Chapter 2 Audit Report No.8 2012–13 Australian Government coordination
arrangements for Indigenous programs
Introduction
2.1
Under the 2008 National Indigenous Reform Agreement (NIRA), the
Commonwealth and the states and territories have committed to six ‘Closing the
Gap’ targets:
- close the life
expectancy gap within a generation;
- halve the gap in
mortality rates for Indigenous children under five within a decade;
- ensure access to
early childhood education for all Indigenous four-yearolds in remote communities
within five years;
- halve the gap in
reading, writing and numeracy achievements for children within a decade;
- halve the gap in Year
12 (or equivalent) attainment rates for Indigenous students by 2020; and
- halve the gap in
employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians within a decade.[1]
2.2
The Closing the Gap targets are underpinned by the seven ‘building
blocks’ of early childhood; schooling; health; economic participation; healthy
homes; safe communities; and governance and leadership.[2]
2.3
The 2012 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Indigenous
Expenditure Report estimated that in 2010–11 the total Indigenous
expenditure by Australian governments was $25.4 billion. Of this, $11.5 billion
was delivered by Federal Government agencies through both mainstream and Indigenous-specific
programs and services.[3]
2.4
In 2011 there were 210 Indigenous-specific programs and sub-programs
identified as making a contribution to Closing the Gap. These programs were
administered by more than 40 different agencies across 17 portfolios.[4]
2.5
With this in mind, the NIRA calls for ‘unprecedented levels of
cooperation and coordination’. The ‘integration principle’, a key service
delivery principle under NIRA, emphasises the need for increased collaboration
between and within governments and service providers.[5]
2.6
The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs (FaHCSIA) has been the Australian Government’s lead agency for
Indigenous Affairs since 2006. As such, FaHCSIA is responsible for coordinating
the Government’s contribution to the Closing the Gap strategy.[6]
Audit objective and scope
2.7
The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of FaHCSIA‘s performance
of its lead agency role in coordinating whole‐of‐government commitments
to closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. The ANAO considered:
- the degree to which
FaHCSIA’s lead agency role is clearly articulated and supported by structured
arrangements;
- the effectiveness of
the coordination arrangements in facilitating better integration in the
delivery of services on the ground; and
- FaHCSIA’s role in
monitoring and reporting overall performance and commitments.[7]
Audit conclusion
2.8
The audit report concluded that while FaHCSIA has established structured
arrangements for coordination, it has not been strongly proactive in its lead
agency role.[8]
2.9
Highlighting that there is scope to improve coordination and make
inroads on longstanding Indigenous issues, the report findings were grouped
into three areas:
- coordination arrangements;
- service delivery; and
- oversight of
expenditure and performance.
2.10
FaHCSIA has established a central structure of governance committees, extending
across jurisdictions. Overarching Bilateral Indigenous Plans have been
established with state and territory governments, and 25 Indigenous
Coordination Centres (ICCs) are maintained in urban, rural and remote areas.[9]
2.11
Acknowledging the comprehensive arrangements FaHCSIA has in place to
service the multiple cross-agency and cross-jurisdictional committees, the
audit found that FaHCSIA focused its coordination efforts mostly on information
sharing and networking. The ANAO suggested that FaHCSIA is well placed to take
a more active role influencing the work of the committees to better drive whole‐of‐government, innovative
policy development and service delivery, with a focus on key Indigenous issues.[10]
2.12
Achieving the Closing the Gap targets is dependent on improving the
quality of, and accessibility of, mainstream services for the 75 per cent of
Indigenous people living in urban and regional areas, but progress in this area
has been slow. The ANAO acknowledged that the large number of
Indigenous-specific service delivery programs makes coordination difficult, and
places a large compliance burden on service provider organisations, but
suggested better integration on the ground is needed.[11]
2.13
The ANAO suggested that there is considerable scope for FaHCSIA to
improve financial reporting and apply a more strategic approach to the
oversight of expenditure.[12]
2.14
The audit also concluded that FaHCSIA’s reporting to government ‘does
not provide an accessible summary of progress and report preparation is a time
consuming, resource intensive process’; and that more strategic reporting on ‘a
more limited set of priority initiatives likely to have the biggest impact in
achieving the Closing the Gap targets’ is needed.[13]
Audit recommendations
2.15
The audit report made three recommendations aimed at strengthening FaHCSIA’s
lead agency role.
Table 2.1 ANAO recommendations, Audit Report No.8 2012–13
1.
|
In order to achieve the
collaboration needed for implementing the National Indigenous Reform Agreement
(NIRA), the ANAO recommends that FaHCSIA review its current coordination role
in the light of the priorities of the Closing the Gap agenda and advise the
Government of options for an updated lead agency role that reflects the NIRA
arrangements and includes priority results to be achieved through the coordination
arrangements.
