5.1
This chapter contains key issues discussed during the 2012-2013 additional
estimates hearings for cross portfolio Indigenous matters pursuant to
Resolution of the Senate of 26 August 2008.[1]
The following portfolio departments were in attendance:
- Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
- Health and Ageing
- Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
5.2
The committee heard evidence from portfolio departments on Friday 15 February
2013. Areas of the portfolios were called in the following order:
-
General Matters
- Closing the Gap
- Stronger Futures
- Indigenous Land Corporation
- Indigenous Business Australia
- Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC)
- Health Issues
- Employment and Economic Development
- Indigenous Housing
5.3
The morning session began with a discussion of the number of late
answers to questions on notice in the cross portfolio Indigenous matters area
following supplementary estimates. The committee requested notification from
FaHCSIA in the future when the department becomes aware of a significant delay
in providing answers to estimates questions on notice. The Chair put on record
that,
this is a standard process in our committee and we understand
the difficulty, particularly with the wide range of issues and a number of
questions... If there
is going to be a delay with particular answers because of the complexity or
because you need to get in contact with other people, we need to be advised of
that.[3]
5.4
And additionally:
...I
would put on record our disappointment with the answers from the Northern Land
Council ...I know it
was followed up by the secretariat. It took the secretariat a number of
contacts with the Northern Land Council to get responses and the last of those
came through last night... I
particularly wanted it put on the record that numerous contacts were made.[4]
5.5
Mr Dillion noted that:
In relation to the Northern Land Council, I also put on
record that we have recorded on file 26 follow-ups from the department to the
Northern Land Council between November 2012 and last night.[5]
5.6
The committee requested a briefing from FaHCSIA on the reporting
processes and arrangements in place between the Land Councils and the Royalty
Associations. The committee was keen to ascertain what governance processes are
in place to monitor the transfer of royalty funds from the Aboriginals Benefit
Account to the responsible Land Council for distribution to Aboriginal
corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander) Act
2006 (CATSI Act).[6]
5.7
The committee also discussed funding options for successful programs
that are first developed through one-off grants provided by the Aboriginal
Benefits Account.[7]
5.8
The committee discussed specific programs directed to closing the gap in
life expectancy between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, as well as infant
mortality, numeracy and literacy. Discussion focused on the difficulty in
obtaining data around early childhood education programs directed to this
outcome. The issue of data consistency was highlighted by both the department
and the Coordinator General for Remote Indigenous Services, Mr Brian Gleeson. Senator
Scullion summed up the discussion of access to childhood education by noting
that access needs to be accompanied by attendance if these measures are to
reach a satisfactory outcome.[9]
5.9
The committee returned to the problem of matching progress to particular
measures, most notably income management. Ms Hefren-Webb, Branch Manager,
Welfare Payments reform commented,
I guess what I was talking about yesterday was not the
question that there is no measureable data on outcomes for children but how do
you attribute them to a particular program in the context of a very complex
policy environment.[10]
5.10
The committee's questions around Stronger Futures included questions on
collaboration between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments and
the scrutiny provisions relating to licensed premises. The department outlined
the decision making process for review of licensed establishments, and
particularly the timeline involved in the review, clarifying that a review will
not necessarily focus on breach of licence conditions and is more concerned over
whether an establishment is associated with harm in the community.
5.11
The committee moved to a discussion of alcohol management plans, powers
of referral for the alcohol and other drugs tribunal, and possibilities for
dealing with persons referred if the tribunal is abolished. The committee also
discussed the ways that the Commonwealth is generally handling programs jointly
funded by the Northern Territory that have lost funding as a result of
Territory budget cuts.
5.12
The ILC provided an update on its employment programs, particularly
Ayres Rock Resort. Senator Scullion congratulated the ILC on the calibre of
this facility.[13]
The committee asked questions about money expended by the ILC for procuring a consultant
to facilitate an ILC board and senior management planning day. The committee
questioned the ILC about its procurement processes and the number of actual
quotes obtained as opposed to the number of organisations approached about the
supply of a service.[14]
5.13
The committee asked questions of officers from FaHCSIA and the ILC concerning
the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (CATSI
Act) and the procedures undertaken by the board of the ILC during the time that
Mr Bruce Gemmell was resigned from his position as CEO of the ILC. The
committee also inquired into the legal advice received by FaHCSIA, with regard
to this event.[15]
5.14
The committee also inquired into funding support provided to the
National Centre for Indigenous Excellence (NCIE), by the ILC, in particular,
remuneration provided to members of the NCIE board, and the actions of CEO in
authorising a contribution from the NCIE towards the construction of a statue.[16]
5.15
The committee had been requesting, over the course of previous
estimates, a letter to the board of IBA from the then General Manager, Mr Ron
Morony, dated 17 March 2010. The letter addressed issues of administration of
IBA, in particular the relationships between the Board and the officers of IBA.
