Bennelong Society Conference 2003:
An Indigenous Future? Challenges and Opportunities

ATSIC is not The Only Fish in The Pond

Wesley Aird

Perhaps it is fair to say most Australians want to live in a society proud of its equality. A fair go for all is not a bad aspiration. What about a society where people enjoy both rights and responsibilities? How society understands and perceives each other has flow-on effects in the standard and types of services delivered.

But today we are here to talk about ATSIC, specifically how its past performance scores under the scrutiny of review and what sort of structure might give Australia's indigenous people a better future.

The recent ATSIC Review Discussion Paper puts forward four main possible models for a future ATSIC and asks for feedback on a form of indigenous electoral roll and compulsory voting for ATSIC. In order to make meaningful comment it may help if we had a bit of context.

The four models

The four models in the review are:

• The Status Quo or 'Parliamentary' model with ATSIC's elected representatives setting policy and priorities but not funding,
• The Regional Authority model would see 16 Regional Authorities.
• The Regional Council model retains the existing 35 Regional Councils.
• The Devolution model proposes structural changes and the Commonwealth delivering appropriate Indigenous-specific programmes and services through State/Territory agencies.

As an alternative the Review Panel also raised the option of enabling Regions to 'opt out' of the status quo elective structure by requesting the Minister to approve an alternative local scheme for representation.

I will come back to the four models.

A quick look at ATSIC in context

There is only one political system in Australia---it includes the Commonwealth; states / territories; and local government authorities---like it, agitate for change or leave the country.

And there are mainstream and indigenous agencies at various levels. On a grand scale, this cannot be displayed or mapped in a meaningful way. I will focus around the town where I grew up in southeast Queensland.

• Commonwealth electorate of Moncrieff,
• Queensland electorate of Southport or Surfers Paradise, and
• Gold Coast City Council.

At the Commonwealth level, the agencies below are in the Indigenous affairs part of the Minister's portfolio:

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC).
• Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (OATSIA)
• Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL)
• Indigenous Business Australia (IBA)
• Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC)
• Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)
• Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations (ORAC)

Within this region there are numerous corporations under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act.

Nearby is a property bought by the ILC for the exclusive benefit of three family groups that happen to have a member on the ATSIC regional council.

The area we are talking about is under the auspices of Queensland's Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and within its Queensland South Region.

The Queensland South Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation covers it.

It is clearly defined by the local Native Title Claimant Group---Eastern Yugambeh.

To add complexity, just over the border, and still within our native title claim area, there are the three levels of NSW Aboriginal Land Council.

Given ATSIC only administered about half of the federal indigenous budget, the other stakeholder departments include:

• Department of Health and Ageing
• Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
• Department of Education, Science and Training
• Attorney-General's Department
• Department of Family and Community Services

There are numerous counterpart departments at the state level.

It is a feature of Australian society that there are numerous service providers alongside each other. The difference for indigenous people is the doubling-up without noticeably better service or outcomes.

Imagine this sort of arrangement expanded to cover the country. It is within this structure ATSIC existed fair and square with the same responsibilities as every other government department administering public funds.

In spite of all this costly bureaucracy the social indicators remain fairly dismal for Australia's indigenous people. Perhaps it is time for a major overhaul.

Back to the Four models

The Status Quo or 'Parliamentary' model with ATSIC's elected representatives setting policy and priorities but not funding.

A Regional Authority would see 16 Regional Authorities.

The Regional Council model retains the existing 35 Regional Councils.

In the discussion paper relating to these three possible models there are some insightful suggestions that could, if implemented, lead to limited improvements. However, I would argue it is a flawed presumption that ATSIC is a relevant and representative organisation. Voter turnout and service delivery provide very critical comment regarding the success of ATSIC.

The casual observer of the media could be forgiven for thinking that ATSIC is nothing more than a couple of high-profile people in Canberra. From reading the paper it is hard to work out that ATSIC administered over ten billion dollars of programmes over the years and had over a thousand staff. The reality is for most Aboriginal people life is no better in spite of the billions of dollars and thousands of staff. This is all the more shameful given the direct role by Aboriginal people.

Granted there is some very positive work going on in the background, but sadly most often it is the conflict that makes it to the papers. The flow-on effect is scepticism and/or cynicism towards indigenous issues. In turn this may lead to practical instances of social intolerance.