FaHCSIA’s response: Agreed
|
2.
|
In order to better integrate
the delivery of Indigenous programs and services between and across
government agencies and non‐government
service providers in remote and very remote areas, the ANAO recommends that
FaHCSIA, in consultation with relevant agencies and in the context of broader
delivery reforms, actively promote relevant changes in agencies’ practices
and, where necessary, seek agreement from the Government for delivery
reforms.
FaHCSIA’s response: Agreed
|
3.
|
In order to better inform
the Australian Government of its contributions to outcomes helping to close
the gap in Indigenous disadvantage and to inform strategic decisions in
relation to expenditure, the ANAO recommends that FaHCSIA include a greater
focus on outcomes in its overall reporting and enhance its financial
oversight of mainstream and Indigenous specific Australian Government
Indigenous expenditure.
FaHCSIA’s response: Agreed
|
The Committee’s review
2.16
The Committee’s first public hearing on 6 February 2013 primarily
focused on leadership and coordination issues related to Audit Report No.8.
Representatives of the following organisations appeared before the Committee:
- Australian National
Audit Office
- Department of
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
- Coordinator-General
for Remote Indigenous Services.
2.17
The Committee also received evidence relating to its review of Report
No.8 in responses to questions on notice, in written submissions, and at its third
public hearing on 20 March 2013 with the COAG Reform Council.
2.18
The Committee’s evidence covered the following issues:
- The need for
effective leadership
- Collaboration, more
than coordination
- Indigenous
participation in decision-making
- FaHCSIA’s lead agency
approach
- The
Executive Coordination Forum on Indigenous Affairs
- Mainstream service
delivery
- Spatial distribution
of Indigenous expenditure.
The need for effective leadership
2.19
The ANAO outlined in its report the reasons why clear leadership and
coordination are needed in the planning and delivery of Indigenous programs. It
noted that Indigenous disadvantage occurs across a range of different policy
areas, requiring actions from a range of different government agencies, and in the
context of the actions of state and territory governments. This presents a
challenging issue for public administration:
… Indigenous service provision occurs through multiple layers
of government, with services being delivered by a complex network of
implementation partners that include Australian Government agencies, state and
territory government agencies, local governments and non-government service provider
organisations. Working effectively across organisational and jurisdictional
boundaries is currently one the most significant issues in public
administration, and is recognised in the overarching reform agenda of the Australian
public service and also by the Commonwealth’s Financial Accountability Review.[14]
2.20
The ANAO argued that this necessitates a well-defined federal lead
agency role to share information across agencies, coordinate service delivery, provide
consolidated advice to the Government, and to address systemic performance
issues in a timely manner. The lead agency was expected to maintain broad
oversight of implementation progress and results, a strategic focus and line of
sight between individual programs and expected outcomes. A key challenge for
the lead agency role was ‘creating structured, workable arrangements, with sufficient
authority and clarity of purpose for the lead agency to undertake its role
without diluting the accountabilities of other agencies involved …’[15]
2.21
The Auditor-General summarised some of the main audit findings at the
Committee’s public hearing on 6 February 2013, noting that common across the
reports under review was the:
… central issue of coordination of the many entities involved
in order to fully support the whole-of-government approach to Indigenous
affairs, particularly ensuring the contribution of mainstream services at both
federal and state levels.[16]
2.22
Participants in the Committee’s inquiry agreed with the ANAO’s
observation that effective coordination was key challenge for Indigenous
programs and policies. For example, in a written submission, the National
Congress of Australia’s First Peoples highlighted challenges that had been
faced in progressing action in relation to Indigenous language policy, with
administrative arrangements spread across multiple agencies. The Congress noted
that this was not an isolated example, and that ‘many policies relevant to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples would benefit from greater
bureaucratic coordination, streamlining and integration.’[17]
2.23
At the public hearing on 20 March 2013, the COAG Reform Council provided
the Committee with an overview of its most recent performance report on the
National Indigenous Reform Agreement ‘Closing the Gap’ targets. The Council had
found that while good progress was being made in some areas, such as reducing
child death rates, progress was slow and patchy in other areas, such as reducing
adult death rates and increasing school attendance.[18]
Collaboration, more than coordination
2.24
The ANAO report concluded that, in the context of the National
Indigenous Reform Agreement and other changes to financial relations between
the federal and state and territory governments in recent years, there was a
need for the lead agency for Indigenous affairs to move along the ‘spectrum of
engagement’ beyond a coordination role towards a more collaborative
role across Commonwealth agencies.[19] This would require
strengthened leadership and shifting:
… from an approach focused mainly on sharing information to
an approach that seeks to better drive whole-of-government, innovative policy
development and service delivery.[20]
2.25
Such an approach would enable the lead agency to lead discussions around
the prioritising and sequencing of programs across sectors and:
… help agencies identify areas where linkages and integration
of services within and across building blocks would be beneficial and seek
agreements for agencies to make the corresponding changes in practice in the
way services are delivered on the ground.[21]
2.26
Extending on the audit report’s focus on collaboration across
Commonwealth agencies, participants in the inquiry also talked about the
importance of collaboration at other levels.
