|
FAIRA Policy Paper Series
accountability of government
Although ATSIC has only been in existence for less than a decade, and the major proportion of expenditure on Aboriginal affairs is still conducted through government bureaucracies, ATSIC is being accused of wasting taxpayers money. No government department is being subjected to such a bland accusation of waste. The Howard government promised in their policy platform on Aboriginal Affairs that the departments would all be required to account for the outcomes that have achieved from expenditure on Aboriginal programs. The only reference to ATSIC in this matter was the statement that ATSIC would be subject to the same scrutiny as the departments. This policy was generally welcomed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people because there was an increasing frustration about how the Keating government was administering funds. Through the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs great and regular public announcements of major expenditures were being made. Yet there was no evidence that any such expenditure was occurring. Even more frustrating was the difficulty that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were having in being able to make decisions and manage programs which were being identified from these funds. The Howard government had therefore promised reviews which were welcomed by many of our people. At last, we believed, the huge bureaucracies of the governments, which were quite obviously using up most of the new initiatives money for there own benefit, would be called to account in the public eye. This did not occur. ATSIC, and ATSIC alone, was attacked by the Howard government. No review was announced - just anecdotal stories were being released with dubious motives to the press. This anecdotal 'evidence' of waste is being widely used to reinforce discriminatory values in Australian society. Although there are some genuine cases where waste or misuse of funds occur, the extent of mishandling is of no greater proportion than occurs in the general community. The media has had a feeding frenzy on the stories. Although some positive journalism, defending the indigenous case, has been seen there has generally been a motive to sell the news through sensationalist coverage. Sadly lacking has been the research and investigative journalism. No obvious comparison with the performances of the departments or parallels with mainstream programs has been made. The media, rather than providing fair and balanced coverage, has extended the discriminatory nature of the exercise - ATSIC and Aboriginal organisations being called to account (and along with it the policy of self determination) while the monolithic bureaucracies, such as the health departments of all governments including local authorities, have no case to answer for their waste of taxpayers money in treating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health over the last century. No case has been made that local authorities has wasted or misused funds, even though billions of dollars were poured into these authorities to create jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under the (Aboriginal) Special Works Project scheme of the 1970's and 1980's. There is no evidence that even one job was created as a result of that waste. But we all know how public works from that scheme led to roadwork, kerbing and sewerage for white homes while black households were still living on dirt roads. Further, has any case been made that Aboriginal programs have been run less efficiently and effectively than the programs run by charities, churches, aid organisations, P&C's, etc? In truth the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have seen over a century of waste, mismanagement and fraud from such sources and the government. We have been the victims, not the culprits. The money being used in Aboriginal affairs is only a small percentage of the compensation that should have been paid to us every year by the Australian Government in the 95 years since federation. Further, whatever we would have done with our compensation money, whether it was waste or sound investment, would have been our own business and nobody else's. We have seen, in only recent times, examples of monumental waste and ineffectiveness by the government. Look at the Death in Custody programs. Yet where is there any accountability? We will advocate that ATSIC receive its income through annual payments which are linked to formulas concerning social disadvantage. Such formulas already exist in the States Grant funding, including a formula which gives State and Territory governments money for the Aboriginal population. We believe that ATSIC should get its funds under the State Grants arrangements. We will uphold that State Grants should be adjusted by factors relating to State and Territory performances on land rights (including Native Title) and social equality programs. Where the governments fail to meet goals which have been set in negotiation with ATSIC, penalty deduction from the State Grants should be made and paid to an investment and capital fund administered by ATSIC for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. All governments should be required to complete in a given timeframe of say two years, bilateral (or trilateral) agreements under the National Commitment for Improved Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. This protocol was adopted by all governments in 1992 and it requires policy and resource coordination between governments to achieve identified goals within identified time frames. Since its adoption no governments have made agreements apart from a weak and useless housing and infrastructure agreement between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Govts. For a brief period in he 1990's the federal government released its Social Justice for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders statement as part of the annual Budget documents. This statement provided some useful information about available programs and goals. It also included valuable statistics. The statement is no longer presented each year. We will call for its reinstatement and require that clear information on outcomes is given in the statement. We will demand that the government introduce, after some twenty years of prattle, long term funding packages for Aboriginal affairs. This will be available to ATSIC and government departments. This funding arrangement has been recommended by every major investigation and review into Aboriginal affairs, including the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Government departments and education institutions with significant numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clientele, and which have (or should have) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander units within their structures, should have their management structures reviewed. The participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders on management and decision making, and their access to and control of resources within the bureaucracies, have to be revised in accordance with the principles of democracy and self determination. We will work for ATSIC to revise its program structure so that triennial funding to organisations can be contracted. However, one condition of triennial funding agreements will be that the organisation do not breach finding conditions. If the conditions are breached then the release of funds on an annual, or short term, basis should resume.
|