Based on past performance it is just plain silly to accept either the status quo or the regional authority model or the regional council model. These three appear no more than shuffling the deckchairs on a sinking ship. It seems the focus is wrongly on comparing models of representation. What would be of far greater value would be not looking at ATSIC, but instead at the needs of Aboriginal people and trying to work out what is going to make substantial and sustainable improvements to their lives.

The structure should be dictated by the service. Not the other way around. Nothing less than a major overhaul is required.

As set out in the Review Discussion Paper, the Devolution model proposes structural changes that could be implemented as a means of delivering more effectively the outcomes that indigenous and non-indigenous Australians are seeking through this current review. In particular, it would involve the Commonwealth delivering appropriate indigenous-specific programmes and services through State/Territory agencies.

What a Devolution model might looklike

The Terms of Reference for the ATSIC Review asked for consideration of ATSIC's roles in providing:

• Advocacy and representation,
• Programmes and services, and
• Advice.

In recognition that ATSIC is only one of the service providers I would suggest that the attention is misplaced. The focus should be on improved service delivery to the indigenous community. It is a shame that this is derailed by a couple of dozen self-serving indigenous bureaucrats that place their political aspirations above the quality of life in their communities.

The ATSIC Review Discussion Paper on page 58 makes 10 dot points in relation to the devolution model. The dot points express some fine sentiments, which I could support. However, the chances of success seem extremely remote if it hinges on ATSIC being representative and acting on behalf of the whole indigenous community.

Who delivers them

Mainstream providers should deliver day to day services. Not only would it allow for better coordination of services, it also removes the option for each 'side' to blame the other. Best remove the option for gaps and overlaps.

As an observer of ATSIC I am yet to be convinced the organisation has an appropriate structure and culture to deliver meaningful improvements to the lives of indigenous Australians. However, from what I have seen of certain Commonwealth and state/territory government departments they also have room for improvement, especially in terms of sensitivity to special needs.

There is a definite need for special and improved service delivery to certain Aboriginal communities. It is inescapable there are instances where the needs of particular indigenous groups are not adequately met through mainstream programmes. Dedicated funds will be needed for some to come to raise the quality of life for certain indigenous groups up to the standard of the rest of Australia. I know it is quite OK to do this because it says so in the Racial Discrimination Act (Cwth).

The suggestion that indigenous funds revert to the control of mainstream departments will no doubt outrage some of my distant relations. Be that as it may, a balancing act is required. Monies need to be identified and directed towards specialised service to indigenous groups, without 'leakage' to the indigenous bureaucracy. Lobbying needs to occur where it is well informed and where it will have a direct bearing.

As an illustration, if a small hypothetical town has a small school with a lot of indigenous students in it, then the town's indigenous community need to have a mechanism by which they can express their concerns to the education department. For its part, our hypothetical education department must then be able to appropriately process the community's request in the context of special funding to meet special needs.

In the current system this may not look all that achievable. Did I mention that I think the system needs a major overhaul?

All service delivery should be undertaken in accordance with the Commonwealth Government's Procurement Guidelines. There must be efficient and effective use of public monies. There must be effective competition, ethics and fair dealing, accountability and reporting.

There should be no funding without demonstrated outcomes---not reports, not outputs, not just acquittal of a budget item. Instead there must be quantifiable, measurable outcomes and value for money whenever public monies are expended.

Assuming all services are to be delivered by mainstream departments, there will be instances where the circumstances of a community will require specialist technical contractors. Companies that work overseas often find out that technically correct solutions for one set of circumstances may not necessarily apply when transposed to a different culture. Parallel examples can be found within Australia, for instance, the delivery of health services in remote all-Aboriginal communities may be different to a town with a mixed population just down the road. In such instances only quality contractors should be considered. Quality in delivery is to be achieved through competition. This will threaten some entrepreneurial Aboriginal people, but if they do not have the skills then they should not have the contracts.

The hard part here is that in order to deliver appropriate services the responsible agencies will need to apply development (participatory) methodologies. Agencies will need to have a good understanding of who's who in their region. Nothing new here, good service comes from those who 'know thy client'.

