|
ATSIC
Review: Background and information
[NOTE:
The ATSIC Review was completed in Nov 2003]
[Download
a Word version of this document]
ATSIC
Review Final Report [PDF]
Further
information
Background
ATSIC was created
amidst much controversy and opposition in 1990, replacing the Commonwealth
Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) and the Aboriginal Development
Commission (ADC). Its structure is unique, combining roles as the
principal advisor on Indigenous policy to the Commonwealth Government
and supplementary deliverer Indigenous programs and services, with
a representative role as the peak national elected Indigenous body
and advocate for Indigenous rights.
Until recent
changes (see below) ATSIC consisted of an elected arm (the Board
and Regional Councils) and an administrative arm to manage ATSIC's
programs.
ATSIC has always
operated within a "climate of criticism" substantially based on
misconceptions about ATSIC's responsibilities, particularly with
respect to its accountability, funding and delivery of services.
Before the recent changes, ATSIC administered only around half of
the Commonwealth's total expenditure on Indigenous affairs, most
of which was mandated by the Commonwealth for specific programs,
such as CDEP. Only a small proportion of ATSIC's spending was discretionary.
In addition, ATSIC did not have responsibility for policy areas
it has been widely criticised for, particularly in health, education,
employment, domestic violence and incarceration rates.
ATSIC regarded
the current review established in November 2002, as an opportunity
in part to "address the systemic ignorance in some areas of government,
mainstream media and in the wider community about what ATSIC was
established to do and what it was not".
In April 2003,
Minister Philip Ruddock pre-empted the Review process by announcing
interim changes to ATSIC, removing its responsibilities for administering
programs and making funding decisions, and transferring these responsibilities
to a new agency, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services
(ATSIS).
ATSIS is part
of the Commonwealth's Department of Indigenous Affairs under Minister
Ruddock. It began operations on 1st July 2003. Most of ATSIC's administrative
arm staff were transferred to the new executive agency. ATSIC retained
a small number of staff to service its elected arm.
The changes
in effect remove direct control over ATSIC's budget from its elected
arm.
The government's
stated purpose was to clearly distinguish roles within ATSIC to
address perceptions of conflict of interest and to remove the potential
for actual conflicts of interest in decision-making over funding.
However, it provided no evidence of systemic conflict of interest
within ATSIC.
The ATSIC Board
has agreed in principle with the creation of ATSIS as an interim
measure while awaiting the outcome of the review, but is deeply
unhappy with the way it has been done.
Meanwhile, the
review process is continuing, with the Review Panel releasing its
Public Discussion Paper. The Review Panel was asked to examine the
current roles and functions of ATSIC including advocacy and representation,
programs and services, and advice on implementation of legislation,
and to explore opportunities for more effective arrangements for
ATSIC at the regional and national level.
The Discussion
Paper points out (4.5)
'After
more than 12 years, ATSIC has reached a crisis point in respect
of its public credibility and with its indigenous constituency.
Great concern is being expressed that this is spilling over from
ATSIC and adversely impacting on other areas such as the reconciliation
movement. A concerted effort is required to reposition ATSIC as
a positive force for indigenous advancement; otherwise it will
become irrelevant or face abolition.'
The Discussion
Paper outlines a number of options for reform of ATSIC, and identifies
four possible future models.
Key
points for submissions:
The following
are key points for submissions - statements you might include, or
elaborate upon, in a letter to the review panel. These focus on
the principles and appropriate processes which should guide and
be supported by the Review Panel, rather than specific recommendations
for change, which we see as matters for Indigenous people themselves
to determine.
- Any changes
to ATSIC need to be determined in consultation and negotiation
with Indigenous stakeholders, particularly the current elected
arm of ATSIC, and on the basis of their informed consent. The
Review Panel's final report should provide a strong endorsement
of this principle.
- ATSIC should
remain as the peak national elected body in Indigenous affairs
with primary roles in representation and advocacy, including internationally.
- ATSIC should
retain its role as the principal source of Indigenous policy advice
to government.
- ATSIC should
continue its role in funding and service provision for Indigenous-specific
services.
- Self-determination
principles must underpin ATSIC's structure and roles, including
the principle of Indigenous control of policy and programs affecting
Indigenous peoples.
