Additional comments on NT
Expenditure by the Australian Greens
The Australian Greens support the
comments and recommendations of the Dissenting report from Coalition Senators
In addition, the Australian Greens believe that – given
the dire state of expenditure on services and support for Indigenous
communities in the Northern Territory, the very poor state of basic
infrastructure they experience, and continuing significantly sub-standard
outcomes on health, education and social services – more needs to be done to
ensure that public monies distributed to the Northern Territory from GST
revenue are spent more appropriately to achieve a basic standard of living for
it its citizens.
We appreciate the caution exhibited in the evidence
presented to the inquiry by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in indicating
that it adheres strictly to its terms of reference, provides a quantum of
funding based on a formula that makes allowance for the extra cost of services
to remote and Indigenous communities but delivers these monies as untied
funding to the Territory. Nevertheless the Senate does not need to exercise the
same constraint as the CGC in analysing and comparing
its allocation and assessed expenditure figures to on-the-ground outcomes, and
to commenting on Territory policy – to the contrary we believe it has an
obligation to do so.
To this end we are disappointed with the approach taken in
the majority report, particularly in the manner in which it relies on a level
of uncertainty inherent in the assessed expenditure figures to discount a
consistent and very significant ongoing gap in expenditure on Indigenous
communities. Ultimately the assessed expenditure figures are reliant on data
provided by the Territory against standardised ABS
classifications. It is incredulous under these circumstances for the Territory
to be arguing that its assessed expenditure under these classifications does
not reflect its actual expenditure on its Indigenous people when it is unable
to provide any additional data or analysis to show how the categories or
assessment systematically distort the CGC
figures.
Ultimately, whether or not the assessed expenditure
figures match the Territory's actual or claimed expenditure on delivering
services to its Indigenous citizens, we are still left with a clear situation
in which there is a significant gap in outcomes for Indigenous communities and
a significant gap in the level of government services they are provided with.
The Commonwealth is distributing additional funds to them based on a formula to
reflect as best as it can the actual costs of delivering these services which
are not being reflected in improved outcomes. Under these circumstances, if the
Territory wishes to claim it is in fact spending as much or more as is
indicated in its GST allocation on delivering these services and yet is failing
to achieve comparable levels of service delivery then it leaves itself open to
the criticism that it is spending this money inefficiently and its policies are
poorly directed.
The Commonwealth Treasurer sets the terms of reference
under which the CGC allocates GST revenues to
Territories and States and ultimately has the power to vary these terms of
reference if for one reason or another they are failing to achieve an
acceptable level of government service delivery for some of its citizens. While
it is desirable for the Commonwealth to seek to give States and Territories as
great a degree of autonomy as possible in how they spend untied GST funding,
ultimately its responsibility for the welfare and human rights of its citizens
is paramount.
If the Government believes that the funding formula
currently used by the CGC does not accurately reflect
the cost of delivering services to Indigenous communities, then it has a duty
to definitively determine the level of funding required. If the Government
believes that the manner in which it assesses expenditure to deliver these
services does not reflect actual expenditure then it needs to fix its
assessment process.
If ultimately it is convinced that the
Territory Government does not have the capacity or the will to spend those
monies nominally allocated to ensure the delivery of service to Indigenous
communities, then perhaps it should look to an alternative means of delivering
these services that allows it to specify real deliverables and measurable
outcomes.
Senator Rachel Siewert
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page