SENATE

Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 107
If it’s $1 that leaves Canberra, what is it that hits Fitzroy Crossing—10c, 20c?
… … …
They probably need to have a look at how their policies are working and they need to have indicators on how those funds are
rolled out …
Similar criticisms have been made by the Indigenous leaders who contributed to the Wunan Foundation's
Empowered Communities report in 2015, which noted:
Vast swathes of funding are absorbed by the red tape of administration within the government bureaucracy, and on the
‘middlemen’ between government and Indigenous people.
The report that has now been produced by the Centre For Independent Studies contains multiple real-life examples
of where money is not always going to areas of greatest need and where a heavily centralised approach is not
adequately respecting input from Indigenous people themselves into program design and delivery.
One such example noted in the report also come to my own attention through a report from the Australian
National Audit Office at the end of 2015 into the operation of the Indigenous Home Ownership Program. The
program itself has a worthy objective: to facilitate home ownership among Indigenous Australians by addressing
barriers such as lower incomes and savings pools, credit issues and limited experience with loan repayments. In
essence, the program is designed to make basic home loans available to Indigenous Australians who, because of
those factors I have just outlined, might otherwise struggle to obtain one.
However, the National Audit Office report found this objective was not being met. It found funding is not being
directed where it is most needed and that loans are increasingly provided to medium- and high-income earners,
people who would quite easily qualify for a home loan from a mainstream banking institution. Yet the program's
administrator, Indigenous Business Australia, does not generally conform with other lenders that a customer
cannot access mainstream finance, even though this is considered a key eligibility threshold for the Indigenous
Home Ownership Program. In fact, the National Audit Office report recommended the government consider
whether, after 40 years of operation, a government-run loan program is any longer necessary or the most efficient
way to improve the rates of Indigenous home ownership. The response from Indigenous Business Australia to this
suggestion was decidedly mute, as was its response to previous reports criticising its Indigenous business loan
program. In 2013-14, it approved a grand total of 75 loans—around one loan for every bureaucrat employed to
administer it. Surely, we can do better than this?
These are just two examples from the litany that were examined by the research of the Centre for Independent
Studies. Time and again, there is evidence presented which suggests that many Indigenous programs are being
established and evolving in response to perceived need. As a result, there are a plethora of programs coming on
stream which duplicate existing programs. The lack of requirement for evidence based funding is leading to
expenditure growth with no commensurate improvement in outcomes.
The CIS report identified a total of 1,082 Indigenous-specific programs. Of these, 49 are funded federally, 236
are delivered by state and territory governments, and 797 are delivered by non-government organisations, though
often with funding that comes from governments. Of the 1,082 programs, just 88—eight per cent—have been
audited or evaluated in any meaningful way to determine the effectiveness of their outcomes. Given the waste,
mismanagement and ineffectiveness that has been found in those programs which have been evaluated, the fact
that 92 percent have not been evaluated should be alarming to all of us. All up, these programs are estimated to
cost taxpayers at least $5.9 billion every year—but Indigenous people are seeing precious little benefit from these
large investments of taxpayers' dollars.
At the same time, even more taxpayer money is being spent by advocacy groups to pursue political outcomes
that will deliver no tangible benefit to health and education outcomes across Indigenous communities. Take the
Recognise campaign as a shining example. It was established to raise awareness of proposals to recognise
Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. After four years and around $20 million in funding from taxpayers,
research that was released by the Recognise campaign itself in May this year showed that awareness has actually
fallen—down 10 per cent among Indigenous people and down 13 per cent among non-Indigenous people.
As someone who pays close attention to constitutional debates, I cannot recall seeing a single TV
advertisement, receiving any leaflets in my mailbox or being doorknocked by this taxpayer funded campaign
operation. So where has the $20 million gone? What is Recognise actually doing to meet its supposed objective of
raising awareness? Why is awareness falling? Why is Recognise continuing to actively recruit paid field staff to
campaign when there is no referendum question finalised and the referendum itself appears to have been delayed?
It is a textbook example of why providing taxpayers' money to third parties to fund their political campaigns is a
bad idea. (Time expired)
CHAMBER