2.27
In his opening remarks to the Committee, the Coordinator General for
Remote Indigenous Services emphasised that coordination alone was not
sufficient, and that ‘top-down coordination will never beat bottom-up
collaboration’, particularly in remote areas.[22] Further discussion of
the Coordinator General’s comments on how local level collaboration was being
achieved through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery
can be found in Chapter 3.
2.28
In addition to his comments on the value of local collaboration, the
Coordinator General pointed out that sustaining a ‘real whole-of-government
approach’ would require more collaboration between the Commonwealth and the
states and territories, which he described as a ‘very complex’ but ‘critical’
issue.[23]
2.29
Other inquiry participants also provided evidence on the need for
greater collaboration between the Commonwealth and states and territory
governments. The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples noted that
difficulties associated with progressing action in relation to Indigenous
languages (noted above) had been ‘compounded by a lack of coordination between
the Commonwealth and state and territory governments’.[24]
2.30
In response to a question on notice about the impacts of changes to
alcohol regulation at a state and territory level, FaHCSIA advised that the
dismantling of the Northern Territory’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal would
have a ‘direct impact’ on the implementation of the Federal government’s income
management policy, meaning it would not be able to operate as planned. The abolition
of the Banned Drinkers Register and Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral
for Treatment Court would also ‘have an impact on the department’s ability to
deliver and effectively evaluate the alcohol measures’ of the Stronger Futures
for the Northern Territory package. Similarly, FaHCSIA advised that the
Queensland Government’s review of Alcohol Management Plans in discrete
Indigenous communities could affect FaHCSIA’s ability to deliver its Breaking
the Cycle of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Indigenous Communities initiative.[25]
2.31
Drawing on his own experience working with state and territory
counterparts, at a public hearing the Auditor-General discussed the
complexities of effective collaboration between the Commonwealth and state and
territory governments, and the key importance of oversight:
… it is about having a common vision, a clear understanding
of strategies, and how to work collectively together, particularly to manage
the risks across the borders and make sure that someone has got oversight. This
is the thing that I think is most important: someone is looking at the programs
from end to end, has clear oversight of the program from the terms of the
policy objectives right through to what is being delivered on the ground. Is it
meeting its objectives? What needs to be done to improve the performance?[26]
2.32
The COAG Reform Council told the Committee about the concept of
‘leadership federalism’, which requires understanding that while state
constitutional responsibilities need to be respected, it has been in the
national interest for the Commonwealth to take on a greater role in various
areas over the time since the federation was established. This was the way in
which ‘cooperation, collaboration and reform’ could be achieved despite the
federation consisting of nine governments with overlapping roles and
responsibilities. Indigenous affairs was one important area in which this more
centralised approach had developed.[27]
Indigenous participation in decision-making
2.33
In addition to collaboration at the local level and between government
agencies, the written submissions received from the National Congress of
Australia’s First Peoples and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social
Justice Commissioner both called for greater involvement of Indigenous people in
government decision-making.
2.34
The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples is an independent,
member-owned and controlled national representative body for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Australians, first established in 2010.[28]
In its submission to the Committee, the Congress summarised its position as
follows:
While we endorse the Auditor-General’s recommendations in
these reports, we argue that a new and broader approach is required, which
embraces genuine engagement with, and active participation of, Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Peoples in decision-making processes on issues that
affect them, particularly in determining the provision of services and
infrastructure in our communities.[29]
2.35
Whilst remaining independent, the Congress was established with support
and funding from the Government, and has engaged at senior levels of
bureaucratic decision-making.[30] A Framework for
Engagement between Australian Government Agencies and the National Congress of
Australia’s First Peoples was signed by the Congress and ten departmental
secretaries in September 2012, outlining the overarching principles for
engagement and protocols for how the Congress would like to engage with the
Government. The protocols include factors such as early notice, sharing and
providing information, agreed timeframes and common understanding around public
announcements.[31]
2.36
In its submission, the Congress argued that the principles outlined in
the existing framework were equally applicable to its relationship with
Ministers and other Parliamentarians as to government agencies, and called for
the development of a ‘true bilateral relationship’ between the Congress and
government as ‘equal partners’. The submission identified three key elements of
such a relationship:
- A separate high level
agreement between the Congress and Executive Government, enabling it to be
‘engaged at the highest levels of government on a broad range of decisions and
developments affecting First Peoples’, beyond the existing framework for
engaging with the public service. As such an agreement would require
negotiations with both the Federal Government and the states and territories,
it ‘may need to progressed through COAG’.
- A ‘seat at the COAG
table on issues affecting First Peoples’, as a way of overcoming a ‘continuing
barrier to genuine engagement and effective progress on these issues’ caused by
a lack of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation within COAG.
