Hartley, Jackie --- "The Government Review of ATSIC: An Overview" [2003] IndigLawB 34; (2003) 5(25) Indigenous Law Bulletin 4

• The Government Review Of Atsic: An Overview

---

The Government Review of ATSIC: An Overview

by Jackie Hartley

On 12 November 2002, the Federal Government announced the appointment of a Review Panel (‘the Panel’) to conduct a ‘reassessment’ of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (‘ATSIC’).[1] The Panel is constituted by the Hon John Hannaford, the Hon Bob Collins and Jackie Huggins AM. Drawing on over 50 submissions, the Panel recently released a Public Discussion Paper (‘the Paper’) which ‘sets out a number of issues and options’ regarding the operations of ATSIC, and invites submissions to the Panel on these matters. The Panel will make recommendations to the Government in their final report, which will be released later this year. While not the damning report that some sections of the media have portrayed it to be, the Paper raises serious issues about the performance and structure of ATSIC, and of all agencies involved in Indigenous affairs.

The Paper acknowledges that ‘ATSIC has reached a crisis point in respect of its public credibility and with its Indigenous constituency’.[2] Structural problems have adversely affected ATSIC’s credibility. These include the under-representation of Indigenous women, and the difficulty of gaining legitimacy in Indigenous communities when the organisation is based on a western political and administrative model.

A common sentiment expressed to the Panel was that ATSIC’s structures are removed from ‘grassroots’ communities. A strong theme throughout the Paper is that ATSIC should be more responsive to the needs of communities. One change suggested by the Panel is that regions develop alternative electoral processes that are more culturally appropriate, and reflect local decision-making practices.

The Paper notes that the ‘single strongest message to emerge’[3] from submissions is that the role of ATSIC within the Commonwealth is unclear. Combined with concerns that the organisation lacks ‘vision and strategy’ and suitably skilled staff, this uncertainty leads to a perception that ATSIC policies are ‘ad hoc’ and do not appropriately reflect what communities need.[4] There were suggestions that ATSIC may be focusing on the ‘wrong issues’. For example, funding for native title was questioned in submissions to the Panel.[5] The Paper also highlights problems with the ability of ATSIC to discharge its obligations of monitoring mainstream government agencies and its reporting roles.

The Paper expresses concerns about accountability in Indigenous affairs. It questions whether Indigenous Australians are ‘actually getting the outcomes that the investment by agencies at all levels of government is designed to achieve’.[6] Reports by the Productivity Commission and the Commonwealth Grants Commission confirm that these concerns are warranted.[7] Such criticisms are not directed solely at ATSIC. The Paper suggests that poor Indigenous affairs outcomes are attributable to the failure of the system as a whole. This includes inadequate communication and collaboration between government agencies, duplication and waste of resources, government agencies’ unwillingness to engage with ATSIC, and the inability of mainstream agencies to deliver appropriate services to Indigenous communities. According to the Paper, this often unfairly reflects upon ATSIC and adds to the negative public perception of the organisation.

The Panel found ‘overwhelming support from the Indigenous community’ for the application of performance criteria and measurement to all forms of Indigenous funding.[8] Further, the Paper contends that there is a need for greater coordination between stakeholders, in order to adopt a holistic approach to Indigenous issues in consultation with local communities.

The Paper accepts that ATSIC should be the peak body representing Indigenous communities, and proposes several options for a ‘new ATSIC’. The ‘Status Quo or Parliamentary Model’ adopts the ‘separation of powers’ approach. Under this approach ATSIC focuses on policy, and individual funding decisions are made by an unelected administrative arm. The ‘Regional Authority Model’ replaces existing Regional Councils with a smaller number of Regional Authorities that report to a National Board and coordinate Regional Plans, funding decisions and programs. The National Board would be constituted by the Chairs of the Regional Authorities and a Torres Strait Regional Authority Commissioner. A similar ‘Regional Councils Model’ retains the existing Regional Councils, and involves members of the Regional Councils electing the National Board. The ‘Devolution Model’ involves a comprehensive whole-of-government approach which involves ATSIC playing a primary role in advice, policy, and service delivery.

One of the strongest messages to emerge from the Paper is that more fundamental changes than the reform of ATSIC are required in Indigenous affairs. The Paper states that if ‘the only change arising from this Review involves the structure and accountability of ATSIC, little if any substantial improvement in the position of Indigenous Australians will be achieved’.[9]

Copies of the Discussion Paper and submissions to the review are available at www.atsicreview.gov.au. The final report of the Review Panel is due at the end of September. Submissions to the review are invited and must be received by 15 August 2003.

---

[1] Philip Ruddock, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, ‘ATSIC Review Panel Announced’ (Press Release, 12 November 2002).

[2] Commonwealth of Australia, Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission: Public Discussion Paper (2003) [4.5].

[3] Ibid [5.9].

[4] Ibid [5.21], [5.25].

[5] Ibid [6.18].

[6] Ibid [6.56].

[7] Ibid [2.21]-[2.28].

[8] Ibid [6.58].

[9] Ibid [7.1].