 |
Commonwealth Expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
John Gardiner-Garden
Social Policy Group
The author would like to thank his colleagues Geoff Winter and Greg Baker
for their considerable assistance with the production of the paper's table
and graph.
Contents
This paper summarises in prose, table and graph form Commonwealth expenditure
in the area of indigenous affairs from 1967-68 to 1994-95 and presents
arguments for and against three propositions which are often put in debates
over this expenditure.
Expenditure from 1967-68 to 1994-95
Identifiable Commonwealth expenditure in the area of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander (ATSI) Affairs began with the establishment of the Office
of Aboriginal and Affairs soon after the landmark referendum in 1967.
It increased significantly with the creation of the Department of Aboriginal
Affairs (DAA) soon after the Whitlam Government came to office in December
1972. It increased noticeably again in 1985 when the relevant expenditure
by other Commonwealth departments started to be separately identified.
In 1990 the DAA was replaced by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Commission (ATSIC) and at about that same time several other specialist
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agencies started to have their expenditure
separately identified. By 1992/93 total identifiable Commonwealth expenditure
in the area exceeded $1.4 billion. In 1993/94 ATSIC expenditure continued
to increase but overall Government expenditure in the area fell slightly
as a result of lower identifiable expenditure by other Departments.
The table and graph below are based on data presented in various DAA
and ATSIC Annual reports.
COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE ON ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967-68 TO 1994-95
------------------
($ millions)
------------
=============================================================
1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74
=============================================================
Main ATSI agency (a)
--------------------
Employment 1.4 0.4 0.6 4.1 4.8
Health 0.5 0.8 1.2 2.0 3.0 9.4
Law and justice 0.7 1.2
Housing 2.3 2.8 6.1 6.5 14.3 25.0
Community infrastructure 0.3 7.5 8.2 10.5 15.7
Education 0.8 0.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 4.8
Other 0.0 6.4 2.7 2.0 3.6 8.6 17.3
Total 0.0 10.1 8.9 20.0 24.0 44.3 78.3
Other specific ATSI agencies
----------------------------
ATSICDC
Abor. Hostels
ABTA
AIATSIS
Ranger agree.
TSRA
Total
Other portfolios
----------------
Employment, Education and Training
Housing
Other
Total
GRAND TOTAL 0.0 10.1 8.9 20.0 24.0 44.3 78.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total
1994-95 prices 0.1 70.4 59.0 125.9 141.0 243.8 377.6
====================================================================================
1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74
====================================================================================
=============================================================
1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81
=============================================================
Main ATSI agency (a)
--------------------
Employment 14.6 5.7 5.3 6.8 6.9 7.0 10.1
Health 11.9 15.9 14.4 16.3 17.5 18.5 19.9
Law and justice 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.9 4.2 5.0 5.0
Housing 43.0 43.2 39.9 34.3 39.4 45.7 48.6
Community infrastruct 16.4 27.5 25.2 26.1 22.5 18.4 13.3
Education 6.0 9.0 8.5 9.2 9.1 8.8 9.9
Other 30.1 33.9 23.9 27.7 33.0 37.3 52.6
Total 124.8 138.9 121.0 124.3 132.6 140.8 159.4
Other specific ATSI agencies
----------------------------
ATSICDC
Abor. Hostels
ABTA
AIATSIS
Ranger agree.
TSRA
Total
Other portfolios
----------------
Employment, Education and Training
Housing
Other
Total
GRAND TOTAL 124.8 138.9 121.0 124.3 132.6 140.8 159.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total
1994-95 prices 493.7 472.9 369.8 351.6 351.3 340.4 347.9
====================================================================================
1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81
====================================================================================
=============================================================
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88
=============================================================
Main ATSI agency (a)
--------------------
Employment 10.4 10.4 18.4 27.0 29.9 40.2 65.5
Health 21.6 23.8 28.5 36.5 37.9 38.1 41.1
Law and justice 6.5 8.0 10.9 12.1 12.9 13.2 14.7
Housing 42.3 50.2 57.9 68.9 78.5 81.8 90.4
Community infrastruct 21.7 24.8 32.1 35.2 34.8 49.1 45.5
Education 11.0 12.2 14.0 15.4 15.7 16.0 12.4
Other 55.2 68.6 81.0 86.1 85.4 93.6 107.8
Total 168.8 198.0 242.8 281.2 295.1 332.1 377.4
Other specific ATSI agencies
----------------------------
ATSICDC
Abor. Hostels
ABTA
AIATSIS
Ranger agree.