This letter was tabled by IBA at the hearing. After consultation with the
committee, a response by the IBA to Mr Moroney's letter was published on the
committee's website.
5.16
The committee briefly returned to its discussion of IBA's investments in
Tjapukai Aboriginal Cultural Park, which had been discussed during the 2012-13
budget estimates hearings.[18]
5.17
The committee briefly questioned ORIC and FaHCSIA officers about funding
of the Jawoyn Association Aboriginal Corporation. Mr Bevan, Registrar, Office
of Registrar of Indigenous Corporations, noted that inquiries into this issue
are ongoing and he was therefore unable to make substantive comments. Mr Dillon
and Ms Hand, Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer gave a brief account
of FaHCSIA's funding of this organisation.
5.18
Mr Smyth, First Assistant Secretary, Population Health Division, provided
an update on the Indigenous Marathon Program, and Ms Killen, Assistant
Secretary, Program Management and Evaluation Branch, outlined future funding
for programs after the expiry of the National Partnership Agreement on Closing
the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes, noting that the Commonwealth's
contribution to the Agreement does not end at the end of this financial year.
5.19
The committee also discussed the progress of a range of Indigenous
health strategies in the areas of chronic disease, hearing health, smoking
rates, mental health, dialysis and renal health, and aged care.
5.20
Officers from the Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace
Relations (DEEWR) provided a detailed progress update on the operation of the
Indigenous Employment Program (IEP), noting that the program has seen
unprecedented demand over the last 12 months and the department therefore had
to put together a priority list for future funding. Ms Wood, Group Manager,
Indigenous Economic Strategy, explained that the IEP is useful for employers
develop new models or innovate but is not a recurrent finding source; rather, the
program is project based. DEEWR officers undertook to provide the priority list
for future IEP funding on notice to the committee. The committee then discussed
specific IEP funded projects.
5.21
Moving to the Remote Jobs and Communities Program (RJCP), the committee
queried the justification for excluding the great southern area from the 59
remote regions identified under the program. Ms Milliken, Group Manager, Income
Support and Remote Service Implementation, explained that the classification draws
on historical measures of remoteness from other employment services. Ms
Milliken also provided the committee with detail of the assessment process and selection
criteria for the RJCP, and the timeline for its adoption.
5.22
The committee also discussed community action plans, the Australian
Employment Covenant, and the report on the review of the Vocational Training
and Employment Centre model. Senator Scullion expressed his disappointment at
being unable to view the report.
5.23
Immediately prior to discussion under this outcome, FaHCSIA officers had
responded to a written question from Senator Scullion relating to ownership and
management of remote housing, noting that the 'vast majority of remote houses
are actually located on Aboriginal land trust land and therefore the ownership
is with the land trust whether or not they are then leased to someone else.'[23]
5.24
The committee discussed the progress of the National Partnership
Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing (NPARIH) including the tenancy
agreements in public housing, land tenure reform to enable the development of a
private housing sector, and the division of Commonwealth and Northern Territory
government expenditures under NPARIH.
5.25
In relation to tenancy agreements, FaHCSIA officers gave detail of
progress in this area, including a brief description of the tenancy support
program. Ms Edwards added that, 'the enhanced tenancy support and tenancy
management arrangements are a fundamental part of the reforms that the NPARIH
has brought. It is certainly something we take very seriously.'[24]
Senator Scullion noted that in his experience many of the occupants have
trouble understanding the underlying nature of tenancy arrangements.
5.26
There appeared to be agreement between the committee and the officers of
FaHCSIA on the need for land tenure reform to enable private tenure and the
development of a private housing sector alongside the existing public housing
sector:
Mr Dillon: This is why NPARIH focuses on structural reforms
and in particular why it focuses on land tenure reform. These remote communities
are the only part of Australia where there is absolutely no private sector
investment in the housing market. There is no home ownership and there is no
housing market; therefore, everything falls to the social housing sector. That
is untenable going forward over the next 20, 30 or 40 years. Yes, there can be
a social housing sector, but surely we aspire to a situation where there is
more than social housing in these places.
Senator SCULLION: I do not think you will get disagreement
from me or from probably most people in this place on that.[25]
Senator Claire Moore
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page