Audit Report No. 10 2007-2008
Chapter 2 Whole of Government Indigenous Service Delivery Arrangements
Background
2.1
Successive Federal Governments have modified the administration of
Indigenous affairs with the objective of focusing attention on areas of
Indigenous disadvantage. Models have included a separate department of State.
The Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) was established in the early 1970s
and was followed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission
(ATSIC).
2.2
From 1990 to 2005, administrative responsibilities were reorganised,
including the transfer of Indigenous health from ATSIC to the then Department
of Health and Aged Care in 1995–96. In 2003, most of ATSIC’s funding and
responsibilities were transferred to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Services (ATSIS). From 2002, initiatives by the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) to improve outcomes in identified areas of Indigenous
disadvantage have been promoted through the cooperative efforts of governments
at all levels.
2.3
In 2004, the Australian Government put in place the Indigenous Affairs
Arrangements (IAAs) which involved the transfer of ATSIC and ATSIS
administrative responsibilities and funding to ‘mainstream’ Australian
Government departments.
2.4
In June 2007, the then Prime Minister and the Minister for Families,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs announced a number of major
Indigenous measures. The aim was to respond to the findings of a Northern
Territory Government report, Little Children are Sacred, into the
alleged abuse of children in some remote communities in the Northern Territory.
2.5
The objective of the audit was to assess how four key departments:
Education, Science and Training (DEST); Employment and Workplace Relations
(DEWR); Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA); and
Health and Ageing (DoHA) were implementing the 2004 IAAs.[1]
2.6
While the focus of the audit was on the implementation of the IAAs, the
lessons learned through the audit can be expected to provide insights to inform
on–going developments in the administration of Indigenous affairs, especially
the current initiatives in the Northern Territory.
The approach adopted in the Indigenous Affairs Arrangements (IAAs)
2.7
The Australian Government’s objective in introducing the IAAs is that
over a 20–30 year timeframe:
Indigenous Australians, wherever they live, have the same
opportunities as other Australians to make informed choices about their lives,
to realise their full potential in whatever they choose to do and to take
responsibility for managing their own affairs.[2]
2.8
When implementing the IAAs, the Australian Government’s approach was
based on COAG’s core principles set out in its National Framework for
Principles for Government Service Delivery to Indigenous Australians. A core
principle was the establishment of an accountability framework to enable
Australian Government departments and agencies to report their performance
against government policy objectives and priorities in Indigenous affairs.
2.9
In addition to setting out high–level accountability arrangements,
collaboration was seen as critical to the Government’s approach in the IAAs.
This includes high–level collaborative arrangements though the Ministerial
Taskforce and Secretaries’ Group on Indigenous Affairs to on–the–ground
initiatives through the ICC network. It was considered that successful
collaboration on–the–ground between Australian Government departments to
deliver services to Indigenous communities and regions depended on:
the flexible use of funds which may involve pooling them for
cross–agency projects or transferring them between programmes.[3]
2.10
Ensuring that Indigenous-specific and mainstream programmes were
flexible enough to respond to the needs of Indigenous clients meant moving away
from treating programme guidelines as rigid rules.
2.11
In operationalising the IAAs, consideration was given to the role of a
lead agency. Under the Administrative Arrangements Order (AAO) of January 2006,
FaCSIA was given the role of Indigenous policy coordination. Monitoring
progress over the implementation phase of a Government initiative is an
important function of a lead agency. This is especially the case where
successful implementation is complex, or involves a number of government
departments, as is the case with whole of government Indigenous service
delivery.
National priorities
2.12
The Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs (MTF) includes Ministers
from relevant Australian Government portfolios. The MTF has articulated three
national priorities in Indigenous affairs:
n early childhood
intervention;
n safer communities; and
n building Indigenous
wealth, employment and entrepreneurial culture.