- A separation
of powers mechanism with regard to funding decisions should be
implemented under a single ATSIC structure.
- ATSIC should
have a defined role to provide advice on mainstream policy and
service delivery by government departments and agencies at a national
as well as state and territory level, and in monitoring the performance
of those agencies to agreed standards and benchmarks.
- With regard
to the models proposed in the Discussion Paper, it is important
that Indigenous stakeholders determine what is appropriate for
their needs. Changes to ATSIC's structure must be negotiated with
the elected ATSIC representatives.
- There appears
to be strong Indigenous support, including from ATSIC itself,
for an enhanced role for regional bodies, including a regional
planning role.
- The Review
Panel final report should express a view on the ongoing implications
of the 'climate of criticism' and widespread misconceptions about
ATSIC, and the need for effective measures to address this.
Additional
information on key points:
1. Any changes
to ATSIC need to be determined in consultation and negotiation with
Indigenous stakeholders, particularly the current elected arm of
ATSIC, and on the basis of their informed consent. The Review Panel's
final report should provide a strong endorsement of this principle.
This is in line
with the principles of self-determination.
In addition,
if concerns about ATSIC from within the Indigenous community are
a significant reason for the need for change, as suggested in the
discussion paper, then of paramount importance is that future changes
are seen to have come from a proper and transparent process of negotiation
with and consent from Indigenous stakeholders.
Changes made
without Indigenous consent are unlikely to be effective and in fact,
are likely to be counter-productive in that these would lack the
support of and 'ownership' by the Indigenous community. The reformed
body would begin with a significant handicap.
2. ATSIC
should remain as the peak national elected body in Indigenous affairs
with primary roles in representation and advocacy, including internationally.
The importance
of ATSIC as an Indigenous-controlled, representative body that advocates
on behalf of Indigenous Australians is widely recognised and supported.
Loss of such a body would represent a massive step backwards in
Indigenous affairs policy.
3. ATSIC
should retain its role as the principal source of Indigenous policy
advice to government.
If ATSIC is
to have a meaningful role in supporting Indigenous self-management
and self-determination, then it must retain its role as the principal
source of policy advice to government.
In this regard
it is of concern that in recent years ATSIC's influence in providing
policy advice has been seriously undermined, not least by the federal
government itself. This has included the establishment of a separate
Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (OATSIA)
within the Minister's Department, which is increasingly relied upon
by the Minister for advice. There has also been a significant decline
in ATSIC's input and access to the Cabinet policy development process.
(D.P 5.3 - see Chapter 5 for Policy issues).
In these respects,
Minister Ruddock needs to demonstrate he is serious about strengthening
ATSIC's role and influence in providing policy advice.
(See also point
7 below)
4. ATSIC
should continue its role in funding and service provision for Indigenous-specific
services.
There is an
ongoing need for Indigenous-specific service delivery programs that
address the particular cultural and community needs of Indigenous
people and which supplement mainstream services which have a poor
record in terms of Indigenous access, particularly in remote areas.
In keeping with
the principles of Indigenous control of programs affecting Indigenous
peoples, such programs should be the responsibility of ATSIC rather
than mainstream government departments.
5. Self-determination
principles must underpin ATSIC's structure and roles, including
the principle of Indigenous control of policy and programs affecting
Indigenous peoples.
Self-determination
is both an internationally recognised right of Indigenous peoples
and a practical necessity in terms of addressing disadvantage and
providing a secure economic future for Indigenous communities.
Dr Bill Jonas'
2002 Social Justice Report notes that self-determination
is a process
of negotiation, accommodation and participation. Importantly,
it is also about Indigenous peoples accepting responsibility and
governments removing the controlling hand in order to ensure that
such acceptance is meaningful and has consequences.
6. A separation
of powers mechanism with regard to funding decisions should be implemented
under a single ATSIC structure.
The creating
of the separate agency, ATSIS, to control funding decisions, was
a retrograde move made without evaluation of the efficacy of the
change, or evidence that a 'separation of powers' could not have
been better achieved under the existing ATSIC structure. The Minister
seems to suggest that negotiations with ATSIC over the issue were
positive and progressing (although apparently not quickly enough
for the Minister) begging the question as to why a unilateral, pre-emptive
change was necessary.