How would programmes and services be delivered

Attention is drawn to the Review Discussion Paper at section 6.45:

It is widely acknowledged in seeking to overcome Indigenous welfare dependency that none of the areas of housing, infrastructure, employment, training, education or health will ever substantially improve unless they are all interwoven within an economically sustainable environment.

This statement might seem to be blatantly self-evident. However, it is meaningless unless both indigenous people and service providers admit their limitations and set about to do things differently.

There must be an end to Aboriginal people receiving a lower standard of service. In many cases, the cause for this poor service has been the preference by ATSIC or indigenous organisations to administer their own programmes even though they do not have the project management skills or the technical expertise in a community development sense.

Programmes and services could be based on implementable themes appropriate to the region. Themes may include economic development, employment and training, cultural revival, civil order. The development themes would be implemented in partnership with local Commonwealth or State service providers.

The betterment of Indigenous communities could be treated along the lines of development projects. This could look somewhat like the numerous capacity development projects currently supported by AusAID. We may not like to admit that some Aboriginal communities are akin to communities in developing countries. So let's not. The fact remains, when all the social indicators are so poor then a different approach is needed. How it is badged can be left as a matter of conscience.

To improve service delivery there could be a role to play by development experts that are able to analyse the needs and to develop programmes accordingly. Community development practitioners could be responsible for service delivery design catering to regional or local needs and to ensure subsequent implementation achieves its objectives. This process would be subject to rigorous appraisal to ensure the objectives are achievable and sustainable and that the scoping of the tasks is appropriate.

Delivery or programme implementation must have a monitoring and evaluation component. It is essential that lessons are learned and over time delivery and outcomes improve.

Structures must be suitable for good delivery of service. This may require structural change, i.e. fix the process first. Throwing money at a problem is no good if you keep bypassing the hard issues.

Role of Indigenous people

We know that at present there is a maze of Aboriginal and mainstream organisations and service providers. Assuming we remove gaps and duplication of service provision, there is still a requirement for a paradigm change for the role of Indigenous representation.

Recognition of prior occupation of the continent is important. But that does not confer a right for indigenous bureaucrats to waste public funds. With rights go responsibilities. Similarly, with governance goes accountability.

Somewhere in the middle of this there needs to be a formalised system of brokerage of local knowledge. Local Aboriginal people need to have a mechanism to express their aspirations and the service delivery agents need to adjust their plans accordingly.

To understand local dynamics service delivery agencies will need a good relationship with the locals. I am not suggesting consultation only with ATSIC or ATSIS or any other single representative organisation. That would be unacceptable laziness and is one of the causes of the current mess. Gatekeepers help no one other than themselves.

Together with local Aboriginal groups the service deliverers could enter into a binding Service Delivery Charter or a Partnering Agreement. I suggest a measurable quantifiable plan for the delivery of services by an appropriate agent. I am not referring to some form of non-binding Memorandum of Understanding, as these are often perceived as being for publicity or marketing purposes.

Service delivery contracts should have a requirement for on-site / local counterpart involvement. I am not suggesting 2 per cent of staff to be indigenous to keep the statisticians happy. I would prefer to see genuine involvement and skills transfer achieved through local people actively taking part in the delivery of services. In doing so the locals must acquire knowledge and skills on the road to economic independence.

If the theoretical basis for the delivery of services is not sound then it is a waste of time.

To sum this up:

• Remove duplication of effort, that means ATSIC / ATSIS would not deliver services.
• Holistically design service delivery programmes.
• Guarantee local involvement through a system of brokerage of local knowledge as well as meaningful participation.

With regard to the overall service delivery model, anybody that believes this cannot be achieved should go and tell Alexander Downer that the Government is wasting millions of dollars annually on AusAID capacity development projects.

Like it or not, the extant system of indigenous representation has turned away more indigenous people than it has attracted. We should be able to accept this as fact and be quietly amused by the ways in which both the media and ATSIC portray the role of ATSIC. But we should never kid ourselves that ATSIC is something it is not. Just the same as we should never under-estimate the power of stupidity in a crowd. No amount of legislation can ever overcome this.

The idea of some form of a representative structure is a great one. However, advocacy and representation is another area requiring substantial change.

Most Aboriginal people I know identify at a local level, often regional, far less often statewide, but not national. It could be argued needs in terms of service delivery are more closely aligned at local and regional level.

