Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee's inquiry into the Indigenous Advancement Strategy Tendering Process report. In the 2014-15 budget, the government announced that from 1 July 2014, over 150 programs, grants and activities for Indigenous Australians, which were delivered across a range of government portfolios, would be rationalised and streamlined into five broad programs under the new Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS), which would be administered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C).

There has been $4.8 billion allocated to fund the IAS for the four years from 2014-15 through to 2018-19. The stated objective of the IAS is to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians and also to make the grants process more efficient and effective for applicants. In July 2014, PM&C released the IAS guidelines to advise potential applicants, which explained that the strategy has been designed to reduce red tape and duplication for grant funding recipients, increase flexibility, and more efficiently provide evidence based grant funding to make sure that resources hit the ground and deliver results for Indigenous people.

On 8 September 2014, PM&C announced there would be a six-week open competitive grant tender funding round under the IAS. After a delay in the assessment process, the announcement of funding outcomes was made on 4 March 2015. There was $860 million worth of funding allocated to 964 organisations to deliver 1, 297 projects.

During this inquiry, the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee examined the program design and delivery framework of the IAS, as well as the conduct of the first round of competitive funding. Submitters and witnesses to the inquiry saw the potential benefit of streamlining 150 programs into five priority areas through the IAS process. It was seen that this change could offer greater flexibility and scope to develop on the ground, targeted responses to issues in communities. It was also seen as an opportunity to cut red tape and reduce bureaucracy.

However, the reality was that a shift of this magnitude was too ambitious. There was little to no consultation or engagement with communities and organisations on this fundamental change to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs and no input sought at the start of this process. In addition to implementing a completely new and untested way of doing business, the process was further complicated by the machinery-of-government changes and budget cuts. As Mr John Paterson from the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory and Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory stated:

Overall, … our members found the Indigenous Advancement Strategy application process to be stressful and frustrating, exacerbated by the lack of consultation and clarification of concerns from the department. We were also frustrated by the limited information made publicly available regarding the number of successful organisations that were granted funding and the breakdown of that funding.

While PM&C was able to identify the analysis done by the Australian National Audit Office and the Department of Finance as the evidence for such a dramatic policy change, it did not articulate the evidence base for the development of the IAS as the means by which to address earlier policy failings in this area.

The shift to a competitive tendering model appeared to disadvantage Indigenous organisations. The IAS processes especially disadvantaged smaller Indigenous organisations with less experience in applying for competitive funding and those who lacked the resources to hire such expertise, compared with the large non-government organisations. More than $1.7 million was spent on engaging external organisations to assist with administration processes and probity advice. Despite all this assistance, the administration issues were significant, and there was an unreasonable timetable for applicants. There was a clear lack of reliable information for applicants and a lack of clarity around incorporation requirements, and the advice and feedback to successful and unsuccessful applicants was often unclear and generic.

Changes to the process were underway including the funding extension and the gap-filling processes. It appeared that the IAS was being adapted on the run, which to many stakeholders meant the new process lacked transparency and was not a level playing field. Witnesses to the inquiry said that communication throughout the tender application process was poor and confusing. It was clear that the process was not well understood, as evidenced by almost half of the applications being noncompliant.

For all the upheaval and chaos created, the outcome appears to be that organisations funded previously have, by and large, been funded to do the same activities with less money. Of particular concern is that the funding uncertainty across the sector has led to respected and experienced staff being lost. It is profoundly disappointing that, eight months after acknowledging the shortcomings, the situation does not appear to have improved. Many organisations are in the same position they were in last year of having funding running out on 30 June 2016 and not knowing what the next steps are. This is despite the minister's reassurance that the new process would result in longer term funding contracts. On top of this, the revised guidelines to apply for funding that will need to start from 1 July have been delayed, which will result again in a very short time frame to lodge applications. Again, this has created further uncertainty for service providers and their staff.

I am very concerned that this loss of expertise and relationship has led to a disconnect between the people on the ground and their local needs and the decision-making process undertaken here in Canberra. While the idea of the IAS was initially welcomed, I believe the price paid by the Indigenous communities for implementing the unreasonable time line was far too high. This would appear to be a case of the goodwill being hard to gain and easy to lose. I agree 100 percent with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mr Mick Gooda, who said: 'To have confidence in the outcomes, we have got to have confidence in the process.'

The Auditor-General is currently conducting an audit of the establishment and implementation of the IAS. I strongly support this audit because we all need to see the evidence of how the process has improved. We will continue to monitor the future of the IAS process through estimates hearings.

The committee has made nine recommendations as a result of its inquiry. Those recommendations include recommendations in relation to future rounds of the IAS grant funding. I will conclude here because I know that Senator Siewert wants to make a contribution. I would just like to put on record that I would like to thank all those who made submissions to the inquiry and who provided evidence at the public hearings. I commend the report to the chamber, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.