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.