2.13
These three priority areas are broadly consistent with COAG’s three
priority outcomes:
n safe, healthy and
supportive family environments with strong communities and cultural identity;
n positive child
development and prevention of violence, crime and self-harm; and
n improved wealth
creation and economic sustainability for individuals, families and communities.
Departmental collaboration
2.14
The Government’s policy for Indigenous affairs is one of ‘mainstreaming’[4]
in a whole of government context. The whole of government concept was
elaborated in Connecting Government—whole of government responses to Australia’s priority challenges, a Management Advisory Committee (MAC) report released in April 2004. The report noted that all resources of government should,
where necessary, be brought together to produce solutions to government service
requirements.
2.15
When launching the April 2004 MAC report, Dr Peter Shergold, Secretary,
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet commented:
Now comes the biggest test of whether the rhetoric of
connectivity can be marshalled into effective action. The Australian Government
is about to embark on a bold experiment in implementing a whole of government
approach to policy development and delivery …. and the embrace of a quite
different approach to the administration of Indigenous-specific programmes and
services.[5]
2.16
Departmental collaboration is represented at the top by the Secretaries’
Group on Indigenous Affairs (SGIA). The SGIA provides advice and support to the
MTF and is expected to provide coordination across government departments. The
work of the Secretaries’ Group is supported by a Senior Executive Service (SES) Taskforce and by other working groups and taskforces as required. Each year, the SGIA
prepares an annual report on outcomes across departments and agencies.
Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs)
2.17
Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs) are the main vehicle for
departmental coordination of Indigenous–specific programmes. ICCs are staffed
by officers from the relevant mainstream Australian Government departments and
in rural and remote areas, operate as multi–agency units. These multi-agency
units combine coordination, planning and service functions. ICC staff are also
in contact with Indigenous communities to develop individually tailored
agreements (Shared Responsibility Agreements) to focus on issues the community
seeks to address.
Funding of the IAAs
2.18
In 2003–04, there was a total identifiable Commonwealth expenditure on
Indigenous affairs of $2.8 billion[6], including both
mainstream and Indigenous-specific expenditure.
Mainstream expenditure
2.19
Of the $2.8 billion, around $1.5 billion was spent through mainstream
departments and agencies, such as the education, health, and social security
portfolios.
Indigenous-specific expenditure
2.20
A number of former Indigenous-specific ATSIC–ATSIS programmes were
transferred to three of the four departments which were the focus of the
audit—the Departments of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Families,
Community Services and Indigenous affairs (FaCSIA), and Health and Ageing (DoHA).
2.21
The Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) is the fourth
department included in the audit. It has had a continuing responsibility for
Indigenous education, in conjunction with the States and Territories, and did
not receive any additional programme responsibilities under the IAAs. Other
Australian Government departments, which were not part of the audit, received
the remainder of the transferred programmes.[7]
Australian Government Indigenous Expenditure
2.22
For the 2006–07 Budget, the Department of Finance and Administration
issued revised guidelines for the presentation of Portfolio Budget Statements.
As part of this revision each portfolio was required to list, in tables, the
administered and departmental Indigenous expenditure for the current and
previous years. These tables are referred to as the Australian Government
Indigenous Expenditure (AGIE). Each portfolio compiles its own AGIE for
inclusion in its Portfolio Budget Statements.
2.23
Table 1 outlines the total amounts of AGIE, over three fiscal years, for
the four departments examined as part of the audit. Together these four
departments account for around 80 per cent of the total AGIE of
$3.5 billion estimated for 2007–08.
Table 1 Australian Government Indigenous Expenditure
Department |
Total estimated
Indigenous expenditure ($m) |
2005-06 |
2006-07 |
2007-08 |
Education, Science and Training |
583.8 |
588.0 |
5803.7 |
Employment and Workplace Relations |
670.0 |
656.7 |
683.5* |
Families, Community Service and Indigenous Affairs |
603.4 |
924.4 |
1,043.5 |
Health and Ageing |
491.5 |
542.6 |
619.5 |
Source: Departmental Portfolio Budget
Statements for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, ANAO Audit Report No. 10
2007-08
Note: * adjusted based on DEWR’s advice of 12 September 2007.
