Queensland Productivity Commission Inquiry into Indigenous Service Delivery

Last September, the Queensland Treasurer and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Curtis Pitt, announced a review of service delivery in Queensland’s remote and discrete communities. The Terms of Reference are on the Qld Productivity Commission website (link here). While there is as yet not a lot of clarity on the process, there will be formal consultations and a draft report published by 31 August prior to finalisation before the end of the year. It is possible to register an interest in being updated on the Commission’s website.

In late December, the Minister announced the appointment of Professor Bronwyn Fredericks, Pro-Vice Chancellor Indigenous Engagement at the University of Central Queensland as a Part Time Commissioner for the review (link to media release here).

The initiation of this inquiry is in many respects positive. It suggests that the Government is keen to get a better handle on what is happening in the target communities, and is probably a reaction at some level to the Queensland Government’s problematic history in managing the complex issues at Aurukun for which Curtis Pitt is the “champion” under the Governments approach of allocating roles of “government champion” to each minister and head of department in an effort to promote whole of government approaches to addressing Indigenous disadvantage.

Queensland’s Department for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (DATSIP) appears to have a strong focus on the remote and discrete communities, no doubt because these places are where disadvantage is most concentrated and visible. They also have a demonstrable commitment to the provision of accessible and meaningful data and reports on their web site – the Commonwealth should take a leaf out of their book!

The DATSIP website provides clear and accessible data on a range of social indicators community by community (albeit only up to mid-2015). However, there are very large urban and regional indigenous populations in Queensland, and arguably there is a case for reviewing and taking stock of the quality of service delivery in those non-community contexts. Indeed, the recent Moving Ahead Strategy, which focusses on improving Indigenous economic participation appears to adopt just such an all-encompassing approach.

Interestingly, a Google Scholar search of Professor Frederick’s publications indicates that she has written extensively on the circumstances of urban Indigenous people, particularly women.

My reaction to the Terms of Reference were mixed and to some extent contradictory. The focus on communities is arguably too narrow. Apart from the reality that most Indigenous Queenslanders don’t reside in communities, there are issues related to services which are not provided which will not easily be addressed by the Review.

For example, I have raised the issue previously of the community of Jumbun near Tully which has fallen through the gaps: the Commonwealth has passed responsibility for municipal and essential services to the state government (along with a payment of $10.3m to assist the state to swallow the bitter pill) but the state government has taken no responsibility for maintenance of the essential services at Jumbun and nor will the relevant local government. It will be important for the Review to assess the non-provision of services as well as the effectiveness of the provision of services.

The numbers of issues which are explicitly required to be assessed are arguably very broad, and will very likely lead to a plethora of recommendations which will be difficult to implement in a coherent way, and which will arguably take the policy response into the weeds (if not the swamp).

To take just one example, the requirement in the terms of reference to evaluate programs for co-design aligns with the government’s focus on ‘partnerships’ and is clearly focussed on ensuring there is inclusion and constructive engagement. But there is a tension here, insofar as it is physically impossible to co-design all programs (not least because program design is inevitably iterative and ongoing). This can lead to governments engaging in ‘rhetorical’ behaviour designed to persuade stakeholders that they are important while behind the scenes the real work is done unilaterally. In my view, it is preferable for governments to not raise expectations beyond what is feasible, as it is unfulfilled expectations which are at the root of ongoing cynicism about governments’ motives.

This example merely goes to the point that the review will have to deal with a number of complex issues which have the potential to reverberate beyond their apparent locus of operation.

Arguably what is required from such a review as this is a strategic perspective, yet the Terms of Reference arguably work against this, although they don’t entirely rule out such an approach. Much will depend on the approach adopted by the Commission. Of course, state (and territory) jurisdictions have inherently limited locus of influence, and the Commonwealth through its Indigenous specific programs and its welfare programs are arguably the major players in many respects (particularly given the strong Commonwealth footprint in Cape York), making the development of a strategic approach that much harder for state and territory jurisdictions, and that much harder for a Commission Inquiry limited to assessing state service provision.

In summary, it is positive that the Queensland Government is taking steps to review and assess the quality of their programs in remote communities. But the Commission faces a number of challenges in producing a policy relevant report which will lead to implementable recommendations which will make a substantial, tangible and ongoing difference.

There would have been value in establishing a joint Commonwealth / State review, but this logical and obvious step is rarely seen as desirable by either state or Federal Governments. It just goes to demonstrate how political these exercises are at their core.