TSRA
Total
Other portfolios
----------------
Employment, Education and Training 148.6 167.3 180.6
Housing 59.4 60.0 83.0
Other 4.4 24.8 15.1
Total 212.5 252.2 278.8
GRAND TOTAL 168.8 198.0 242.8 281.2 507.6 584.3 656.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total
1994-95 prices 330.9 349.6 401.6 437.5 737.5 791.5 832.6
====================================================================================
1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88
====================================================================================
=============================================================
1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95
=============================================================
Main ATSI agency (a)
--------------------
Employment 99.0 133.2 194.1 204.5 240.8 251.9 278.3
Health 43.5 43.7 48.6 48.2 61.1 70.6 84.8
Law and justice 17.0 19.6 18.6 21.8 29.8 31.6 33.4
Housing 96.7 60.7 74.5 75.4 37.2 106.0 123.1
Community infrastruct 69.3 78.0 98.3 99.0 165.6 122.3 94.4
Education (d)
Other 124.5 172.9 170.2 160.9 262.4 305.7 327.5
Total 450.0 508.2 604.4 609.8 796.8 888.1 941.5
Other specific ATSI agencies
----------------------------
ATSICDC 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 (e)
Abor. Hostels 22.6 23.6 29.6 35.8 29.1
ABTA 37.3 31.1 27.0 29.1
AIATSIS 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.5
Ranger agree. 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
TSRA 21.9
Total 32.6 76.9 76.7 78.6 85.9
Other portfolios
----------------
Employment, Education 190.9 210.6 305.9 389.5 351.7 279.4 291.9
Housing 111.7 132.5 139.6 143.5 161.7 93.7 91.0
Other 24.9 22.9 35.3 37.8 51.1 22.3 63.1
Total 327.6 366.0 480.9 570.8 564.5 395.4 446.0
GRAND TOTAL 777.6 874.1 1117.9 1257.5 1438.0 1362.0 1473.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total
1994-95 prices 911.0 961.5 1180.1 1302.5 1471.5 1378.3 1473.4
====================================================================================
1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95
====================================================================================
(a) Office of Aboriginal Affairs - 1967 to 1971; Department of Aboriginal Affairs -
1972 to March 1990; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission - March 1990 onwards.
(b) Excludes Community Housing.
(c) Includes Community Housing.
(d) Function absorbed by other agencies from 1988-89.
(e) Became self-funding from 1994-95.
Source: Annual Report of the main ATSI agency, various years.
It is important to note the following:
- The main-agency figures include not only loans and grants to organisations
and payments to State and Territory governments, but also running /administration
costs and consequently the ATSIC figures given here are usually a little
higher than those used in the Government's annual Social Justice
for Indigenous Australians.
- As the names of the main agency's areas of activities and of the other
Commonwealth portfolios with relevant expenditure have varied over the
years only general descriptors of these areas and portfolios are used.
For example, main agency 'health' includes substance abuse programs
while main agency 'employment' under ATSIC narrows down to only Community
Development Employment Projects (CDEP) figures, leaving some other employment
expenditure under 'other main agency expenditure'.
- Some of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific agencies
which make an appearance on the graph in the 1990s (eg ATSICDC - Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation and AIATSIS
- the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Studies) had predecessors in the 1980s, expenditure on which has been
included under 'Main agency - other'.