The Audit
Audit objectives
2.24
The audit objective was to assess how four key departments: DEST; DEWR (now DEEWR), FaCSIA (now FaHCSIA), and DoHA are implementing the Government’s policy objective for Indigenous service delivery.
2.25
Given the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
(PM&C) in whole of government issues generally and the implementation of
the IAAs specifically, PM&C was also involved in the audit.
Audit conclusion
2.26
The audit report made the following conclusion:
In 2004, the Australian Government put in place the policy
and priorities for the Indigenous Affairs Arrangements (IAAs) to address
long–term and entrenched Indigenous disadvantage, and set in train significant
changes to the administration of services to Indigenous Australians to deliver
on these priorities. Because the IAAs involve participation of multiple
Ministers and portfolios and may involve other jurisdictions, the governance
arrangements are necessarily complex and critical to managing the risks to
successful implementation of such major changes.
The ‘mainstreaming’ of Indigenous services has provided
Australian Government departments with the opportunity to develop more
integrated solutions to entrenched Indigenous disadvantage. Reforms to major
Indigenous-specific programs are taking place especially in the areas of
employment (the Community Development and Employment Projects) program and
housing (the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program).
Implementation of the Government’s policy objective is
progressing but it is apparent that there are opportunities to streamline the
administrative arrangements supporting the delivery of services to Indigenous
communities and regions. In addition, a stronger collective focus by
departments on performance against the priorities established by the Government
is required to assess progress being made, and to inform decisions relating to
the effectiveness of on–going administrative arrangements. While departments
individually identify their activities in Indigenous affairs in their
accountability documentation, there is little in the way of performance
information at the aggregate level to assess and inform progress in terms of
the Ministerial Taskforce’s identified priority areas for action in whole of
government Indigenous service delivery.
Areas identified for improvement include:
n implementation of the
IAAs and the role of a lead agency;
n whole of government
governance and accountability arrangements;
n collaborative efforts
to support effective service delivery including the development of joint
funding agreements; and
n programmes responding
flexibly to Indigenous need.
In addition, as for all significant reform programs, there is
a need for an ongoing focus on bringing about cultural change in the
departments with responsibilities for administering the IAAs. To implement the
IAAs, individuals from participating departments need to be able to work
effectively together, requiring different approaches to those used when working
as a single department. A consistent message from participants and stakeholders
during this audit was the importance of an ongoing focus on the cultural change
required to continue the development of appropriate whole of government skills
and behaviours, including appreciating the benefits of aligning and using
common systems.[8]
2.27
In other words, the audit found that the agencies still face significant
work in making the transition from operating as separate departments to
cooperating in a streamlined way.
Implementation of the IAAs and the role of a lead agency
2.28
Over the past 2–3 years, departments have been developing ways of
delivering Indigenous services in a more collaborative, co-ordinated approach
required in a whole of government environment. Departments are now required to
deliver services to Indigenous Australians that are integrated and contribute
to the Government’s overall 20–30 year vision that: Indigenous Australians,
wherever they live, have the same opportunities as other Australians to make
informed choices about their lives, to realise their full potential in whatever
they choose to do and to take responsibility for managing their own affairs.
2.29
The new arrangements are in the early stages of implementation and
progress to date reflects efforts in developing whole of government coordination
arrangements. During this period, FaHCSIA has played a lead role in whole of
government Indigenous policy coordination.
2.30
The whole of government approach to Indigenous service delivery to date
has had a strong emphasis on policy development and priority setting. It was the
original intention of the Government that Indigenous service delivery involve
flexible joint funding arrangements, and that programme guidelines be revised
if they prevent innovation or fail to meet local needs. However, insufficient
attention has been given to this area.