It effectively
undermines Indigenous self-determination and marginalises ATSIC
as a representative voice by removing responsibility for funding
decisions from the elected ATSIC Board and Regional Councils and
placing it under Minister Ruddock's Department of Indigenous Affairs.
Already there
are indications that, despite Mr Ruddock's assurances, the interim
ATSIS agency is acting inappropriately in attempting to influence
the activities of Indigenous bodies it is funding (for instance,
to prevent advocacy on rights issues).
This is alarming,
and raises the perception that the Minister's actions in establishing
ATSIS were not made with the best interests of ATSIC in mind. A
mechanism is urgently needed to ensure that ATSIS acts strictly
in conformity with ATSIC's policies and priorities.
7. ATSIC
should have a defined role to provide advice on mainstream policy
and service delivery by government departments and agencies at a
national as well as state and territory level, and in monitoring
the performance of those agencies to agreed standards and benchmarks.
The Commonwealth
Grants Commission (CGC) report on Indigenous Funding 2001, and the
Productivity Commission Review of Government Service Provision have
shown that Indigenous people are poorly served by mainstream services.
The CGC report highlighted the problems in mainstream service-delivery
caused by our complex federal system and the need for "the full
and effective participation of Indigenous people in decisions affecting
funding distribution and service delivery".
It is important
that ATSIC, as the peak Indigenous body and with its structure of
Regional Councils, be directly involved in providing advice to departments
and government agencies at all levels, on the provision of mainstream
services to Indigenous people.
Commonwealth,
state and territory government agencies need to work with ATSIC
to deliver better and more coordinated services, which will be informed
by and undertake activities consistent with ATSIC Regional plans.
This will also require the development of national benchmarks and
standards to address Indigenous disadvantage and against which to
measure outcomes (see DP 6.58).
8. With regard
to the models proposed in the Discussion Paper, it is important
that Indigenous stakeholders determine what is appropriate for their
needs. Changes to ATSIC's structure must be negotiated with the
elected ATSIC representatives.
While it is
understandable that a range of models or options were proposed in
the Discussion Paper, it is the views of Indigenous stakeholders,
and particularly the elected arm of ATSIC, which are paramount in
determining future options for change.
9. There
appears to be strong Indigenous support, including from ATSIC itself,
for an enhanced role for regional bodies, including a regional planning
role.
Again, this
is an issue which needs to be determined by Indigenous people themselves
and in fact has been considered by ATSIC at a national and regional
level. ATSIC's submission to the Review supports the need for an
enhanced role for regional bodies.
10. The Review
Panel final report should express a view on the ongoing implications
of the 'climate of criticism' and widespread misconceptions about
ATSIC, and the need for effective measures to address this.
The Discussion
Paper acknowledges the debilitating impact of negative perceptions
about ATSIC. Both the Review Panel and the Minister acknowledge
that change is being considered at least partly because of negative
perceptions about ATSIC rather than empirical evidence of systemic
problems with its structure or operations. We also know that governments
have exploited such misconception as a smokescreen for their own
policy and service delivery failures. What guarantee is there that
such unwarranted and in some cases fabricated criticism will not
continue to fatally undermine any new structure established?
The Review Panel
should address these issues, including the need for effective measures
to address them.
A Short Response
for busy people
The Review Panel
is to be commended for their work in consulting and synthesising
submissions from over 50 respondents, Indigenous and non-Indigenous
individuals, communities and organisations, into the Discussion
Paper.
It appears to
be free of any preconceptions as to preferred outcomes, and presents
a range of possible options for reform.
In the final
report, it is to be hoped that proposals for a 'new ATSIC' retain
ATSIC as the peak national elected body in Indigenous affairs with
primary roles in representation and advocacy, including internationally.
ATSIC should also retain its role as the principal source of Indigenous
policy advice to government and should continue its role in funding
and service provision for Indigenous-specific services.
Finally, any
changes to ATSIC need to be determined in consultation and negotiation
with Indigenous stakeholders, particularly the current elected arm
of ATSIC, and on the basis of their informed consent. The Review
Panel's final report should provide a strong endorsement of this
principle.
Additional
information
ATSIC
Review website
ANTaR's submission to the
Review Panel's public discussion paper
For background
information on ATSIC and its history see the following brief from
the Parliamentary Library: www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2002-03/03cib29.pdf
|
