Please find some general comments below, and specific comments in the attached questionnaire.

Transcription

1 Mr Neil Westbury Director Office of Indigenous Policy Department of the Chief Minister GPO Box 4396 Darwin NT November 2002 Dear Neil Re : Draft Framework for reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage Thank you for providing an opportunity for the Central Land Council to comment on the Draft Framework for reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage. It comes a little out of the blue, as we have never received any formal information about current COAG policies and strategies. Please find some general comments below, and specific comments in the attached questionnaire. Overall It is not clear what this framework is setting out to achieve. The draft framework (Box 1.) is barely comprehensible, and does not provide a clear link between performance reporting, program evaluation and development, and funding arrangements. The document fails to demonstrate how performance reporting and the collection of nationally comparable data in specific areas, will result in the development of policies, programs and strategies designed to effect real change in the circumstances of indigenous people. The CLC supports the development of clear indicators for the reporting of indigenous disadvantage, and the commitment that all states and the Commonwealth will report against these indicators. However, the COAG must set clear and measurable targets relating to each indicator. In what timeframe can we expect that the standard of living for indigenous people will be consistent with the national indicators for non-indigenous people? Also, there has been no attempt to link performance with funding sources and programs. How will outcomes be assessed? If indicators do not change, or get worse, what will happen? Will funding be conditional upon the achievement of targets? Commonwealth Grants Commission s report on Indigenous Funding 2001 The Commonwealth Grants Commission s report on Indigenous Funding 2001 examines issues relating to measuring Indigenous disadvantage and need. It makes numerous recommendations regarding the needs of Indigenous people and the funding arrangements for a range of services health, housing, infrastructure, education, training and employment. Central Land Council Submission Draft Framework for reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage Page 1

2 As far as the CLC is aware, the Commonwealth Government has not formally responded to this Report. No mention of the CGC Report is made in the draft. The CGC Report provides a thorough examination of the complexities and difficulties of measuring disadvantage and need. It recommends the adoption of the following principles to enable the crucial linkage of funding and needs : the full and effective participation of indigenous people in decisions affecting funding distribution and service delivery; a focus on outcomes; ensuring a long term perspective to the design and implementation of programs and services, thus providing a secure context for setting goals; ensuring genuine collaborative processes with the involvement of government and nongovernment funders and service deliverers to maximise opportunities for pooling of funds, as well as multi-jurisdictional and cross-functional approaches to service delivery; recognition of the critical importance of effective access to mainstream programs and services, and clear actions to identify and address barriers to access; improving the collection and availability of data to support informed decision making, monitoring of achievements and program evaluation; and recognising the importance of capacity building within indigenous communities. The CLC believes that this Framework for Reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage needs to fit within the larger package of issues listed above. COAG should agree on steps to achieve all of the above. The CLC supports the introduction of a reporting framework which will develop a jointly agreed set of indicators, and ensure accountability and transparency for programs being delivered by both Commonwealth and state agencies. However, the draft framework document provides no indication that broader strategies are being examined. It appears that this reporting will take place in a vacuum. How this will result in improved program development and delivery, or increasing indigenous control over funding and programs is not clear. The following headings are some key areas that need to be addressed, some of which were the subject of recommendations from the CGC report. Determination of agreed indicators As stated by the CGC report, indigenous people must determine the indicators and outcomes. Importantly, an Indigenous perspective to measures of outcomes may differ from that of non-indigenous people. For example, an indigenous perspective of health status is broader that physical health status and includes emotional, social, spiritual and cultural well being. In addition, Indigenous people in metropolitan areas may have different views from those in remote areas. (CGC, para 23, page 13). Comparability of data Presumably, given this has been agreed by COAG, there will be clear requirements regarding the collecting and recording of data by the States. The CGC Report found that much of the data on performance indicators, such as that provided under the new IESIP agreements, have not been comparable across the States. The newer agreements attempt to obtain the greater comparability, that is essential if the data are to be used for resource allocation purposes. (para 107). This must be addressed. Central Land Council Submission Draft Framework for reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage Page 2

3 Regional differences While it is useful to collect data at the national level and report on national trends and outcomes, this can also mask regional statistics and performance against indicators. The framework must allow for the incorporation of regional specific indicators and performance reporting. Linking performance indicators to funding agreements It is essential that performance reporting is linked to funding arrangements, and specifically the provision of Commonwealth funding to the states. For example, the Commonwealth can better utilise the Specific Purpose Payments (SPPs) by attaching conditions which set performance standards and encourage data collection which allows for monitoring of service outcomes on a comparable basis. The CGC Report found that Given the major role States play in service delivery, the Commonwealth should give priority to promoting the extension of collaborative decisionmaking arrangements by : introducing and enforcing additional conditions for both mainstream and Indigenousspecific SPPs, such as data collection, mandating performance reporting, Indigenousspecific performance criteria and greater Indigenous involvement in decision making; and seeking extra conditions that target some of the expenditure of mainstream SPPs to aspects of the services that are important to Indigenous people. In addition, the Commonwealth must be prepared to provide funding direct to indigenous organisations, to allow indigenous control over programs, particularly in the circumstance where a state or Territory consistently under-performs. Priority outcomes The priority outcomes listed in the document are not outcomes they are vision statements, and should be treated as such. The CLC would suggest the following additions to the vision statement : Recognition and protection of Aboriginal law and culture, including the preservation of Aboriginal languages, practices and governance systems Recognition and protection of traditional rights and relationships to land. In summary, it has been quite difficult to comment on this document in isolation. The development of such a framework should be done properly through meetings and workshops with indigenous organisations with specific expertise relating to these areas. I look forward to hearing how this process can be facilitated by your office. Yours sincerely David Ross Director Central Land Council Submission Draft Framework for reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage Page 3