2.31
To overcome administrative barriers to on–the–ground Indigenous service
delivery, FaHCSIA, as lead agency, requires clearer authority to escalate
issues for timely and efficient resolution.
Lead agency involvement
2.32
The whole of government working environment requires departments, to
develop stronger cross-departmental relationships. Initiatives that involve
working across organisational boundaries face new and challenging risks. It is
important to ensure that there is a common understanding of the risks
associated with shared implementation.[9]
2.33
Suitable protocols need to be established for situations that are
sensitive to each Chief Executive’s agency responsibilities but nevertheless
allow for the prompt resolution of administrative matters which cross agency
boundaries. There may be occasions where it is necessary for the lead agency to
articulate the way forward or establish a timetable within which events are
expected to occur. In situations where progress is unsatisfactory, it is
important that the lead agency exercises its role judiciously, taking into
account the responsibilities and accountabilities of other participating
departments. As a last resort, the protocol would need to allow for Ministerial
intervention.
Whole of government governance and accountability arrangements
2.34
Governance and accountability arrangements developed in the initial
phase of the IAAs were well suited to high–level stakeholder involvement and
policy development through the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs and
the Secretaries’ Group. The Ministerial Taskforce has identified three priority
areas for action:
n early childhood
intervention;
n safer communities;
and
n building Indigenous
wealth, employment and entrepreneurial culture.
Reporting performance against government priorities in Indigenous affairs
2.35
While achievements have been made in developing whole of government
priorities for Indigenous service delivery, reporting of the contribution of
individual departments has not evolved in the same way. Individual departments
continue to plan and provide information within the Outcomes and Outputs
framework concerning their individual expenditure. This means it is not
currently possible to obtain a clear picture of whole of government Indigenous
expenditure, and performance information relating to whole of government
initiatives is underdeveloped or absent altogether.
Collaborative efforts to support effective service delivery including the
development of joint funding agreements
2.36
Indigenous Affairs Arrangements (IAAs) are multi–layered, involving
collaboration between a number of governments and their departments as well as
the private sector and not–for–profit organisations. The principal areas for
collaboration examined included higher level joint planning to support the
implementation of the new arrangements and on–the–ground collaboration at the
level of the Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs).
Appropriate funding arrangements with communities and service providers
2.37
Where there are a number of departments involved, suitable financial
arrangements to support individually tailored agreements with Indigenous
communities have yet to be developed.
2.38
Given that departments are now 2–3 years down the track of implementing
the new arrangements, the ANAO indicated that a renewed focus on more efficient
mechanisms to jointly fund projects where more than one Australian government
agency is involved would reduce ‘red tape’ for Indigenous communities and
service providers.
Programs responding flexibly to Indigenous need
2.39
One of the key foundations of the Australian Government’s IAAs is the
ability to respond flexibly to the unique needs of each Indigenous community
and region. This means moving away from treating program guidelines as rigid
rules and introducing more flexibility where the reasons for doing this are
sound. The Government’s objective with the IAAs is to obtain better results for
Indigenous Australians, and flexibility is a key factor in achieving this
objective.
2.40
The audit identified 34 Indigenous-specific programmes and 59 mainstream
programmes with a significant Indigenous component. Only a minority of
programmes reported making program guidelines more flexible or incorporating
whole of government design innovations since the commencement of the new
arrangements.
2.41
Being able to respond to the particular circumstances of an Indigenous
community or region is an important principle of the IAAs. The ANAO believed
that the rate at which the re–design of Indigenous-specific and particularly
mainstream programmes is occurring should be reviewed. This would ensure that
programmes are able to respond flexibly and in an innovative way to the
particular circumstances of an Indigenous community or region when required.
