Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems that hardly a day goes by without seeing or hearing a report in the media about a tragic event occurring in an indigenous community somewhere across our nation. The epidemic of suicide in indigenous communities has been a particular focus of some reporting this week, following the tragic suicide of a 37-year-old mother of three children in Kalgoorlie, in my home state of Western Australia. The local indigenous community in this key regional WA centre has already witnessed tragedy this year with the death of 14-year-old, Elijah Doughty. The suicide that has been reported this week occurred at the site of the incident that claimed Elijah's life, further compounding the tragedy and sense of grief amongst the local community.

I am also aware that tomorrow the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Sussan Ley, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion, and the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Ken Wyatt, are going to be in Western Australia's Kimberley region to hold a roundtable to discuss indigenous suicide prevention strategies. Given the multiple tragedies that have been experienced in Western Australia in this regard over the last year, this will be a critical and timely discussion. I also hope it is going to be a frank discussion of the, because I think we all have to agree that things cannot continue as they have been.

But, of course, suicide prevention is just one area where indigenous communities in Western Australia and elsewhere across our country experience particular challenges and continue to experience poor outcomes. The health difficulties faced by those living in indigenous communities and the resultant lower life expectancy, the housing issues, poor educational results and difficulties in obtaining employment are all areas that have been well-ventilated in public policy discussions over many decades now.

Any stranger visiting these shores for the first time who was presented with a statistical snapshot of what is happening in some of our indigenous communities might conclude that this is an uncaring nation—might conclude an indifference to the plight of some of our most vulnerable fellow citizens. But, of course, we know that such a conclusion would be erroneous. The problem is not a lack of compassion or concern from our fellow Australians. It is not a lack of awareness. It is not even a lack of funding or lack of institutional support from government and non-government organisations.

There is an old saying that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions', and when it comes to improving the lives of indigenous Australians we suffer no deficit of good intentions. However, it is clearly time to take a step back and measure the effectiveness of many of the things we are doing and many of the things that have been done, because it is clear that simply continuing to spend money in the same way we have been—without adequately evaluating the effectiveness of programs—is not delivering the right outcomes and is not reversing indigenous disadvantage.

This evening, I would like to draw the Senate's attention to a recently released research report from The Centre for Independent Studies, Mapping the Indigenous program and funding maze. It is a very accessible and compelling read, though not a happy one. What it shows, convincingly, is that for all the plethora of programs designed to address indigenous disadvantage and all the billions of dollars that have been invested in them, the return on that investment has been poor.

I should point out that criticisms along these lines are coming from Indigenous leaders themselves. Patrick Green, an Indigenous community leader from Fitzroy Crossing in WA, has noted:

If it’s $1 that leaves Canberra, what is it that hits Fitzroy Crossing—10c, 20c?

…   …   …

They probably need to have a look at how their policies are working and they need to have indicators on how those funds are rolled out …

Similar criticisms have been made by the Indigenous leaders who contributed to the Wunan Foundation's Empowered Communities report in 2015, which noted:

Vast swathes of funding are absorbed by the red tape of administration within the government bureaucracy, and on the ‘middlemen’ between government and Indigenous people.

The report that has now been produced by the Centre For Independent Studies contains multiple real-life examples of where money is not always going to areas of greatest need and where a heavily centralised approach is not adequately respecting input from Indigenous people themselves into program design and delivery.

One such example noted in the report also come to my own attention through a report from the Australian National Audit Office at the end of 2015 into the operation of the Indigenous Home Ownership Program. The program itself has a worthy objective: to facilitate home ownership among Indigenous Australians by addressing barriers such as lower incomes and savings pools, credit issues and limited experience with loan repayments. In essence, the program is designed to make basic home loans available to Indigenous Australians who, because of those factors I have just outlined, might otherwise struggle to obtain one.

However, the National Audit Office report found this objective was not being met. It found funding is not being directed where it is most needed and that loans are increasingly provided to medium- and high-income earners, people who would quite easily qualify for a home loan from a mainstream banking institution. Yet the program's administrator, Indigenous Business Australia, does not generally conform with other lenders that a customer cannot access mainstream finance, even though this is considered a key eligibility threshold for the Indigenous Home Ownership Program. In fact, the National Audit Office report recommended the government consider whether, after 40 years of operation, a government-run loan program is any longer necessary or the most efficient way to improve the rates of Indigenous home ownership. The response from Indigenous Business Australia to this suggestion was decidedly mute, as was its response to previous reports criticising its Indigenous business loan program. In 2013-14, it approved a grand total of 75 loans—around one loan for every bureaucrat employed to administer it. Surely, we can do better than this?

These are just two examples from the litany that were examined by the research of the Centre for Independent Studies. Time and again, there is evidence presented which suggests that many Indigenous programs are being established and evolving in response to perceived need. As a result, there are a plethora of programs coming on stream which duplicate existing programs. The lack of requirement for evidence based funding is leading to expenditure growth with no commensurate improvement in outcomes.

The CIS report identified a total of 1,082 Indigenous-specific programs. Of these, 49 are funded federally, 236 are delivered by state and territory governments, and 797 are delivered by non-government organisations, though often with funding that comes from governments. Of the 1,082 programs, just 88—eight per cent—have been audited or evaluated in any meaningful way to determine the effectiveness of their outcomes. Given the waste, mismanagement and ineffectiveness that has been found in those programs which have been evaluated, the fact that 92 percent have not been evaluated should be alarming to all of us. All up, these programs are estimated to cost taxpayers at least $5.9 billion every year—but Indigenous people are seeing precious little benefit from these large investments of taxpayers' dollars.

At the same time, even more taxpayer money is being spent by advocacy groups to pursue political outcomes that will deliver no tangible benefit to health and education outcomes across Indigenous communities. Take the Recognise campaign as a shining example. It was established to raise awareness of proposals to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. After four years and around $20 million in funding from taxpayers, research that was released by the Recognise campaign itself in May this year showed that awareness has actually fallen—down 10 per cent among Indigenous people and down 13 per cent among non-Indigenous people.

As someone who pays close attention to constitutional debates, I cannot recall seeing a single TV advertisement, receiving any leaflets in my mailbox or being doorknocked by this taxpayer funded campaign operation. So where has the $20 million gone? What is Recognise actually doing to meet its supposed objective of raising awareness? Why is awareness falling? Why is Recognise continuing to actively recruit paid field staff to campaign when there is no referendum question finalised and the referendum itself appears to have been delayed? It is a textbook example of why providing taxpayers' money to third parties to fund their political campaigns is a bad idea. (Time expired)