Aboriginal Law Bulletin
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Aboriginal Law Bulletin |
|
Richie Howitt and Bill Pritchard
The Federal Liberal-National Party Coalition released its economic policy on October 12, 1989. The policy has major implications for Aboriginal people should the Coalition win government at the next Federal election.
Under the new Liberal-National Party policy, expenditure on Aboriginal programmes would be cut by over $100 million, approximately 10% on current levels. In real terms, government funding of Aboriginal programmes will fall by almost one-fifth.
The new policy is quite obviously aimed at strengthening popularity of the Liberal and National Parties with so called `Middle Australia'. The electoral appeal of the proposed cuts in Aboriginal Affairs relies on questionable social assumptions. In particular, the Liberal and National Parties assume that the non-Aboriginal majority population are willing to let them sacrifice Aboriginal programmes for some sort of perceived self interest; and that lowering funding to Aboriginal programmes will somehow automatically increase efficiency.
That the Coalition assume that cuts to Aboriginal programmes are politically safe (or even advantageous) is confirmed by the fact that the proposed cuts to Aboriginal programmes were emphasized in Coalition documentation of the policy and related media reports, although they provided just 3.7 per cent of spending cuts proposed by the Coalition.
The second assumption, that reducing expenditure on Aboriginal programmes will enhance efficiency, is clearly flawed, both logically and socially. In opening his analysis of the proposed cuts, Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Warwick Smith, pointed to an apparently very high rate of expenditure growth in Aboriginal programmes which has not been accompanied by grass roots success. According to Smith:
Successive inquiries into the administration of Aboriginal Affairs have confirmed that significant improvements could be made to service delivery. There is a need to co-ordinate and streamline the main State and Commonwealth programmes.
Once again, the assumptions behind this view of increased expenditure need to be challenged. While few Aboriginal groups would question the suggestion that current expenditure could be better spent, -the suggestion that the proposed Liberal-National party cuts are justified by the recent high levels of growth in expenditure is a tragically misleading use of statistical sophistication. The increased expenditure reflects several trends, including growth in the Aboriginal population, improved delivery of programmes to more Aboriginal people, increased need for certain programmes, and increased recognition of the need to systematically address long-standing issues effecting Aboriginal citizens. The graph used to illustrate the apparently dramatic increases uses 1971 as its reference point. Surely there isn't a suggestion that we should seek a return to the sorts of policies which characterise that period!
Perhaps the most disturbing feature of the new policy is that it includes no details of how reduced expenditure will create greater efficiency and grass roots success. The simplistic assumption of congruency between reduced expenditure and efficiency may be dismissed as naive and spurious. When coupled with other aspects of the Liberal-National Parties' economic statement, such as the expenditure targeting of many mainstream welfare programmes, it is likely that the overall level and quality of services to Aboriginal people will suffer.
While the Liberal-National Parties' concern to develop better delivery mechanisms in Aboriginal Affairs is laudable, the new policy does not provide a strong basis for optimism. Smith has been reported as saying that "the savings would come from more `effective control' of the `administration' of Aboriginal programmes.'[1] Clearly commitment to self-determination and self-management has no place in the Liberal-National Party vision for Aboriginal people. Even Peacock, when asked to justify these cuts, provided no indication of how the cuts would translate into improvements:
...please don't interpret from this that we are therefore downgrading assistance to the Aboriginal community. Simply addressing the Aboriginal problem with money is not the only way[2].
One is really left wondering what other ways the Liberal and National parties have in mind! Current Liberal-National Party Aboriginal Affairs Policy commits a future Coalition Government to increasing:
the capacity of the States and the Northern Territory to enable them to deliver those present Commonwealth Aboriginal welfare programs that are not primarily matters of Commonwealth responsibility.
In the context of the recent economic policy statement, it seems that this may see a Liberal-National Party Government relinquishing Federal Government responsibilities to Aboriginal citizens, and creating a climate where further real reductions in Aboriginal programme expenditure can be achieved.
The proposed $100 million worth of expenditure cuts are spread widely throughout the Aboriginal Affairs and Employment, Education & Training portfolios, as well as the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Programmes targeted for funding cuts include high priority areas such as education ($13 million), employment ($10 million), legal services ($3 million), ATSIC ($10 million), and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
The Liberal and National Parties have apparently determined areas of expenditure savings through making a few specific decisions (to wind up the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and to not proceed with the Treaty or ATSIC), retreating from current government commitments to social welfare, and targeting areas examined in various Auditor-General reports into the administration of Aboriginal Affairs.