ANAO recommendations
2.42
The ANAO made the following recommendations:
Table 1.1 ANAO recommendations, Audit Report no. 10,
2007-2008
1. |
To assist with moving from policy development and priority
setting to on–the–ground service delivery, the ANAO recommends that FaCSIA,
in its lead agency role develops a protocol to monitor and, where
appropriate, escalate for resolution matters affecting the efficient and
effective implementation of the Indigenous Affairs Arrangements (IAAs)
including:
(a)
translating policy directions into implementation activities
especially where multiple departments are involved in funding arrangements
with Indigenous communities and service providers; and
(b)
the redesign of Indigenous-specific and relevant mainstream
programmes so that they can respond flexibly to Indigenous needs.
Departments’ responses: FaCSIA,
DEST, DEWR, DoHA, and PM&C agreed with this
recommendation |
2. |
To support the development of a whole of government
performance monitoring and reporting framework in Indigenous affairs and to
enable progress against the Ministerial Taskforce’s three priority areas for
action to be reported, the ANAO recommend that, at a minimum, participating
departments:
(a)
identify their individual contribution to achieving
improvements to the intermediate outcomes that contribute over time to the
taskforce’s three priority areas–such as the Council of Australian
Governments’ seven strategic areas for action in its Overcoming Indigenous
Disadvantage framework; and
(b)
collectively settle an appropriate model to present public
information on the performance of Australian Government departments for the
information of Ministers and the Australian Parliament.
Departments’ responses: FaCSIA, DEST, DEWR, DoHA, and PM&C agreed with this recommendation |
The Committee’s review
2.43
The Committee held a public hearing on Wednesday 25 June 2008, with the following witnesses:
n Australian National
Audit Office (ANAO);
n Department of
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA);
n Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR);
n Department of Health
and Ageing (DoHA); and
n Department of the
Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C).
2.44
The Committee took evidence on the following issues:
n structural changes
since the audit report;
n risk management and
lessons learned;
n operating in a whole
of government context;
n mainstreaming;
n operating with a lead
agency; and
n target setting,
monitoring and performance management.
Structural changes since the audit report
2.45
Agencies provided information to the Committee detailing changes that
had been made to the structures related to whole of government Indigenous
service delivery following the completion of the audit and also the Federal
Election. The Committee received evidence of significant changes to the Council
of Australian Governments (COAG), and of the introduction of new COAG targets
aimed at closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. Further, the Committee
heard that the Prime Minister would report annually to the Parliament on
progress made in closing the gap.
2.46
Many elements of whole of government Indigenous service delivery have
remained the same, including the continuing roles of the Secretaries’ Group on
Indigenous Affairs (SGIA), and the Senior Executive Service (SES) Taskforce on
Indigenous Affairs. Indigenous Coordination Centres (ICCs) remain the primary
whole of government delivery mechanism for Indigenous programs at the regional
and community level. However, the Ministerial Task Force (MTF), has taken a
different form and has been renamed the Indigenous Affairs Committee of
Cabinet.[10]
Risk management and lessons learned
2.47
The audit report found that little had been done to identify, address
and document the risks and challenges associated with delivering services to
Indigenous Australians via a whole of government approach. The Committee asked
agencies about the risks identified and strategies adopted to address this
concern.
2.48
FaHCSIA stated:
The collaborative work of key agencies across the board
continues to ensure that whole of government risks are effectively managed to
support the achievement of the policy outcomes...
Additional governance scrutiny and monitoring mechanisms
introduced by the government as part of the Indigenous affairs arrangements
also support cross-portfolio risk management decision making. Whole of
government arrangements in Indigenous affairs and their further development
involve intensive and ongoing governance and scrutiny through the Secretaries
Group on Indigenous Affairs and its associated senior executive service
taskforce on Indigenous affairs. In addition to that, there are mechanisms
locally around what are called Australian government heads of agencies—so,
state and territory managers of Commonwealth agencies—who meet regularly at a
capital city level, and the Indigenous Coordination Centre managers’ forums,
which are cross-government bodies.[11]
2.49
FaHCSIA noted that a cross-agency working group had also been
established to consider issues (including those raised in the audit report),
and to develop and improve cooperation between multiple agencies.[12]
2.50
Further, it was advised that the agencies were taking more consideration
of risk management and standardising the information gathering and reporting
and monitoring systems, to ensure all grants have a similar framework.[13]
2.51
FaHCSIA then discussed lessons learned over the course of the
implementation and rollout of the whole of government approach over the
previous year. They advised that new models had been put into place, using
government business managers located ‘on the ground’ for the Northern Territory
emergency response and the Cape York welfare reform trials.