- Further bipartisan
commitment to the Congress as a national representative body and the
‘independent national voice for First Peoples’, in order to ensure its
sustainability.[32]
2.37
The submission from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social
Justice Commissioner centred around the ‘Governance’ theme of the
Commissioner’s 2012 Social Justice Report. The report outlined a framework for
‘effective, legitimate and culturally relevant’ governance, and focused on
giving full effect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. The key components identified for effective governance
in Indigenous communities were ‘a foundation of community governance and
self-determination; strong organisational governance; and an enabling role to
be played by government and other external parties’.[33]
2.38
The Commissioner referred the Committee to his report’s recommendations:
for the Government to acknowledge the centrality of effective Indigenous
governance to the sustainable development of communities; for the Government to
build its own capacity to enable and support effective Indigenous Governance;
and for governments to ‘properly resource’ Indigenous communities to strengthen
their contemporary governance structures as part of a ‘new relationship between
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and governments based on genuine
power-sharing and partnership’.[34]
2.39
Matters relating to the internal governance of Indigenous organisations
and capacity building within government are further discussed in Chapter 4
on Capacity Development for Indigenous Service Delivery.
2.40
The Commissioner also highlighted the recommendation from his 2011
Social Justice Report that ‘all governments ensure their engagement, policies
and programs are implemented in accordance with the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’—in particular the principles
of self-determination; the right to participate in decision-making underpinned
by good faith and free, prior and informed consent; non-discrimination; and
respect for and protection of culture. He argued that these principles provided
guidance as to how the declaration could be applied and ‘benchmarks against
which the effectiveness of the implementation of government programs and
policies can be measured’. The submission noted that:
Giving full effect to the Declaration will provide an
opportunity to move beyond the stalemate that is currently frustrating positive
development for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities.[35]
2.41
At the public hearing, FaHCSIA described the range of ‘formal and
informal engagement’ activities that took place between government agencies and
Indigenous bodies such as the Congress, the National Aboriginal Community
Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) and various land councils. To
illustrate efforts that had been made in recent years to improve communication,
FAHCSIA briefly described the panel that was established to advise the
government on the issue of constitutional recognition for Indigenous
Australians. The panel was ‘dominated by key Indigenous leaders’, in addition
to others, and throughout the process there had been ‘a huge reliance on the
views of key Indigenous organisations right across the board’.[36]
2.42
The Coordinator General for Remote Indigenous Services also provided
some examples of where progress had been made in increasing Indigenous
involvement in accountability and decision-making. He noted that under the
National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery (discussed in detail
in Chapter 3) each jurisdiction had a board of management consisting of
federal, state and local governments, and there had recently been moves to
include Indigenous representation on those boards. The Coordinator General also
mentioned a forum he had recently chaired in Melbourne on the role of
Non-Government Organisations in remote communities, which had included
Indigenous representation, including from the Congress.[37]
FaHCSIA’s lead agency approach
2.43
The ANAO audit report concluded that FaHCSIA’s current leadership
approach had been overall ‘quite measured’. Its formal role had been focused on
sharing information and expertise between agencies, and it had ‘not been
strongly proactive in exercising its lead agency role’. The ANAO called for
FaHCSIA to take a ‘more active approach’ in order to:
… tangibly address some of the critical strategic issues in
Indigenous affairs, such as making agencies’ mainstream programs more
accessible and effective for Indigenous people; strategic oversight of new and existing
expenditure; prioritising and sequencing programs across sectors; and better
integrating service delivery on the ground.[38]
2.44
The ANAO called for the lead agency role to be ‘refreshed’, with options
to be put forward to the Government for a ‘more strategic lead agency role that
has a stronger performance orientation’. While acknowledging the importance of
recent efforts by FaHCSIA to increase the strategic focus of its coordination
efforts, the ANAO noted that these efforts ‘would need to be sustained and
supported over time’.[39] The audit’s first two
recommendations were aimed at FaHCSIA reviewing and updating its lead agency
role; and better integrating remote service delivery by actively promoting
changes in agency practices and seeking agreement from Government for delivery
reforms.[40]
2.45
The Auditor-General expanded on the audit’s overall conclusions at the
public hearing on 6 February 2013. He expressed:
… confidence in this department [FaHCSIA] that it has got the
ability to develop an approach which is even better than the one that we have
today and not be inhibited unduly, particularly in the Commonwealth space, to
suggest revised approaches to ministers … and not be too concerned about their
colleagues in other agencies at this stage.
and noted that:
Implicit in this is whether the department itself needs
greater authority to be able to crack the whip to get particular outcomes …[41]
2.46
At the Committee’s 13 March 2013 hearing, the Auditor-General added
that, in relation to the Government’s success in achieving outcomes for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people:
I think we would all agree there is room for improvement. Our
report says that. We are saying performance is a bit patchy across the board.
