The NIAA Annual Report 2020

 

Make not your thoughts prisons

Antony and Cleopatra Act 5, scene 2

 

NIAA is a new agency within the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) portfolio. The PMC Annual report had previously covered Indigenous affairs issues as Program 2 in its program structure. The PMC Annual Report (link here) deals with the Department’s oversight and assistance to advancing the Government’s Indigenous affairs agenda at pp. 105-107 of the PMC Annual Report. The Department sees its major achievements in this area as the development of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap with the Coalition of Peaks and the states and territories, as well as the development of an early national response to protecting Indigenous Australians from Covid-19 (see page 195).

 

The NIAA Annual Report for 2019-2020 was tabled last week (link here).

 

In this post, I propose to comment on three aspects of the NIAA Annual report: the overall approach of the Report; the various Activity Statements that report on areas of priority action; and the issue of evaluation and in particular evaluation expenditure. I will leave consideration of some technical issues related to the management of the Aboriginals Benefit Account to a subsequent post. While I proceed by pointing to perhaps the most egregious examples of shortcomings or shortfalls, it is my more general thesis that this Annual Report is designed to provide minimal information, and it fails to deliver a coherent account of the activities of the NIAA over the course of the past financial year.

 

Overall approach

 

I found the overall approach of the Report to be too narrow. On page 11, the Report helpfully lists the nine key functions of the agency as outlined in the Executive Order signed by the Governor General in May 2019. Yet having done so, there is no ordered (or even disordered) outline of the agencies activities against each of these functions. I won’t undertake a detailed analysis, but will point to just a few examples: the fourth function is to ‘lead Commonwealth activities to promote reconciliation’. Yet there does not appear to be any account of the Agency’s work on this issue, and the index makes no mention of reconciliation. Perhaps the best defence to this critique would be to argue that the agency’s work in relation to a voice and to constitutional recognition (see pp.38-9) is related to reconciliation. However, these activities do not involve open public engagement particularly with the wider community, and to my mind at least, do not constitute the promotion of reconciliation per se.

 

Similarly, the eighth core function of NIAA is to ‘coordinate Indigenous portfolio agencies and advance a whole-of-government approach to improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’. There is no account in the Report of the Agency’s activities in oversighting the key portfolio agencies, no reference in the index to the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, nor to Aboriginal Hostels Limited, and only a single fleeting reference to Indigenous Business Australia. The Agency organisation chart at pp 18-19 mentions two statutory office holders, the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, and the Executive Director of the Office of Township Leasing, but neither Office is described or reported upon in the body of the report, and nor are they mentioned in the Index. There is a brief discussion of the operations of the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (pp. 181-2), although given its significance, even this is arguably too limited.

 

Similarly, the seventh function is to ‘analyse and monitor the effectiveness of programs and services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including programs and services delivered by bodies other than the NIAA’ (emphasis added). There is some discussion of evaluation in the Report (see below), and somewhat confusingly, in the CEO’s overview where he states:

In 2019–20, we continued to implement the IAS Evaluation Framework, in place since 2018, as a guide for evaluation of programs and activities under the IAS. The Evaluation Framework aligns with the wider role of the Productivity Commission in overseeing the development and implementation of a whole-of-government evaluation strategy of policies and programs that affect Indigenous Australians (emphasis added).

 

Nowhere is it made clear how the role of the Productivity Commission in overseeing a whole of government evaluation strategy meshes with the function of the NIAA to analyse and monitor the effectiveness of programs and services. And nowhere do we get a succinct description of the state of play (as assessed either by the Productivity Commission or the NIAA) of the effectiveness of whole of government programs directed to Indigenous citizens. The significance of this gap is heightened by the Auditor General’s recent conclusions in his midterm report (link here).

 

Arguably, there is inadequate discussion of the NIAA’s activities in relation to other functions, although there is at least some reference to activities that might come within the allocated function, so I won’t press the point.

 

Given the centrality of the NIAA to the Government’s Indigenous affairs agenda, there is a strong case for the Annual Report to provide a more expansive overview of the breath of the Government’s activities in the Indigenous policy domain. For example, there are a number of entities and program initiatives that are focussed on Indigenous Australians, but are the responsibility of other agencies. The significant programs administered by the Health Department, and the operations of the Indigenous Land and Sea Fund administered within the Future Fund are just two examples. There is a case for NIAA to provide a conceptual map or overview so that the reader can obtain a sense of the totality of the Commonwealth’s activities in the Indigenous policy space. A point reinforced by the NIAA functions in the April 2019 Executive Order that require it to adopt a whole of government perspective in relation to a range of matters.

