ATSIC and accountability
Media statement by Dr William Jonas AM, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Dr William Jonas, has expressed concern at the recently announced changes to the structure of ATSIC which are due to take effect from 1 July this year.
Possible impacts of the changes include:
- undermining Indigenous self-determination;
- weakening and discouraging innovation at the local level; and
- marginalising ATSIC as a representative voice.
Under the changes, ATSIC will be split into two bodies with a new executive agency established to manage ATSIC's programmes and to make individual funding decisions. The ATSIC elected arm of Commissioners and regional councillors will continue to exist in an advisory role, but will not make funding decisions so as to avoid the potential for conflicts of interest.
'These changes place the future of ATSIC as a national advocate for Indigenous people in grave uncertainty, possibly in jeopardy," Dr Jonas said today.
"It is possible that these changes will free ATSIC from the often unwarranted attacks on its credibility and allow the Commission to assume a more central role in policy development. The proposed changes of themselves, however, do not seem to provide ATSIC with the necessary leverage and support for this to take place. It concerns me that the impact of the changes may in fact result in the marginalisation of ATSIC from having any meaningful say over issues that affect Indigenous peoples' daily lives'.
"While the Minister has stated that the changes have been introduced due to 'compelling reasons', he has not provided any evidence of a pattern of proven misconduct and has relied largely on the potential for conflicts of interest.
The changes also come shortly after the introduction of directions issued under the ATSIC Act in December which sought to address the conflict of interest issue for all full time elected representatives of ATSIC (which includes all Commissioners and Regional Council Chairs). The Minister has not provided any details as to why these directions were not adequate to deal with perceived conflicts of interest, other than to note that they do not apply to part time regional council members.
It is of concern that such drastic action has been taken without allowing these legal directions to be tested to see whether they were adequate to deal with the potential for conflicts of interest.
"I do not see the alleged compelling reasons that the Minister states exist for such a dramatic overhaul of ATSIC's structure, which effectively strips it of control of most of its budget," said Dr Jonas. "It is also of note that the new agency which will manage ATSIC's programmes will do so on an identical basis to that which ATSIC currently operates. That is, in the Minister's words it 'will be subject to checks and balances in its decision-making, including internal and external reviews, to ensure that the administration exercises its responsibilities on a transparent, merit basis without external interference'. Recent audits of ATSIC, both internal and external, indicate that there is already a high level of accountability in the administration of these programmes that will be affected."
Dr Jonas also expressed concern at the potential impact of the changes on the role of regional councils in decision making and the determination of priorities at the local level. "A significant factor in the success of ATSIC programmes such as the Community Development Employment Programmes and the Community Housing and Infrastructure Programme is localised decision making by ATSIC Regional Councils. The Commonwealth Grants Commission's Report on Indigenous Funding (2001) noted that these programs are among the best Indigenous service delivery programmes currently in place and that they are most effective in matching service delivery to need. It would be a great loss if the changes to ATSIC were to impact upon the innovation created through this local level involvement, and to instead marginalise Indigenous communities from the design and delivery of services."
The Government needs to ensure that the impact of the changes at the local level does not set back current processes for greater regionalisation of service delivery, and proposals for regional governance mechanisms.
"Ultimately, the changes to ATSIC raise the question about accountability for Indigenous affairs. There are two issues that need to be balanced in this debate. First, I am firmly of the view that ATSIC must be accountable for its decision making and expenditure. Procedures currently in place demonstrate that ATSIC has a high level of accountability."
"Second, it has to be recognised that issues of accountability run two ways - it is not just accountability to the government but also accountability to the communities who are intended to benefit from the programme or policy intervention that is made. At present, there is a real imbalance with limited accountability back to Indigenous communities (and to the community as a whole)."
"In my Social Justice Report 2002 I expressed concern that the Government's approach indicates that they are unwilling to provide Indigenous peoples and organisations with adequate control over decision making and service delivery.
The Government must back up its rhetoric and substantially engage with ATSIC to enhance ATSIC's pivotal role in decision making, programme design and management of Indigenous issues. The Government's track record on this is not good. But the changes to ATSIC provide an opportunity to strengthen its role in monitoring and oversight on Indigenous issues."
"In announcing the reforms the Minister noted that 'the new structure would free ATSIC's elected arm to focus on big picture policy issues' and enable them to take 'a more strategic approach in future'. Again, the Government must demonstrate that it is prepared to listen to such advice in good faith."
There are numerous examples where they have not acted on critical issues relating to Indigenous affairs. For example, on numerous occasions ATSIC has joined with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation to express its concern at the crisis status of Indigenous health in this country. ATSIC has identified shortfalls in funding for adequate housing, infrastructure and water supply in remote communities - all factors which are linked to the poorer status of health and education in Indigenous communities. And yet there has been no action.
"These reforms to ATSIC could be the start of a genuine engagement on addressing Indigenous needs and inequality, or they can be the first step of dismantling a national Indigenous voice in this country. I urge the Government to engage in a substantial and robust process for ensuring that ATSIC remains a viable, credible national voice for Indigenous Australians that can hold all Australian governments to account for their service delivery to Indigenous peoples," said Dr Jonas.
Media contact: Public Affairs - Tel: 02 9284 9880 or 0408 469 347
Last updated 24 April 2003.