Therefore the focus should be on regional staff to broker the exchange of local knowledge, policy development, programme facilitation and monitoring and assessment. This would be formalised through close negotiation with mainstream service providers and contractors. It could be overseen at the national level.

The cost of representation must be balanced against any subsequent trade-off or loss in service delivery. The formal system of indigenous representation should reflect this.

As previously mentioned, governance and accountability go together just like rights and responsibilities.

Assuming there is devolution of service delivery, it stands to reason that advocacy could also be devolved.

Across the country different indigenous people are affected by or interact with service providers in different ways. It is therefore difficult to see why either indigenous or non-indigenous people should acknowledge ATSIC as some all-knowing, always-right, ubiquitous entity.

At present numerous service delivery agencies consult with known Aboriginal identities. Perhaps the term 'soft targets' is a bit harsh. However, it seems possible for many individuals to make Aboriginality a vocation in itself. Conversely, it is certainly easier for government agencies to identify and consult with compliant Aboriginal people. When an Aboriginal person stands up for their rights and insists on meaningful negotiation and accountability, the relationship turns awkward.

Perhaps the role of ATSIC would be more meaningful if it provided local and regional advice alongside other known local and regional representative organisations. Instead of direct advice at the national level, perhaps it may be more meaningful if it was down at a level where it was going to matter.

There are issues of national significance, but even then as the Prime Minister recently demonstrated at the forum on domestic violence that advice may come from a variety of sources. In this instance by consulting select indigenous people rather than a single organisation.

It is encouraging to read in the Review at section 4.67:

There are things happening on the ground at community level that suggest locally based 'dispersed governance' models for the delivery of specific services to Indigenous Australians could be more effective in real terms. ... The process that establishes such models is direct negotiation between the relevant community representatives and the relevant Commonwealth and State/Territory agencies. These negotiations establish the structure and scope of the service and its funding base.

Opting Out

The ATSIC Review Discussion Paper proposed four models and raised the option of regions being able to 'opt out' of the status quo elective structure by requesting the Minister to approve an alternative local scheme for representation.

I am yet to see any evidence supporting consideration of the first three models. Instead, Devolution and 'Opting-out' should be the two options for consideration.

Compulsory voting

ATSIC as a peak body is fine. The RSL is a peak body but not every veteran has to be card-carrying voting member. Imagine if every broadacre producer in Queensland had to be a member of AgForce and was required to vote on a special electoral roll. There are lots of peak bodies around the country. ATSIC has not demonstrated that it is sufficiently relevant to warrant compulsory voting.

There are no obvious benefits to identifying as Aboriginal. Why would a black fella put his name on a public roll? Perhaps this is just to make it easier for people like real estate agents and the police.

It seems incongruous to, on the one hand accept that indigenous people struggle in terms of Westminster-style governance and then on the other hand expect people to vote for 12 councillors on each of the 35 regional councils who in turn select from their numbers 18 Commissioners to manage a billion dollar annual budget. The demonstrated performance is not so good, however, I do not care what Wilson Tuckey says, Aboriginal people can manage money. The problem is that the ones that can are out there running businesses. They are not in ATSIC and they are not running entities set up under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act (Cwth).

Any other lobby group hires communication specialists they have campaigns and agendas, they work in a variety of ways. They are perception driven and votes matter. Imagine if AgForce, Greenpeace or the Australian Conservation Foundation were given a billion dollars a year to lobby the Australian government and no one really minded if they delivered on any of their promises.

Based on current leadership and demonstrated management capacity there is nothing attractive about compulsory voting.

Closing

Paul Keating wanted Australia to become 'the land of the fair go and the better chance'. When he said this in December 1992 at Redfern Park, it was obvious whom he was referring. This was never going to be easy to achieve, however, I think one of the big problems has been poor structure.

The functions and performance of ATSIC have given rise to the perceptions and attitudes of non-indigenous Australia, which in turn have a direct bearing on the service delivery to Aboriginal people and their quality of life.

A new approach is needed. The current ATSIC review is a good first step. I hope that sometime in the near future we see a holistic restructure to improve service delivery for Indigenous Australians. This may not be just around the corner but at least in the meantime there is a lot of good already happening at the community level. Let's hope it continues.