We encourage FaHCSIA to take the leadership role because they have got the
expertise and to spread the expertise—what works well, what does not work so
well—so that we can improve the delivery performance to reach these objectives
we all agree are very admirable and desirable.[42]
2.47
In evidence before the Committee, FaHCSIA provided a progress update on
its adoption of the ANAO’s recommendations. In relation to the recommendation
for a review and update of the lead agency role, FaHCSIA said it had been
‘working closely with agencies and ministers’ through the Executive Coordination
Forum on Indigenous Affairs and had been implementing strategies for
on-the-ground service delivery, stakeholder engagement and research and
evaluation efforts.[43]
2.48
In relation to the ANAO’s second recommendation on better integrating remote
service delivery, the department pointed to its work, in collaborating with
other departments and jurisdictions, rolling out the Remote Jobs and
Communities Program, the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory national
partnership, and improvements to remote housing in the Northern Territory.[44]
2.49
The Committee asked FaHCSIA for further information on how it was moving
from a coordinating role to a lead role, and how the department would be able to
‘win those fights’ and keep reforms to Indigenous affairs ‘urgent’ within the
structures of government. Using a military analogy, FaHCSIA explained that its
notion of leadership in a complex environment was about ‘taking the high
ground, having the tactical advantage, forcing the direction of the battle’
rather than just driving forward in a ‘phalanx’ formation, stating:
I would argue that we are leading but in a slightly different
way than maybe is being suggested.[45]
2.50
Adding to these remarks, another FaHCSIA representative commented that:
… leadership is not about bullying … leadership is the art of
shaping and convincing people to do what they otherwise might not want to do.
Very much in this space, FaHCSIA’s role is to engage closely with our peers in
other departments—those big departments that have their own significant
programs and lead in specific areas of government work—and to convince them to
shape their programs in a way that best fits the whole strategy of Closing the
Gap.
… it is around collaboration and convincing, and going to the
strongest weapon in our armoury, which is our ability to talk to each other
rather than getting out a big stick.[46]
2.51
FaHCSIA also pointed out that although it would be making progress in
the short term to acquit the ANAO’s recommendation, including determining the
changes to be made and establishing how to measure and exercise leadership, its
leadership role would keep evolving over time:
As the landscape changes and as the maturity of the
collaborative leadership model that we want to put in place evolves, obviously
the models and the processes need to evolve too. I am not sure we can say there
is an end point, but there will be a point at which we can monitor, measure and
manage the model that we are putting in place.[47]
The Executive Coordination Forum on Indigenous Affairs
2.52
As noted above, FaHCSIA informed the Committee that it was responding to
the ANAO’s recommendation to update the lead agency role through its work on
the Executive Forum on Indigenous Affairs (ECFIA), which is chaired by
FaHCSIA’s Secretary.[48]
2.53
The audit report identified ECFIA as one of the key committees for
collaboration between government agencies, but found that until recently agendas
for meetings of ECFIA had tended to be ‘full and wide-ranging and focused on
information items rather than on addressing strategic level issues’. In
addition, deputy secretaries from the 13 agencies represented on the forum were
‘frequently substituted by less senior staff’, constraining ECFIA’s ability to
make strategic decisions.[49]
2.54
At the public hearing on 6 February 2013, the Auditor-General noted that
committee arrangements such as ECFIA were important to facilitate talk, but
that:
… we would like to see a bit more leadership here. It is just
not a traditional interdepartmental committee, as we would call it in the
public service, where people come together and share information; I think it is
a case of FaHCSIA providing the leadership.[50]
2.55
As recorded in the audit report, FaHCSIA had taken steps in 2012 to make
ECFIA more strategically focused by confining its membership to a smaller
number of departments to be represented only at senior levels, and by proposing
a work program that focused on priority policy issues. The ANAO expected that
these new arrangements would enable the forum (and potentially other
committees) to operate at an appropriately strategic level and to be more
focused on achieving specific results.[51]
2.56
At the hearing, FaHCSIA took the opportunity to summarise the changes
that had been recently made to ECFIA’s format:
We have basically restructured that agency to make it
tighter, to make sure the involvement of membership is kept at a senior level
and that it is much more strategic. That is the main mechanism we use to drive
a whole-of-government approach …[52]
2.57
In a written question on notice, the Committee asked FaHCSIA to provide
some concrete examples of critical issues that had been considered by ECFIA
since it had been streamlined, what actions had arisen and what outcomes had
been achieved. FaHCSIA noted that it had met three times since the new
arrangements had been introduced, and provided the following examples of
outcomes:
- Enhanced reporting on
Indigenous expenditure, with ECFIA agreeing to strengthen the links between
investment and outcomes and Treasury working with the Productivity Commission
to take this work forward.
- Priorities and
parameters agreed for the 2013–14 Indigenous Budget and the Prime Minister’s
2013 Closing the Gap Report, including an increased focus on the importance of
mainstream programs and services in Closing the Gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
- Strengthening the
governance and coordination of Federal Government activities under Stronger
Futures in the Northern Territory, with agreement to establish the Stronger
Futures Project Board as a subcommittee of ECFIA.
