Alternate Views Through the Keyhole: Two Recent Reports from the Ombudsman

The Commonwealth Ombudsman recently released two reports relating to remote Indigenous service delivery. The first relates to access to the DSP; the second relates to the effectiveness of translation services from a cross government perspective.

Both reports are instructive from a number of perspectives: in highlighting the challenges facing remote community members in accessing services and welfare benefits to which they are entitled; and in highlighting the rather slow and cumbersome operations of our federal system of government when it comes to dealing with remote Indigenous citizens.

In relation to the translation services, the Ombudsman’s Report is a follow up on a previous report in 2011, and concludes in essence that the issues raised then are yet to be adequately addressed. These include access to quality translation services across all jurisdictions, and issues related to the quantity and quality of translators in all jurisdictions. IN 2011, proposals emerged for the development of a National Framework for Indigenous Translators. This framework has yet to be finalised, and one must wonder if it has even been progressed.

In response, PMC established an Inter Departmental Committee (IDC) during the course of the second investigation to consider the development of a Commonwealth policy or protocol on translation services. This seems to be moving slowly as the Ombudsman suggests that not all relevant agencies were invited to join the IDC.

In relation to the National Framework proposal, PMC advise that the initiative was linked to the National Partnership on Remote Service Delivery which expired in June 2014, but that the Department wrote to four jurisdictions in September 2016 seeking to reopen discussions on the proposal. By implication, nothing has occurred in the interregnum.

As an aside, it would be a useful Senate Estimates question to ask for a list of initiatives such as this which have fallen by the wayside following the expiry of National Partnerships which have not been renewed. The former Groote Eylandt Regional Partnership Agreement which appeared to have made real progress and to have significant local community commitment (including financial commitment) seems to have just dropped from view without announcement nor explanation. I am sure there will be other similar cases.

Returning to the issue of translation services, the rather anodyne PMC response is strong on process, but makes absolutely no commitments to substantive outcomes. This is emblematic of what is wrong in Indigenous affairs at present: continuing fudging, focus on process, failure to take responsibility for tangible outcomes, and a non-existent ‘whole of government’ focus from PMC.

In relation to access to the Disability Support Pension Report, the story is more positive.

The Report notes:

5.1 Indigenous Australians living in remote areas face significant barriers in accessing DSP, including: · difficulties in accessing appropriate health care · problems obtaining medical evidence from treating doctors and specialists to support their claims · being disadvantaged by not having face-to-face JCAs and DMAs · a differing concept of ‘disability’ · difficulties discussing conditions and their functional impact with health professionals in a meaningful way, due to language and cultural barriers.

5.2 The recommendations made in this report are intended to address some of the most significant challenges we consider remote Indigenous Australians face in: · collecting evidence · preparing applications · accessing, and participating in, JCAs and DMAs · anticipating the need for and accessing a program of support where required.

The Case Studies in the Report are worth reading. They demonstrate just how frustrating it can be to prosecute an argument for access to benefits to which one is entitled from a remote community.

DHS in response and to their credit appear to have taken the report seriously and agreed to implement virtually all the recommendations. Nevertheless, it is clear that remote residents, where disability is more common than in mainstream Australia, face substantial challenges in accessing these Government services.

One of the approaches often advocated is an upgraded regional field service attached to the central Indigenous affairs agency (in this case PMC). PMC do have a regional network, however it appears to be quite thin on the ground, and apparently has very limited decision making powers and influence in Canberra. In an ideal world, it would pick up local intelligence related to instances of individuals not accessing services to which they are entitled, and make the appropriate informal connections to ensure the system works as formally intended.

As I write this, I am conscious that those in PMC reading it will be thinking I have lost my marbles. Certainly, resource constraints, and the fluid priorities of governments and ministers make this appear from a bureaucratic perspective an unreasonable and other worldly proposal. The fact however is that it has been done before, and could, with appropriate prioritisation, be done again. It would help if there was political support from the Government. But it could be implemented unilaterally from within the bureaucracy were key players to put their shoulders to the wheel.

Alternatively, it might be thought that proposing an upgraded regional presence is idealism gone awry. In this perspective, Governments don’t care to ensure entitlements are delivered, instead their concern is merely to minimise expenditures.

The idealist side of my nature congratulates the Commonwealth Ombudsman for his own motion investigations into these intricate and arcane corners of the Indigenous policy maze, and will wait to see what progress is made over the next 12 months on each of these issues.

The cynical side of my nature tells me that little happens without pressure and publicity, and that consequently there is an urgent need for greater and automatic transparency across the breadth of government policy and programs directed to addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Ad hoc own motion investigations by the Ombudsman, audits by the ANAO, or inquiries by parliamentary committees, provide only a keyhole view of the complex panorama of indigenous policy implementation and service delivery.

Idealism, or cynicism; you choose.