Social Justice Report 2004
Summary Sheet Two
- Implementing new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs
- What are the new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs?
- The implications of the new arrangements
- The theory underpinning the new arrangements
- Practical matters relating to the introduction of the new arrangements
- Challenges in implementing the new arrangements
- Conclusions
- Downlad PDF
Implementing new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs
In early 2004, the federal Government announced that it was introducing significant changes to the way that it delivers services to Indigenous communities and engages with Indigenous peoples. The changes have become known as 'the new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs'. Chapter three considers the preliminary implications of the new arrangements.
What are the new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs?
On 15 April 2004, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs announced that the government intended to abolish ATSIC and ATSIS and embark upon new arrangements for the administration of Indigenous affairs at the federal level. Details about the new arrangements have progressively been released in the months since this announcement (p78).
There are three main, inter-related developments that have influenced the introduction of the new arrangements:
- the focus and scrutiny on the role and performance of ATSIC;
- progress in implementing the commitments of COAG, particularly through the whole-of-government community trials (COAG trials); and
- an emphasis on change in the Australian Public Service to reinvigorate public administration and improve service delivery (pp68-69).
The new arrangements involve:
- the transfer of Indigenous specific programs to mainstream government departments and agencies;
- improved accountability for mainstream programs and services;
- the establishment of the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs;
- the establishment of the Secretaries Group on Indigenous Affairs;
- the establishment of a National Indigenous Council;
- the creation of an Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination;
- movement to a single budget submission for Indigenous affairs;
- the creation of regional Indigenous Coordination Centres;
- the negotiation of agreements with Indigenous peoples at the regional and community level;
- support for regional Indigenous representative structures; and
- a focus on implementing the commitments of the Council of Australian Governments (Table 1, pp79-80).
The new arrangements are underpinned by five principles:
- Collaboration - all Australian Government agencies are required to work together in a coordinated way.
- Regional needs - the new mainstreaming will focus on regional needs.
- Flexibility- program guidelines will no longer be treated as rigid rules, inhibiting innovation, although flexibility will not be introduced at the expense of due process.
- Accountability - improved accountability, performance monitoring and reporting will be built into the new arrangements.
- Leadership - strong leadership is required to make the new arrangements work, both within government and from the networks of representative Indigenous organisations, at regional and local levels (Table 2, pp84-85).
The implications of the new arrangements
The new arrangements announced by the government are complicated and wide-ranging. Since commencing my term as Social Justice Commissioner, I have indicated to governments and to Indigenous peoples that I will closely monitor the new arrangements on an ongoing basis, given the scope of change being introduced and the potentially wide ramifications for Indigenous peoples.
The theory underpinning the new arrangements
- The new arrangements contain a number of significant innovations for the delivery of federal programs and services. These include compelling engagement on Indigenous issues at the most senior levels of the government and public service; and raising the potential for improving government coordination, addressing the longstanding problem of under-performance and inaccessibility of mainstream programs for Indigenous peoples, and providing workable solutions to the problem of delivering services in a federal system (pp86-88).
- The new arrangements involve the making of significant commitments by the government to address Indigenous disadvantage. Time will tell if these words can be turned into action and results (pp88-90).
- The new arrangements are based on lessons learned from the COAG trials. However, these lessons are preliminary and require ongoing consideration. There remains a need for thorough and ongoing evaluation of the outcomes of the COAG trials (pp91-95).
- The new arrangements have been introduced solely through administrative mechanisms. This makes the new arrangements less transparent and more difficult to scrutinise. It has the potential to make it more difficult for the government to be held accountable for its performance over time if monitoring and evaluation processes are not sufficiently rigorous (p96).
- The new arrangements do not depend on the abolition of ATSIC. The continuation of ATSIC's Regional Councils for at least a further 12 months than is currently envisaged may facilitate better frameworks for the implementation of the new arrangements (pp96-97).