4 The two-tiered framework 1. Is the two tiered framework with headline and strategic change indicators an appropriate and logical way of reporting? (See above explanation.) No, the framework is not logical. It is difficult to understand. In Box 1. (p3.) it is not clear how the strategic areas for action relate to the headline indicators. How do the dot points under the headline indicators (p9) relate to the strategic change indicators (p10)? The framework is incomprehensible. Why does it read from right to left? 2. Will the framework provide a robust picture of the conditions of Indigenous people in Australia? The robustness of the framework will depend entirely on the data collection and performance reporting methods and comparability. The completeness of the picture will be one dimensional if cultural matters and perspectives are not adequately reported on (in an appropriate way). The usefulness of the entire process is conditional upon targets being set, and reported against. The headline indicators 3. Do the headline indicators present a meaningful picture of Indigenous disadvantage? Much of this data already exists, although there is a need for greater consistency and comparability across the states. There should be a greater emphasis on indicators relating to indigenous participation in the mainstream economy. The CLC has not had time to allow for consultation with Aboriginal people in our region, and therefore we cannot confidently say that the indicators represent the areas of highest priority to our constituents. 4. Do the headline indicators represent the key aspirations of Indigenous people and governments? They are not framed as aspirations, nor do they in any way represent the key aspirations of Aboriginal people in Central Australia. Ensuring access to basic services, and standards of health and education comparable to the non-indigenous population, is not an aspiration it is a right. See attached the Kalkaringi Statement for a clear picture of Aboriginal aspirations in Central Australia. 5. Are some headline indicators less useful than others? Circumstances in the Northern Territory are unique because of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act The Aboriginal population is a high proportion of the overall population, is scattered throughout remote areas, maintains strong law and culture, and is already acknowledged to be the most disadvantaged group in Australia. The framework for data collection, reporting and program development is quite different to that of Aboriginal people living in cities. This one size fits all approach will not provide the level of refined and targeted reporting that is required. Central Land Council Submission Draft Framework for reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage Page 4

5 Specifically, Material/economy should include access to all basic services, not just water and sewerage reference to Indigenous home ownership is not necessarily a useful indicator in the NT. Aboriginal land, as defined under the Land Rights Act, provides for a form of communal title, and individuals do not own homes in the usual sense. 6. Recognising the need to contain the number of indicators, can you suggest alternative headline indicators? Workshops should be held with key indigenous organisations in the NT to determine appropriate headline and other indicators for this region. However, as a starting point : - access to mainstream services and programs (as opposed to indigenous specific), including health services, banks, government offices, welfare entitlements. - statutory protection for the protection of heritage, culture, and specifically sacred sites, and the return of traditional land/s. The strategic areas for action 7. Do you agree that progress in these areas would lead to improved headline outcomes in the long-term? What is a headline outcome? Progress in all of these areas is essential, and performance needs to be measured and reported against. No, we are not convinced that these are the most appropriate strategic areas for action. Aboriginal organisations in the NT need to be provided with the opportunity to meet and discuss these issues. The CLC does not have expertise in the areas of health and education, in order to suggest other areas. The strategic change indicators 8. Are the strategic change indicators appropriate measures for assessing movements (either positive or negative) in the strategic areas for action? As above - Indigenous organisations with expertise in those specific areas must be consulted about the development of the most appropriate strategic change indicators. 9. Can you suggest alternative strategic change indicators? Again, specific expertise is needed for the areas being reported against, ie health, education and infrastructure. Spiritual and cultural indicators 10. We have not ventured to propose specific indicators for the Spiritual/cultural area in the headline indicators. Can you suggest a good indicator? Central Land Council Submission Draft Framework for reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage Page 5

6 Again, this will need to be regionally specific. We recommend a workshop be held with appropriate indigenous organisations in the NT to facilitate the development of this area. The sorts of areas that could be included are : rights to traditional lands protection of, and rights to access sacred sites indigenous languages maintained and supported through - bilingual education programs in schools - provision of interpreter services recognition and support for other cultural activities recognition of Aboriginal law and Aboriginal structures of law and governance 11. There are also no specific indicators yet identified for the Building on the strength of Indigenous culture strategic area for action. Can you suggest a good indicator? As above Decision making/self-determination/autonomy 12. We recognise that decision making, self-determination and autonomy are important to Indigenous people, but we would again like your advice on a headline indicator that we could use in the framework. Again, a workshop should be convened to explore this issue properly. An example of indicators would be : The level of protection of indigenous rights, including the right to self determination and self government, provided for in the Commonwealth constitution and the constitutions of each state. The processes in place to ensure that the policies and programs targeting indigenous people are controlled by indigenous organisations or bodies. Development and implementation of appropriate indigenous regional governance structures. Functioning essential infrastructure 13. What indicators should we use to measure functioning essential infrastructure in Indigenous communities? What are the most important types of infrastructure (for example, water supply, sewerage, drainage, roads, telephones, post), to include in the report? In Central Australia it is important to set targets for, and report against progress in the provision of essential infrastructure, this is not the same as measuring functioning infrastructure. The unmet needs must be measured. Essential infrastructure is : potable water of an acceptable standard, proper sewerage systems, adequate housing, power, roads and transport systems, and telecommunication services. 14. From a rural or remote perspective? This is from a remote perspective. 15. From an urban or metropolitan perspective? Central Land Council Submission Draft Framework for reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage Page 6

7 Central Land Council Submission Draft Framework for reporting on Indigenous Disadvantage Page 7