The recent film Three
billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri (link
here) describes a mother’s frustration at the lack of progress of the local
authorities in solving the murder of her daughter, and her actions in bringing
attention to the inexplicable dereliction by authorities through posting giant
signs on a local road. I can’t afford to rent three billboards, but can post
three more modest brief ‘billboard signs’ here!
There have been three developments in the last few weeks in
relation to the future of the remote housing program worth signposting.
Billboard
One: Closing the Gap
The Prime Ministers Closing the Gap Statement released
yesterday (link here) includes
two salient sets of information. First, throughout the report, it is made clear
in relation to virtually every target that the results in remote areas
significantly lag the rest of the country.
In relation to child mortality, the NT rate is around
double the national Indigenous rate (fig 2, page 39).
In relation to early childhood education, ‘The gap between Indigenous and
non-Indigenous children attending early childhood education programs was
largest in Remote (6 percentage points) and Very Remote (11 percentage points)
areas’ (page 45).
In relation to education, ‘Indigenous attendance is lower in remote areas than non-remote areas,
and the attendance gap remains larger in remote areas.’ Moreover, ‘There has
been no meaningful improvement in any of the states and territories. In the
Northern Territory the Indigenous attendance rate fell from 2014 (70.2 per
cent) to 2017 (66.2 per cent)’ (page 49).
In relation to literacy and numeracy, ‘Outcomes also vary significantly across regions, with outcomes for
Indigenous students substantially worse in remote areas…’ (page 58). See
also page 60.
In relation to employment, the Indigenous employment rate
fell over the past decade, from 48.0 per cent in 2006 to 46.6 per cent in 2016
(Figure 23), with ‘the employment rate
falling in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern
Territory but stable or rising in the other states’ (page 76).
In relation to life expectancy, the report notes: ‘Over the period 2012 to 2016, Indigenous
mortality rates varied across the jurisdictions (Figure 29). The Northern
Territory had the highest Indigenous mortality rate (1,478 per 100,000
population) as well as the largest gap with non-Indigenous Australians,
followed by Western Australia (1,225 per 100,000)’ (page 106).
These statistics speak for themselves, yet nowhere does the
report attempt to comprehensively lay out a holistic strategy for dealing with
remote issues. This is a major gap in the Government’s approach to closing the
gap. It amounts to an admission of failure by the present Government that
remote policy issues are too hard, too difficult and ultimately insoluble.
Second, on page 112, the only reference to Indigenous
housing totals just two paragraphs, reproduced in full below:
Improving the quality of
remote housing
Good
quality housing underpins all of the Closing the Gap targets in health,
education and employment, as well as community safety.
The
Australian Government has invested $5.5 billion over the past 10 years to
improve the quality of housing in remote communities. This has seen percentage
of houses that are overcrowded drop from 52 per cent to 37 per cent. Tenants
now have rights and responsibilities they didn’t previously have and the system
of housing operates as a genuine public housing system.
This is an extraordinarily paltry level of analysis and attention
for an area of government investment which is crucial to the quality of life in
remote communities. I can’t help but note that the actual figure is $5.4
billion after the Government’s 2015 budget cuts (link here), but what’s
$95m between friends! Prime Ministerial
accuracy is clearly a second order priority. Despite the progress made, and the
fact that the Closing the Gap report demonstrates that the most intense
disadvantage amongst Indigenous citizens occurs in remote areas, the Government
appears to be laying the groundwork for its comprehensive disestablishment.
The Closing the Gap report does lay down two key metrics
for the future of the remote housing program: first, will the Government commit
to a ten year investment, and secondly, will it invest $550m per annum in the
program.
Billboard
Two: recent parliamentary questions on remote housing
In response to a number of questions in the Senate on 12
February, Minister Scullion clarified a number of points which have so far been
unclear and not announced.
A question from Senator Dodson first (emphasis added; link
to the full answer here):
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (14:00): My question is to the
Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. …Minister, has your
government taken a decision to end the decade-long Commonwealth investment in
remote Indigenous housing agreed in the National Partnership Agreement on
Remote Indigenous Housing? …
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs
and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:01): I thank Senator Dodson for
the question…
... No, we're not walking away from that at all,
Senator Dodson. But one of the things you need to know, which I haven't had the
opportunity to personally come round and explain yet, is that since Christmas we've been doing some
calculations about why it is that the clear calculations we did about 10 years,
which are about numbers—how many houses we need to invest in and predictions of
population—haven't quite got there and we now need another little addition.