 

Activity Statements

 

Section three of the Report deals with Annual Performance Statements. I don’t propose to undertake a comprehensive analysis, but instead will merely comment on a number of issues that in my view deserve to be highlighted.

 

Between pages 23 and 27 the Report summarises nine activities (comprising 20 sub-activities) against its corporate plan objectives. Of the 20 sub-activities, 8 were listed as achieved, 9 were partially achieved, and 3 were not achieved. Two of the ‘not achieved’ activities related to the delivery of workshops and cultural activities related to mental health services for young adults. The third related to school attendance in communities where the RSAS program operates. I have previously commented on mental health and school attendance issues (link here and here). I am sceptical of the utility of these performance templates, since they lean heavily towards process rather substantive outcomes. Nevertheless, they at least provide a starting point for assessing performance, and the NIAA is to be applauded for adopting a degree of realism in its self-assessment. What is missing however is any analysis of discussion related to the implications of these shortfalls, their significance, and most importantly, what the agency proposes to do to ensure that there is substantive progress in the areas chosen as policy targets into the future.

 

Embedded in the various activity statements are various clues to the Government’s policy narrative and approach in Indigenous affairs that are worth flagging or noting. So, in relation to Activity 3: ‘progressing co-design of a voice for Indigenous Australians’ (p. 38), we see the repeated reliance on the co-design motif. Notwithstanding the assertion of co-design, the Government retains strong control over the development of options by its appointed committees, will then unilaterally consider the proposals , and then initiate a process, whose details are yet to be announced, of wider consultation ‘from late 2020 to early 2021’, and then again consider how it will proceed. There is nothing inherently wrong with this process, but it is not ‘co-design’. The codesign narrative is political spin.

 

In relation to Activity 4: ‘Progressing constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians during the current parliamentary term, providing there is consensus and a good chance of a referendum succeeding’ (p.39).  This heading almost says it all! In the section headed ‘Analysis’, the Agency notes:

 In line with the recommendations of the 2018 Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the Government supports finalising co-design of a voice ahead of constitutional recognition.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in Minister Wyatt providing an updated timeframe for the Indigenous voice co-design process on 12 June 2020. Minister Wyatt noted that the substantial impact of COVID-19 could impact on the timing of reaching a consensus and progressing to a referendum within the current parliamentary term.

 

Activity 4 could have been more succinctly titled ‘Don’t hold your breath’ !

 

Activity 9 is headed ‘Undertaking evaluations of the National Indigenous Australians Agency programs in line with the IAS Evaluation Framework’. The agency reports that it achieved publication of an evaluation work plan, and achieved the finalisation of long-term performance measures, but only partially achieved the public release of completed evaluations. These are all process targets. In the analysis, the Agency notes (p.53):

To support transparency and use of evaluations in program and policy decision-making, the NIAA committed to publicly release all evaluations. To ensure evaluations are released in a timely manner, it is a requirement that completed evaluations are published within four months of receipt of the final report. Of the six evaluations that were completed in 2019–20, four were publicly released and one is on track to be published within agreed timeframes. The remaining evaluation is complete but publication has been delayed such that it wasn’t released within agreed timeframes.

 

Clearly the evaluation involved is potentially embarrassing in some way. The Report provides no information on which evaluation has not been released, and no explanation for the delay: was it an agency decision, or a Ministerial decision? The Agency’s ‘commitment’ to transparency, and particularly to evidence based policy and evaluation transparency goes only so far. Readers (and citizens) deserve better treatment than this.

 

Evaluation Expenditure

Nowhere in the Report is there a table outlining the detailed expenditure for each of the Activities nominated by the Agency as central to its overall performance. Activity 9 relating to evaluation is no exception.

 

Yet on 3 February 2017, the then Minister issued a media release on strengthened evaluation in the portfolio (link here). The release noted inter alia:

The Coalition Government will allocate $10 million a year over four years to strengthen the evaluation of Indigenous Affairs programmes.

Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, said the multi-year programme of evaluations would be underpinned by a formal Evidence and Evaluation Framework to strengthen reporting, monitoring and evaluation at a contract, programme and outcome level.

“The IAS has already greatly improved the transparency and accountability of Indigenous Affairs funding,” Minister Scullion said.

“As a result of the reforms the Coalition introduced through the IAS, we now know, for the first time, how much money is being spent across the Indigenous Affairs portfolio – and what outcomes we expect from the investment of taxpayers’ money. (emphasis added)

 

At pages 82-3 of the Report, the Agency reports on ‘Administered Program Performance’. Table 4.15 lists an expenditure of $6.0m for Evaluation and Research activities against a column headed IAS. This figure falls short of the $10m a year commitment in 2017. A search of the budget papers reveals that last year there was a significant under-expenditure against budget for evaluation and research.

 

The PMC 2019-20 Portfolio Budget statements lists the research and evaluation budget for 2019-20 as $12m (p.45) (link here). The 2020-21 NIAA Budget Statements (link here) provide an estimated actual for 2019-20 as $5.99m and indicate that the four out years budgets will be $10m, $10.1m, $10.2m and $10.3m, presumably reflecting expected indexation off the base of $10m. The budget papers reveal that the agency only spent 50% of the budget allocation for Evaluation and Research in 2019-20. Notwithstanding this shortfall, nowhere in the Annual Report is any explanation offered. Nor is there any information on where the unused funds were redirected.

 

Furthermore, there are two fundamental issues worth considering. First, why is the IAS program (administered expenditure) used for this purpose and not departmental expenditure. The use of administered expenditure for a function related to the work of government has the effect of undercounting the true cost of delivering programs. If used more widely it would in effect short-change the potential recipients of programs.

Second, table 4.15 notes that total NIAA expenditure in 2019-20 was $1.93bn, comprising $1.66bn in administered expenditure and $272m in departmental expenditure. The Evaluation and Research expenditure amounts to 0.4% of this allocation.  What is the appropriate level of investment in evaluation and research for an agency such as NIAA? I would argue that it is much higher than 0.4%. Nowhere is there any discussion of the rationale for the level of investment in evaluation. The Auditor General’s mid-term report referenced above in effect make the case for much greater investment in program effectiveness, not the minimal investment that appears to have been incurred (and effectively hidden) in the Agency’s Annual Report.

 

Evaluation will continue to have a salient profile in the Indigenous policy domain over coming months. According to its website (link here) the Productivity Commission’s Final report on an Indigenous Evaluation Strategy has been completed and was delivered to Government on 16 October. It will be publicly released on 30 October. NIAA will be an important player in assessing the report and providing advice to Cabinet on the future directions of evaluation in the Indigenous policy domain. In due course, the Government will announce its proposed response to the Productivity Commission proposals, no doubt accompanied by further rhetorical flourishes on the importance of evaluation Indigenous related programs.

 

Conclusion

 

The NIAA Annual Report suffers from a lack of imagination and preparedness to adopt a more open and engaging style. It is permeated with bureaucratic opaqueness and fails to substantively engage with the most significant issues of concern to Indigenous Australians and the wider community. It is just one document amongst many; a single snapshot floating in the huge and continuing avalanche of information that tumbles out of government.  One of the strongest arguments for adopting a new and more open approach is that for so long as citizens are fed a diet of manufactured information dressed up as accountable governance, levels of trust in government will remain low.

 

An Annual Report is an opportunity for an agency like NIAA to bring some order and coherence to the disorganised and chaotic state of public administration in this policy domain. To describe what is going on across the country, whether in remote communities, regional towns, or urban environments in metropolitan Australia. To canvass some of the important demographic challenges facing Indigenous citizens and the nation. To describe, explain and constructively critique the impact of whole of government activities on Indigenous Australia. To explore issues relating to regulation and regulatory failure as they impact Indigenous citizens. It is an opportunity to explain, to synthesise especially complex data sets, to acknowledge different views and opinions, and to argue for the hard decisions that governments are inevitably required to make.  

 

The fact that such an outcome is virtually unthinkable reflects the reality that the NIAA does not see itself as having a proactive and engaged stance vis a vis Indigenous Australia, and/or that Governments have decided that real policymaking is just too hard, and that it is much easier to manufacture the appearance of policymaking. Either way, not only do Indigenous citizens lose out, but so too does the nation and the public interest.