Proposed cuts within the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio fall largely on social, cultural and community development areas. As the attached table shows, $23.2 million will be pared from Social Advancement and Heritage & Culture sub-programmes. Both these programmes face cuts of around 20%, compared to cuts of less than five percent for the land and economic advancement programme.
The reason for this pattern of expenditure cuts lies with the reasoning that monies spent on economic-oriented areas will encourage personal income generation by Aboriginal people, and this will go towards reducing the Aboriginal call on the public purse. While economic self sufficiency is undeniably a central plank of Aboriginal advancement, it is naive to assume that economic goals can be used as a primer in this way. Overcoming poverty, unemployment, and poor health in Aboriginal communities is complex, and requires a multifaceted stance. Furthermore, a policy aproach in which funds are concentrated in economic-oriented areas must inevitably face the fact that for many remote Aboriginal communities the opportunities for economic advancement are extremely limited. For these communities, monies could be better spent, for instance, on ensuring there is safe drinking water than developing training schemes for jobs which do not, and usually cannot exist.
Turning to the question of infrastructure, it is particularly puzzling that the Community Infrastructure Programme has been targeted for such a large funding cut. This programme plays a critical role, particularly in the Northern Territory where it provides funds for essential services in remote and isolated communities where Northern Territory Government funding is not forthcoming. Decisions today to hold back monies going to provide safe drinking water, communications and community construction will inevitably result in increased health and welfare costs in future years.
For casual observers the Coalition's argument that the inefficiencies in Aboriginal administration create room for expenditure cuts may seem plausible. The Liberal and National parties have sought to follow up their 1988 attacks on the Aboriginal portfolio with criticism of areas dealt with in a Special Report into the DAA and the ADC by the Auditor-General.
Essentially, the Coalition has linked accusations of maladministration to increasing expenditure. The implicit assumption has been that maladministration has been the reason for a supposed burgeoning of expenditure on Aboriginal programmes. This argument rather conveniently ignores .a number of aspects relating to Aboriginal programme expenditure in recent years.
First, a proportion of the increase in Aboriginal programme expenditures is related to administrative changes which merely create the impression of increased expenditure on Aboriginal Affairs. Notably, the expansion of the CDEP scheme has caused expenditure on Aboriginal Affairs to rise rapidly, but has not provided a similar increase in funds going to Aborigines. When a community transfers from unemployment benefits to CDEP, the administrative vehicle making payments is transferred from the Department of Social Security to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Second, the rapid increase in the Aboriginal population since the establishment of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has been ignored. This has itself created a reason for increasing government expenditures on Aboriginal programmes.
Thirdly and most importantly, the Liberal and National Parties' argument completely ignores the rationale for making Aboriginal programme expenditures. Aboriginal people require special government programmes because they are collectively the poorest section of Australian society and possess a unique history of dispossession and discrimination. Government expenditures on Aboriginal programmes have increased in the last two decades because governments have slowly recognised the huge disadvantage Aboriginal people face in this country. The fact that Aboriginal people are still the poorest section of society, and that the gap between Aborigines and non-Aborigines appears to be widening[3], should be a reason to increase expenditures on Aboriginal programmes - not reduce them. Better targeting programmes to ensure benefits are received at the grass-roots, as the Coalition says is the aim of their policy, should be done in the context of maintaining or increasing expenditure levels, not reducing them.
Clearly then, funding cuts to Aboriginal programmes will not solve the problems facing Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal families. The Liberal-National Party economic policy replaces a national commitment to justice, equity and autonomy with a shallow commitment to economic efficiency and electoral expediency. While many critics of existing policies and funding arrangements may question existing priorities, the Coalition's proposals hold little hope for Aboriginal people seeking a better deal from mainstream Australian society.
Land Ownership & Admin: 1.6
CDEP: 4.0
ADC: 5.0
Total Programme: 10.6
Community Dev. Support: 1.0
Comm. Infrastructure: 21.0
Total Programme: 22.0
Broadcasting etc: 1.0
Prog. Support: 0.2
Total Programme: 1.2
[1] Sydney Morning Herald, 14.10.89, p 6
[2] Australian Financial Review, 13.10.89, p16.
[3] See Treadgold, M (1.988) "Intercensal Change in Aboriginal Incomes, 1976-1986" Australian Bulletin of Labour V14(4) pp 592-609.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1989/60.html