… We had an independent review that showed the Northern Territory is the largest need, about 50 per
cent. Under that come South Australia and Queensland—almost under that—and
then much further down the pace comes—…
… Senator Wong: A point of order on direct relevance, Mr President:
the question Senator Dodson asked was whether the government had taken a
decision to end the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous
Housing. It is a very important question and, whilst the minister may have a
lot of political attack on the states that he wishes to engage in, we would ask
that he answer that simple question...
…Senator SCULLION: A national partnership involves every state and
territory. It is self-evident that New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria are
no longer in it. So now we're moving to a bipartisan approach. [I assume he means bilateral approach]. We've made the announcement with the
Northern Territory and we're still in discussions with the other states and
territories. But fundamental to this is ensuring that the states and
territories are held to account, and those opposite should ensure that they are
holding them to account in each of their jurisdictions. (Time expired)…
Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (14:03): I note what the
minister said. Minister, I note that last week your representative in the House
of Representatives, Minister Wyatt,
declared: 'The funding has not been cut. It has not been reduced. Senator
Scullion is in ongoing negotiations with the relevant ministers.' Is the
minister correct?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs
and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:04): Yes, he is. We have done an independent inquiry, which you would
have a copy of, that shows what is required now, and our investment in the
national partnership over a decade reduced the overcrowding significantly but
we still have some work to do. So it's about that actual number, and we are
negotiating, continuing to negotiate, with the states and territories about
that number. But we now need the states and territories to transition to take on
their own responsibilities of public housing, and we need to ensure that when
the states and territories are allocating public housing—because, whether
you're in Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia or the Northern
Territory, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are still members of a
state or territory. We're not walking away at all, but we are ensuring, and
those on the other side should encourage, that each of the state and territory
governments stand ready to take on their responsibilities for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people living in their jurisdiction…
…Senator DODSON (Western Australia) (14:05): Could the minister
clarify if he has begun, or when he is going to begin, the negotiations with
the state governments of South Australia, Queensland and my home state of
Western Australia so as to maintain the effect of the remote Indigenous housing
strategy?
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Affairs
and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:05): It's been documented that
I've been dealing with the Northern Territory government. I have met with the
Queensland Minister for Housing and Public Works. We haven't come to a
settlement on that matter yet. I have met with the minister for Indigenous
affairs, who is not the minister for housing, and explained what the
circumstance is. I will be meeting
shortly with the ministers for housing in South Australia and in Western
Australia.
In response to a question from Senator McCarthy, and an
interjection from Senator Wong the following exchange took place:
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous
Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:14): If I can just clarify again, I am not withdrawing from this
process.
Senator Wong: Well how much money are you putting in? The funding is ending. How much are
you putting in?
Senator SCULLION: We have indicated that we've undertaken in the Northern Territory,
because that's the only bilateral that's been finished, to put in $120 million
a year and that the Northern Territory would be matching it. So, that is
the way it's going. We are looking to the states and territories, who I suspect
actually withdrew. So in the places where we're requiring NPRH to be built,
there was a decision by those jurisdictions to act by not spending a cent of
the funds that the Commonwealth invests and that they should invest in remote
communities. We've yet to find out if that is the case. I hope I'm wrong, but I
have seen absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that they have taken any other
course. (Time
expired)…
…Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous
Affairs and Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:16): Well, we're certainly not walking away from funding remote
housing. And can I say that there is another issue about jurisdiction. They are
now being required to put this in a fund
that is managed between the state, the Commonwealth and Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people. Now, I guess that hasn't been accepted well. We're
just supposed to put it straight into the coffers.
It seems to me that there are a number of issues here.
The first is that it is clear that the National Partnership
approach (and thus the ten year timeframe) is dead, and the Commonwealth is
moving to shorter bilateral agreements. The rationale offered by Minister
Scullion (that only four states are involved) does not withstand scrutiny. The
NT has previously had a National Partnership agreement with the Commonwealth on
its own; there has never been a requirement for all jurisdictions, or even
most, to be involved in National Partnership agreements.
The second relates to the assertion of both Minister Wyatt and Scullion
that the funding has not been cut. In the absence of an actual formal announcement,
it is impossible to definitively determine the accuracy of these statements,
but for the Ministers’ statements to be accurate (and thus not to mislead the Parliament)
the Government will need to put $550m per annum on the table (ideally for ten
years). Minister Scullion does admit that the level of remote housing need in
the NT is around half the national need, and has allocated $120m per annum for
an unspecified period there. This suggests that the national allocation will be
in the region of $240m per annum, well below the $550m required for both
Ministers’ statements to be accurate.