Practical matters relating to the introduction of the new arrangements
- There is a lack of information about the new arrangements in Indigenous communities. This contributes to an ongoing sense of uncertainty and upheaval. There remains a need for a comprehensive information campaign about the new arrangements directed towards Indigenous people and communities (pp97-100).
- The transition to the new arrangements may have created financial difficulties for some communities (pp100-101).
- The new arrangements have consequences for existing planning processes which involve Indigenous representation through ATSIC, particularly in relation to Indigenous Housing Agreements and the planning forums established under the Framework Agreements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health in each State and Territory (pp101-102).
Challenges in implementing the new arrangements
- Ensuring the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decision making - this needs to take place at the national level, in order to influence the setting of priorities, as well as at the state, regional and local levels. Some options for creating these linkages between these levels are discussed in the report (pp103-108).
- Effective participation of Torres Strait Islanders on the mainland - it remains important that a voice representing the needs of Torres Strait Islanders to government is maintained (pp108-109).
- Engaging with Indigenous people and communities at the regional level - there are concerns that the government has not engaged fully with ATSIC Regional Councils in introducing the new arrangements and that alternative regional structures have not been advanced sufficiently to date (pp109-113).
- Engaging with Indigenous people and communities at the local level - the new arrangements are based on direct engagement and negotiation with Indigenous people and communities at the local level through Shared Responsibility Agreements which poses a range of challenges (pp113-118).
- 'Mutual obligation' as the basis of Shared Responsibility Agreements - while the focus of SRAs is on the responsibilities of Indigenous people in meeting mutual obligation principles, it will not be until mid-2005 at the earliest that there will be sufficient information to express a view about the actual approach being adopted by the Government. In light of the potentially serious consequences of this issue, my office will scrutinise SRAs over the coming 18 months for compliance with human rights standards (pp118-120).
- Ensuring appropriate recruitment and retention practices are maintained within the Australian Public Service (pp120-126).
- Coordinating programs across government departments and with the States and Territories - the coordination of mainstream and Indigenous specific programs in regional Indigenous Coordination Centres is a significant opportunity to improve the accessibility of mainstream programs for Indigenous peoples and communities so as to better meet their needs, however it also poses many challenges (pp126-132).
- Ensuring adequate monitoring and evaluation processes - while a coordinated whole-of-government approach is intended to simplify and streamline service delivery, it also has the potential to blur the responsibilities and performance of individual agencies and programs. As such, monitoring and evaluation processes for the new arrangements need to be put in place. (pp132-136).
Conclusions
The new arrangements have the potential to impact significantly on the enjoyment of Indigenous Peoples' rights. They can either lead to improved performance and outcomes by the government and improved engagement with Indigenous peoples, or undermine the enjoyment of human rights by Indigenous peoples.
These rights will be undermined if Indigenous people are not able to effectively participate in the new arrangements by having a voice at the national level, the ability to influence developments on a regional basis through the operation of culturally legitimate representative structures, or if local level engagement is selective or based on coercive measures.
This is possible if the new arrangements are not transparent in their operation and rigorously monitored. Also if there is a systemic problem with government not placing enough emphasis on the skills necessary to engage effectively with Indigenous communities (through the establishment of appropriate recruitment, retention and training approaches across the public service and provision of adequate support for Indigenous people and communities to have in place appropriate governance arrangements) (p137).
Throughout the report, I have identified a range of issues that my office will continue to monitor over the next 18 months to ensure that a breach of Indigenous peoples' human rights does not result in the long term. I have also made some preliminary recommendations about the new arrangements which are outlined in Summary Sheet Four.
My intention is to closely focus on the implementation of these new arrangements to ensure that essential components of the new arrangements are not forgotten or cast aside due to the complexity and scope of the changes being implemented.
For recommendations and follow-up actions please refer to Summary Sheet Four.
For a chronology of all events relating to the lead up to, and implementation of, the new arrangements please refer to Summary Sheet One.