- Driving the
implementation of the Closing the Gap priorities and collaboration between State
and Territory governments.
- Agreement to
strengthen FaHCSIA’s lead agency role and support better integration in the
delivery of programs and services in remote and very remote areas, in response
to the ANAO audit.[53]
2.58
The Committee also asked for a progress update on the specific issue of
securing staff housing in remote areas, which the ANAO report noted had previously
been on the ECFIA agenda for several years without resolution. FaHCSIA outlined
that the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory package had included a
‘significant boost’ to remote staff housing, with up to 140 houses being
identified under the Stronger Communities for Children Program and capital
works funding allocated for staff housing under the Health Implementation Plan.
Further, land tenure reforms were ‘progressively being implemented across the
states and territories’ which would facilitate investment and support a longer
term easing of housing pressures.[54]
Mainstream service delivery
2.59
As noted above, making mainstream programs more accessible and effective
for Indigenous people was identified by the ANAO as one of the ‘critical
strategic issues’ of Indigenous affairs.[55] Although
Indigenous-specific programs and services tend to be targeted towards people
living in remote areas, around 75 per cent of Indigenous Australians live in
cities and regional centres, where there is a greater reliance on mainstream
services. The ANAO noted that achieving the Closing the Gap targets was
therefore ‘dependent on improvements in the quality of the mainstream services
in urban and regional areas delivered to Indigenous Australians’.[56]
2.60
In response to a question on notice, FaHCSIA informed the Committee that
78 per cent of government spending on Indigenous Australians was provided
through mainstream services and programs, rather than Indigenous-specific
programs.[57]
2.61
At the 6 February 2013 public hearing, the ANAO further discussed the
issue of improving mainstream services with the Committee, and described it as
‘actually one of the key aspects of achieving the Closing the Gap targets’. Dr
Andrew Pope, Group Executive Director at the ANAO noted that a complicating
factor around mainstream service delivery was that many of the services were
delivered by state and territory governments, meaning effective coordination
was needed at all levels, and that progress in this area had been a major
challenge:
Our view was that, over the ten or so years that people have
talked about it as a core priority, progress could have been a little quicker
and a bit more solid in terms of what other agencies are doing. Part of that
goes to the lead agency role … there is a lot of experience within the
department which can be brought to bear on how other agencies engage with their
sectoral knowledge and understand how best to improve that for Indigenous
access.[58]
2.62
Similarly, FaHCSIA said that maximising access to mainstream programs
was ‘the main game’,[59] and acknowledged that gains
would need to be made in urban and regional areas, where the majority of
Indigenous people live, in order to ‘close the gap’. However, the department
said that, given that the ‘disadvantage is so stark in remote areas’, there was
a need to ‘work on both fronts simultaneously’. It also pointed out that there
were difficulties obtaining data on many mainstream services:
The problem is that it is much harder to measure, identify
and record the take-up of services in urban and regional through mainstream programs
because quite often they do not have the metrics available to do that. One of
our challenges is to start to pressure mainstream programs to put those metrics
in place.[60]
Spatial distribution of Indigenous expenditure
2.63
The Committee was interested in learning more about the distribution of
funding allocated to the majority of Indigenous Australians who were living in
urban and regional areas, particularly coastal centres, as opposed to remote
areas. The Committee was also interested in whether any spatial mapping had
been or could be done in this respect.
2.64
At the public hearing, FaHCSIA responded by drawing a link between the
government’s majority spending on mainstream programs to the question of
spatial distribution. As an example, it pointed out that while the government
was spending $5.5 billion over ten years specifically on remote Indigenous
housing, it was also spending around $20 billion on mainstream social housing,
for which 14 per cent of tenants were Indigenous:
There are billions of dollars that have gone into urban and
regional social housing for Indigenous Australians. We do not really track that
in perhaps the way we should. I think that is the challenge in front of us …[61]
2.65
In a written response to the Committee’s question, FaHCSIA indicated
that, based on data from the Commonwealth Grants Commission, around 38 per
cent of government spending went to people in remote and very remote areas,
compared to 62 per cent to those in regional areas and major cities. It noted
that:
It is true that Indigenous Australians in remote areas
receive more government funding per capita than other Indigenous Australians.