The third is that the establishment of a ‘fund’ which is managed
by the Commonwealth, the states, and Indigenous representatives is a return to
a proposal originally floated by the Giles Government in the NT, and which
looks very much like the pre-NPARIH model known as IHANT. The problems faced by
IHANT were that resources were extremely limited and did not match the needs,
and the representative nature of its membership meant that funding was spread
thinly across more than sixty locations, with little focus on asset management,
poor economies of scale, and thus minimal continuity of work for the firms
involved in construction. I provided a critique of this approach in this post from
July 2016 (link
here).
Finally, it is clear that the Minister has adopted a bizarre (or
even mischievous) approach of dealing with jurisdictions sequentially and without
formally writing to state ministers to outline the Commonwealth’s proposed approach.
It is unacceptable and deeply troubling that the Commonwealth has adopted an administrative
and political process which means that states such as WA or SA have not been
formally approached about the future funding arrangements for a major capital
intensive investment program that ends in less than five months’ time.
Billboard Three: appalling
process supporting retrograde policy
The recent review of remote housing for which the Minister’s
Department provided the secretariat, stated in its final report that it had invited
public submissions (page 14).
Following Senate Estimates in October 2017, Senator McCarthy
placed a question on notice (Question no.253 link
here) seeking details of the invitation notice requesting public
submissions.
In a belated response on 2 February 2018, the Department
and Minister provided an answer to the Senator’s question in the following
terms (emphasis added):
PM&C
advertised for public submissions on its website between 9 December 2016 and 6 January 2017 (copy at Attachment A).
Further, PM&C emailed approximately 100 stakeholders on 2 December 2016, and a further eight on
5 December 2016, inviting them to submissions.
ATTACHMENT A
Submissions
The expert panel is seeking submissions on
how Indigenous housing investment could be improved and made more sustainable.
We want to hear from Indigenous communities and businesses, housing service
providers, peak bodies, land councils and state governments on what has worked
well and what could be done better. We also want to hear about how to get
better community involvement, including local Indigenous employment and
business engagement in housing. We are looking for practical ideas based on
your extensive experience with the legislative, regulatory, operational and
policy frameworks that underpin Indigenous housing.
If you would like to make a submission,
please send it to the review secretariat at TheReview@pmc.gov.au by 16 December 2016.
Alternatively, for short submissions you are
welcome to provide
input through this web form or
complete our survey
questionnaire.
The Department’s answer is too cute by half. In other
words, the notice requesting submissions (which appears merely to have been
posted unannounced on the Department’s website) mentions particular stakeholder
groups, but nowhere mentions public submissions, and asks for
submissions by 16 December, but was only posted on 9 December 2016, thus giving
members of the public a scant seven days to make a submission. As it turns out,
and unsurprisingly, it appears from the appendices that only organisations and
individuals invited to make submissions actually did so. I previously posted
regarding the numerous deficiencies in the Review report (link
here), which is relevant because it should provide the analytic and factual
foundations for the Commonwealth’s policy going forward. The deliberate
avoidance of public input merely exacerbates the previous critique, and undermines
the Reviews legitimacy as an independent policy document.
This is a further example of the Government’s disrespectful
approach to seeking community input into the policy, and appears designed to ensure
that public input was not provided. The chaotic and disorganised administrative
processes around both the review and the subsequent negotiations with the
states at best reflect poorly on the Department and the Minister, and at worst,
appear to amount to a deliberate attempt to avoid any opportunity for public
input and potential criticism of the government’s retrograde policy in relation
to remote housing.
Conclusion
The bottom line on this issue is that despite the ongoing
failure to Close the Gap due to lack of an effective strategy tying resources
to objectives, and the evidence of the Commonwealth’s own statistics that the
most intensive disadvantage is in remote regions, the Commonwealth continues to
dance around the crucial issue of funding social housing in remote communities.
The policy rationale for cutting funding does not exist, the
administrative and political processes associated with deciding future arrangements
are either neglected or deliberately short-circuited. The Government and in particular
Minister Scullion appears incapable or unwilling to provide funding certainty
to state governments, Indigenous citizens, and the public at large, and it
seems probable that both Ministers Wyatt and Scullion have misled the Parliament
in asserting unequivocally that funding levels have not been cut. Time will
tell.
We appear to be heading back to where we came from, with
every prospect that housing conditions in remote Australia will worsen,
overcrowding will worsen, and as a result so too will the associated
consequences for health and economic participation. The already deep levels of disadvantage
amongst our most disadvantaged citizens will only get worse. We don’t need
public billboards to tell us that.