They are involved with so many aspects of everyday life it would be hard to list all of the contributions they make.
For many volunteers, such work is a regular commitment which they enjoy and which keeps them engaged with their community.
But for those men and women who volunteer at times of emergency such as in our fire brigades, the coast guard and in search and rescue teams, the work is unpredictable and risky.
When they answer the call, these men, and women, with the support of their employers, may abandon their workplaces, or out of work hours, leave a cosy bed, or forgo a social gathering to help others.
They will often have scant information about the traumatic event they may be facing, and if they are first responders in a rural area they may be confronted with the added stress of dealing with ill, maimed, or dead people they know.
Those first responders, attending fires and road crashes and medical emergencies, may have to endure waiting for considerable time for other services to arrive.
As we have said before, these volunteer jobs are for the big-hearted, not the faint-hearted.
All the more reason to ensure if these volunteers suffer injury, physical or mental, as a result of this work, that they can readily access any treatment they may need.
But we have known for years the Accident Compensation Act does not cover those volunteers who might suffer mental injury such as post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) directly caused by their generous work.
Mental injury is not covered by accident compensation law unless it is a result of work, or related to a physical injury, or sexual abuse.
There has been concern about the inadequacy and unfairness of the mental injury coverage over decades now, and not just for volunteers.
The instances include people not able to get help for ongoing mental trauma following the Christchurch earthquakes, and those who witnessed the Christchurch mosques’ massacres but who were not physically injured.
Those physically injured could receive up to 80% of lost wages, lump sum payments for permanent impairment, home help, transport to appointments and more, but those with PTSD and unable to work would have their claims refused.
Last year, the government had the chance to partially remedy this by acting on a petition launched by Katherine Lamont of the Queenstown Volunteer Fire Brigade. It proposed giving the country’s 12,000 volunteer firefighters the same ACC coverage as their professional counterparts.
Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee, while sympathetic to the firefighters’ cause was concerned about the precedent granting this coverage might set.
It did not consider it practical for all types of volunteers to be provided with ACC workplace coverage.
Fear about precedent-setting does not address the blatant unfairness inherent in the current arrangements.
It makes no sense that two people who might be side by side at an emergency event, one paid and one unpaid, doing essentially the same job, are treated differently by accident compensation law.
It could be argued that because volunteers are not being paid for their labour, it is even more important to treat them well should they suffer any form of injury.
It seems particularly mean when the estimated cost of providing equitable cover for Fire and Emergency New Zealand volunteers is $244,533 per year, or roughly $20 per volunteer firefighter annually.
Labour has created a member’s Bill on the issue and would be open to including other occupations in that.
It is time the shortcomings of the ACC law in this whole area are examined fully as part of a comprehensive review of the Act.
In times of crisis our politicians are quick to heap praise on volunteers and offer sympathy to the afflicted.
But such fine words mean little when the same leaders demur on addressing longstanding inequities in the way government agencies respond to their needs in the aftermath.