However, this reflects the higher cost of providing services to people in
remote areas and evidence of significant and greater need.[62]
2.66
While FaHCSIA’s response did not provide any spatial mapping, or a more
detailed breakdown of expenditure, it made reference to the Indigenous
Expenditure Report. The Indigenous Expenditure Report is produced by
the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision on behalf
of COAG in order to present ‘nationally comparable information on government
expenditure on services to Indigenous Australians’. While not comparing levels
of expenditure by remoteness or location beyond the state and territory level,
the 2012 report noted significant variability spending between jurisdictions in
combined Commonwealth and state and territory expenditure,[63]
and further explained the reasons for higher per capita spending in remote
areas:
The cost of providing services is often higher in remote
areas where the challenges of being physically isolated can mean smaller
populations, less developed market economies and lack of infrastructure. Also
the multiple dimensions of disadvantage increase with remoteness, therefore
higher costs of providing services to these geographical areas contribute to
overall expenditure data reported in this report.[64]
2.67
The ANAO audit report noted that FaHCSIA has played an ‘important role’
in the production of the Indigenous Expenditure Report and had recently
presented some analysis of its data at an ECFIA meeting. However, there
remained:
… considerable scope for the department to enhance its
financial reporting and take a more strategic oversight role in monitoring
expenditure, for example in making more use of analysis of the Indigenous
Expenditure Report to inform decisions on funding priorities.[65]
2.68
As noted earlier, ANAO Recommendation No. 3 was for FaHCSIA to increase
its focus on outcomes in its overall reporting and ‘enhance its financial
oversight of mainstream and Indigenous-specific Australian Government
Indigenous expenditure’.[66]
2.69
In providing an update to the Committee on its implementation of this recommendation,
FaHCSIA noted that the government had relatively recently set up the COAG
Reform Council, and that the Indigenous Expenditure Report was also
relatively new, being in only its second iteration. FaHCSIA also indicated that
it was ‘very focused on tangible improvements on the ground’, for example
through national partnerships on remote service delivery, school attendance and
housing.[67]
2.70
At the public hearing on 20 March 2013, the Committee asked the COAG
Reform Council whether it was able to provide a breakdown of data beyond the
state and territory level. The Council’s representative, Executive Councillor
Ms Mary-Ann O’Loughin, indicated the Council had been trying to recommend
improvements to data to include information by ‘geolocation’—that is;
… within states and nationally by metropolitan, major
regional, remote and very remote locations. We like to get that level of disaggregation
because you are right: the differences are very interesting across geolocation
as well as across jurisdiction.[68]
2.71
Ms O’Loughlin also noted that its 2013 national agreement reports would
be introducing supplements, where possible, which would include data on
attributes such as geolocation, socioeconomic status and gender. The first
reports with supplements were scheduled
to be provided to COAG in April 2013, and publicly released around four weeks
later.[69]
Committee Comment
2.72
Reducing Indigenous disadvantage is one of the most important but
complex issues facing Australian governments. While many billions of dollars
are being spent annually on both Indigenous-specific and mainstream government
programs for Indigenous people, the long term success of these efforts will
depend on the design and delivery of programs and services being effectively
coordinated. This coordination must occur between federal government agencies,
state and territory governments, and the non-government sector. Better
coordination will require strong leadership that is capable of prioritising and
driving action across a range of policy areas.
2.73
The Committee welcomes the Auditor-General’s report and endorses its
conclusions and recommendations. The Committee therefore encourages FaHCSIA and
the Federal Government to work towards the full implementation of the audit’s recommendations
as a matter of priority.
A collaborative approach
2.74
The Committee received a range of evidence on the need for a more
collaborative approach across Indigenous programs and services at all levels,
consistent with the National Indigenous Reform Agreement’s ‘integration’
principle. At the federal level, this requires a more strategic leadership
approach with better prioritising and sequencing of programs across portfolios
(see the discussion below on the lead agency role). It may also require changes
to more effectively support ‘joined up’ activities across departments—something
which could be facilitated through the Commonwealth Financial Accountability
Review that is currently underway.
2.75
In terms of the relationship between the federal and state and territory
governments, more collaboration implies increasing efforts to clarify
responsibilities and reduce duplication in programs and services. Given the
national interest in improving outcomes for Indigenous people, this may also
require states and territories to accept a stronger leadership and oversight
role for the Commonwealth government under a ‘leadership federalism’ style
arrangement. The impact on Commonwealth programs of recent and proposed changes
to alcohol regulations at the state and territory level provide a strong
example of why a collaborative approach is needed if mutually beneficial
outcomes are to be obtained.
2.76
At a local level, collaboration means developing programs and policies
in consultation with local communities and designing them to be sufficiently
flexible to allow different approaches depending on the needs and priorities of
individual communities and their unique circumstances. Chapter 3 on the
National Partnership Agreement on Remote Service Delivery contains further
discussion on the value of ‘place based’ approaches, and their potential
applicability to other communities.
2.77
Any collaborative approach in Indigenous affairs clearly requires close
engagement with the non-government organisations that work for and represent
Indigenous Australians. The Committee was pleased to have the involvement of
two such organisations in this inquiry—the National Congress for Australia’s
First Peoples and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Social Justice
Commissioner. Both of these participants raised in their submissions the importance
of Indigenous participation in policy decision-making and public sector
governance. Further examination is warranted as to how the issues and
suggestions raised in these submissions might be addressed, including the
Congress’s proposals for a high level agreement with executive government—beyond
the current agreement with the public service—and a seat at the COAG table on
issues affecting Indigenous Australians.
