Greens MLA Laura Nuttall that has called for the fee to be scrapped.
The Liberal Party has blasted the fee and described it as “callous revenue raising” by Labor.
Shadow Treasurer Ed Cocks said volunteers delivered disproportionate value to the city.
“The revenue that the government would raise from this tax in no way makes up for the harm it would do. The Canberra Liberals cannot support a tax that punishes volunteers and undermines the organisations that rely on them,” Mr Cocks said.
To disallow the motion the Liberals would need the support of the Crossbench. The two independents in the Assembly are split.
MLA Fiona Carrick has announced she will vote to disallow the fee.
“With an estimated replacement cost for volunteer labour in the ACT of $3.3 billion, we need to be enabling volunteers, not putting barriers in their way,” she said.
“Many volunteers are on low or fixed incomes so not only does Labor’s decision to impose a tax on volunteers send the wrong message, it is likely to lead to reduced participation rates in volunteering.”
MLA Thomas Emerson has said that he opposes the fee but he will not vote to disallow it.
“It sets a dangerous precedent to start using the powers of the Assembly to oppose individual budget line items,” he said.
“While I’ve got serious reservations about this new WWVP card fee and other revenue-raising measures like the health levy, I don’t believe it’s my role as an independent Crossbencher to start horse trading on individual budget items after the budget has been handed down. Labor did win government, and that gives them the right to hand down a budget even if we disagree with elements of it.”
The support of Ms Carrick has raised the potential votes to disallow to 10 out of 25 MLAs in the Assembly. The Liberals will now need the support of the Greens if they want to scrap the fee.
Greens MLA Laura Nuttall has come out strongly against the fee, sponsoring a petition in opposition to it.
“We have serious concerns about what could be a financial disincentive from the government. These cards are of course absolutely essential for volunteers who work with children or other vulnerable people,” she said previously.
Region contacted the Greens about the Liberals’ announcement.
An ACT Government spokesperson defended the roll-out of the fee, which is scheduled to take effect from 1 September.
“The Canberra Liberals’ announcement that they will move to disallow the fee is a hasty decision made before the fee has even been scrutinised through the estimates process.
“They’ve offered no alternative to ensure the long-term sustainability of the scheme, or how the growing cost burden would be managed without basic cost-sharing.
“The ACT Government remains strongly committed to supporting volunteering and will continue to work with the community sector to ensure our systems remain safe, accessible, and fair for all.”
Regardless of how the government responds, it looks like a political showdown is set for the next sitting in September.
But for CEO of ACT Volunteering, Jean Giese, it isn’t a political question. According to her the fee sends a dangerous message to volunteers. She said they were willing to work with the government to find alternative cost-saving measures.
“We would ask all MLAs and all ministers to continue the work that they have done with us over the last many decades in acknowledging the contribution of volunteering,” she said.
“Now, our attention shifts to how do we make that, how do we ensure that that road map is progressing and for it to progress, we need to ensure that we continue to move forwards and we feel that this fee is a step actually in the opposite direction.”