2.52
The Cape York welfare reform trials involved both the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. They consisted of multilayered governance arrangements connecting
national, state and regional authorities to ensure flexible and pooled funding
arrangements and ongoing training of staff in whole of government operations.[14]
2.53
DEEWR informed the Committee of other key lessons coming out of trials
including building productive relationships, investment in community capacity
building, the need for an emphasis on data collection, and the need for a
stronger emphasis on cross-jurisdictional relationships.[15]
2.54
While the Committee is glad to see agencies establishing bodies to
manage risk into the future, it also notes the importance of capturing the
lessons learned in the past to ensure that mistakes are not made again in the
future. Whole of government Indigenous service delivery remains a new concept,
and steps must be taken at these initial stages to ensure that agencies are
building from a strong foundation.
2.55
The Committee notes the audit report finding that there remains little
documentation on risk identification and management. Documentation of
identified risks and lessons learned throughout the implementation of whole of
government Indigenous service delivery is clearly an area that requires
improvement. Agencies require a multi-focussed approach that goes beyond
establishing bodies to identify and manage risks. By capturing and documenting
lessons learned, agencies are strengthened in making decisions in the future.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends:
Recommendation 1 |
|
That the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services
and Indigenous Affairs, as the lead agency in Indigenous service delivery
identify, document and address the risks and challenges of delivering
Indigenous services in a whole of government context with a view to refining
and improving service delivery. |
Operating in a whole of government context
2.56
The Committee noted the identified risk of a lack of appreciation,
skills and culture to support working in a whole of government context, and
inquired as to how the skills of staff involved in implementing policy had been
improved. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) advised that
the Secretaries Group and SES Taskforce were operating with the new, specific
COAG targets, and that this clear and common purpose had assisted.[16]
Further, PM&C stated that the Australian Public Service Commission coordinated
the delivery of whole of government training to all employees in ICCs.[17]
2.57
While the Committee is pleased to see that the new COAG targets have
provided agencies with a clear and common purpose, it is important to ensure
that this common purpose is allied to staff development. One of the key
findings of the audit report was that staff remained uncertain in operating in
a whole of government environment, and that improving staff training and
developing a whole of government culture would address this issue. Accordingly,
the Committee recommends:
Recommendation 2 |
|
That the Department of
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs as lead agency,
in conjunction with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, use the
findings from its risk management activities to enhance staff training
programs. Further, that these staff training programs emphasise delivering
services through a whole of government approach, and with a culture of
continuous improvement. |
Mainstreaming
2.58
The Committee expressed its concern at the concept of mainstreaming
diminishing the ability of agencies who have established best practice
guidelines in their own areas of expertise to deliver services. FaHCSIA advised
that following the dissolution of ATSIC, mainstreaming was designed to ensure
that mainstream departments took up responsibility for delivering services to
Indigenous Australians in the same way they did for non-Indigenous Australians.
[18]
2.59
The Committee then asked whether each agency believed whether the
rhetoric of connectivity had been put into effective action in implementing the
concept of mainstreaming. DEEWR replied that an Indigenous-mainstream taskforce
had been established which had worked with mainstream program areas to ensure
they were working to improve outcomes for Indigenous Australians. This led to
each program area implementing an Indigenous outcomes action plan for all
mainstream programs. Subsequently, all program areas were able to identify
short, medium and long-term measures to increase access, participation and
outcomes for Indigenous Australians.[19]
2.60
DoHA noted that a similar process had been undertaken in its department.