The Committee notes that the Congress
was established with the help of the Government to provide a representative
voice for Indigenous Australians. As the Congress matures over time as an
organisation the Government will need to take its relationship forward if it is
serious about more fully engaging Indigenous people in the policies that affect
them.
Recommendation 1 |
|
The Committee recommends that
the Government examine options and take action to improve Indigenous
representation and involvement in decision-making processes in relation to
Indigenous service delivery, including the possibilities of a high-level
agreement between the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples and
Executive Government and for the Congress to be consulted during Council of
Australian Government processes on Indigenous issues.
|
The lead agency role
2.78
The need for effective leadership in Indigenous affairs is clear, but it
is not clear whether FaHCSIA is being fully effective in its lead agency role,
despite its best efforts. While the ‘soft leadership’ approach employed by
FaHCSIA has merits, it may not be enough to drive and sustain the changes needed
across the Federal Government.
2.79
The Executive Coordination Forum on Indigenous Affairs (ECFIA) is the
key body used by FaHCSIA to coordinate action at the whole‑of‑government
level. The ANAO’s audit found that until recently, ECFIA had been used mostly
as a forum to share information. The Committee hopes that recent reforms to ECFIA
will enable it to refocus on the nation’s critical Indigenous policy issues,
providing an opportunity for it to come up with and develop innovative
solutions to the challenges facing Indigenous service delivery across
government. While the initial signs are promising and should be commended, it
is yet to be seen whether the reformed ECFIA will be effective in taking on the
more strategic and outcomes focused approach that is needed over a sustained
period.
2.80
The evidence presented to the Committee has demonstrated that FaHCSIA is
committed to Indigenous reforms, has the necessary skills, and is capable of effectively
communicating and establishing partnerships with other departments. It is also
clear that a great deal of work has been undertaken in the time since the Joint
Committee of Public Accounts and Audit’s last review of an audit report on
government Indigenous service delivery arrangements, tabled in 2009.[70]
2.81
Nonetheless, the success or failure of the current arrangements will
depend on outcomes. Unfortunately, as shown by the COAG Reform Council’s
evidence, it is not certain whether the required outcomes are being achieved to
make large and sustained impacts on closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage
that were envisaged under the National Indigenous Reform Agenda.
2.82
For the necessary outcomes to be achieved in such a complex environment
it is essential that there is strong leadership. Such leadership needs to go beyond
facilitating good communication and providing convincing arguments, to be
capable of driving through real changes on priority issues. In the public
sector, this requires a clear leadership mandate and authority to be given to a
responsible lead agency and lead minister—including that they be given adequate
cross‑portfolio leverage. For national priority issues, such as
Indigenous affairs, this needs to be backed‑up by active support from the
Prime Minister and Cabinet.
2.83
Given the ANAO findings and the COAG Reform Council’s evidence, the
Committee believes that leadership on Indigenous affairs should be
strengthened. The Committee remains to be convinced that modifications to ECFIA
are sufficient to get the results needed and strongly supports the
Auditor-General’s recommendation that a refreshed leadership approach be
considered by Government. However, when informing the Committee on its progress
on the ANAO’s recommendations, FaHCSIA did not indicate that it would be
providing options to the Government for an updated lead agency role as was
recommended.
2.84
The Committee suggests that, given FaHCSIA does not seem to be acting on
the ANAO recommendation, the most obvious other department to provide options
for Government consideration is the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet (PM&C). PM&C would be well placed to drive whole-of-government
consideration and provide objective options for improvement. As stated above,
such a review should consider not only the powers of the lead agency and
minister, but also what ongoing support is needed from the Prime Minister and
Cabinet.
Recommendation 2 |
|
The Committee recommends that the Prime Minister request the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to undertake a review of
leadership and collaboration arrangements in Indigenous affairs for Cabinet
consideration; and that the review investigates options for strengthening the
authority of the lead agency to better |
Spatial data on Indigenous expenditure and outcomes
2.85
The Committee was concerned that no data was provided on the spatial
breakdown of Indigenous expenditure to anywhere below the state and territory
level.
2.86
Given the large amount of annual expenditure on Indigenous programs and
services, there would be considerable public and parliamentary interest in more
information being made available on where this money is being spent and on what
it is being spent on, to a local or regional level. Complementing this,
information should be made available on local or regional level outcomes (such
as life expectancy, educational attainment, employment outcomes et cetera) and other
contextual information (age profiles, average incomes et cetera).
2.87
Spatial mapping of Indigenous expenditure and outcomes would be an
effective way of making this information transparent and would provide a useful
addition to the policy making process.
Recommendation 3 |
|
The Committee recommends that the Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs examine methods and lead
efforts to improve the availability of location-based data on Indigenous
expenditure and outcomes, including through spatial mapping, in order to
inform the public and the policy-making process. |