It advised that the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health was
a focal point for the issue of Indigenous health. Further, the Medicare
Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme had both seen a faster
rate of increase in spending for Indigenous Australians than non-Indigenous
Australians, indicating the positive impact of a focus on mainstreaming.[20]
2.61
PM&C replied that a lot of progress had been made, but that there
was still a lot more to be done. It noted that the focus on mainstreaming
required ensuring that program providers were culturally competent and that
performance measurement data resulting from programs was captured.[21]
2.62
FaHCSIA indicated that, over time, connectivity between agencies had
become a normal part of business. The sharing of responsibility for Indigenous
issues was now part of every day practice and no longer the sole preserve of
just one branch or group.[22]
Operating with a lead agency
2.63
The Committee then examined the issue of FaHCSIA acting as a lead
agency, and asked whether there was a mechanism in place to enable FaHCSIA to
intervene when it was identified that targets were not going to be met due to
failure in a department. FaHCSIA advised that the Secretaries Group on
Indigenous Affairs was the lead monitoring group to which issues could be
escalated if appropriate progress is not made. A protocol to escalate issues at
all levels from the local level at ICCs up through the SES Taskforce and the
Secretaries Group had been developed by agencies in accordance with the
recommendation from the Audit Report.[23]
2.64
One of the difficulties in managing non-compliance is deciding when and
how to escalate issues. Generally, prompt, graduated action puts the Government
in the best position to both secure compliance and meet its accountability
requirements. The Committee would like to see more robust processes to cater
for this contingency in future.
Target setting, monitoring and performance management
2.65
Examining the newer, more specific targets identified by COAG to ‘close
the gap’, the Committee asked how these targets influenced the way in which
agencies went about achieving their goals in ‘closing the gap’. PM&C
advised that agencies had reviewed the evidence base around progress to date in
the identified areas, and the progress required to meet the COAG targets.
Further, PM&C advised that the Working Group on Indigenous Reform had created
a resource that had been used by working groups working on issues such as
housing, health, and productivity.[24]
2.66
The Committee noted the significant target of improving Indigenous life
expectancy, and asked whether an action plan and strategies would be linked to the
output and outcome of improving Indigenous life expectancy. PM&C stated
that this was certainly the intention of agencies and that the process had
begun through the working groups established by COAG.
2.67
Additionally, a COAG Reform Council had been established to take a
prominent role in terms of accountability and reporting, with the purpose of
publishing comparable performance information for all jurisdictions in respect
of specific purpose payments and national partnerships. The COAG Reform Council
is designed to function as an independent body, reporting publicly on the
extent to which proposed milestones are being achieved.[25]
2.68
The Committee notes the critical importance of improving Indigenous life
expectancy and believes that work on this issue is vital in addressing
Indigenous disadvantage. Further, improving service delivery to Indigenous
Australians should, as a matter of course, improve Indigenous life expectancy.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends:
Recommendation 3 |
|
That the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services
and Indigenous Affairs, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
develop and publish an action plan and strategies associated with the output
and outcome of improved Indigenous life expectancy. |
Conclusion
2.69
The Committee is aware of the challenges faced by agencies in adopting a
whole of government approach to Indigenous service delivery and is pleased to
see that agencies are making progress.
2.70
However, the Committee is of the opinion that agencies must do more to
document and manage risks, given the amount of public funds spent, and the
significant role of government in addressing the issue of Indigenous
disadvantage.
2.71
Further, the Committee notes that training in whole of government
service delivery, and the building of a whole of government culture across
agencies remains insufficient. Although agencies used to operate as separate
entities, the change to mainstreaming and whole of government Indigenous
service delivery requires agencies and their staff to think in a cross-agency
way. Improving staff training and building a cross-agency culture would improve
outcomes to Indigenous Australians.
2.72
The Committee believes that by adopting its recommendations, and
building on the changes made since the audit report, agencies would more
comprehensively address Indigenous disadvantage.