Since identifiable expenditure on Aboriginal-specific programs started
to increase rapidly a decade ago, there have been many suggestions that
the Federal Government's administrative definition of Aboriginality was
too loose. Arguments in favour of this proposition include:
- The increase in identifiable expenditure followed, albeit by five
years, the introduction in 1980 of the following administrative definition:
'An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is a person of Aboriginal
or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which
he (she) lives.' This three-part definition soon started to enter legislation
(eg. Aboriginal Land Claims Act 1983, s 2) and was accepted
by the High Court (Mr Justice Deane in Commonwealth v. Tasmania
1983) as giving meaning to the expression 'Aboriginal race' within
s. 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution.
- There are alternatives. For more than sixty years the Commonwealth
used a narrow definition of Aboriginal. As early as 29 August 1901 Attorney-General
Alfred Deakin advised that 'half-castes' are not 'aboriginal natives'
within the meaning of s 127 of the Constitution. The opinion was endorsed
by Attorney-General Isaac Isaacs in October 1905 and repeated in each
Census Report form 1911 to 1966(1).
- The Federal Government's three-part administrative definition of Aboriginality
is out of step with the genealogical definition used in many pieces
of Federal legislation: 'Aboriginal' means a person who is a member
of the Aboriginal race of Australia.'(2)
- The Federal Government has not always been strict in the application
of its 'acceptance' test. Not only have Australian born South Sea Islanders
reportedly received Aboriginal benefits, but the Full Federal Court
found in Attorney-General (Cth) v. State of Queensland, July
1990, that Aboriginal descent was sufficient grounds for the Royal Commission
into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody to inquire into the death of Darren
Wouters, even though the community did not identify him as Aboriginal
nor did he identify himself as Aboriginal.
Arguments against the above proposition include:
- There is no blood test or physical examination which can establish
aboriginality. Scientists long ago recognised 'race' to be a social
construct with no biological basis, that genetic and morphological variation
within the human species is far too small to sub-divide the species,
and that it is much more useful to conceive of the species in terms
of 'populations' suggested by region, culture, caste, religion, kinship
and frequency, not exclusiveness, of genetic traits.(3)
- The definitions based on degrees of Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal blood
which were used for decades in State legislation produced capricious
and inconsistent results based, in practice, on nothing more than an
observation of skin colour. Drawing on documented sources, the historian
Peter Read has offered the following conflation:
In 1935 a fair-skinned Australian of part-indigenous descent was
ejected from a hotel for being an Aboriginal. He returned to his
home on the mission station to find himself refused entry because
he was not an Aboriginal. He tried to remove his children but was
told he could not because they were Aboriginal. He walked to the
next town where he was arrested for being an Aboriginal vagrant
and placed on the local reserve. During the Second World War he
tried to enlist but was told he could not because he was Aboriginal.
He went interstate and joined up as a non-Aboriginal. After the
war he could not acquire a passport without permission because he
was Aboriginal. He received exemption from the Aborigines Protection
Act - and was told that he could no longer visit his relations on
the reserve because he was not an Aboriginal. He was denied permission
to enter the returned Servicemen's Club because he was.(4)
- The three-part definition helps protect individuals from the prejudice
of contemporary society. One of the main findings of a recent study
was that 'mainstream Australians' are very ready to use labels such
as "half-caste" and "1/16th black", to consider
"real" indigenous people as living somewhere else and to see
the "white" indigenous person as manipulating the system.(5)
- In countries such as Canada where the Federal Government was involved
in indigenous affairs from an early date, 19th and early 20th century
categorisations of indigenous people have become entrenched and present
enormous problems for individuals and families.
- The inclusion in the present definition of self-identification fits
well with such definitions as that considered by the UN Working Group
on Indigenous Populations in 1986:
Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having
a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies...,
consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies
now prevailing in those territories.... They form at present non-dominant
sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit
to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic
identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples,
in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions
and legal systems.(6)
- The three-part nature of the present administrative definition produces
a tighter definition than that which would result from one based only
on descent and indeed, when the Government introduced its ATSIC Bill
in 1988, it was criticised by the Coalition and the Democrat spokespeople
on Aboriginal Affairs for using the broader, and arguably circular,
definition of an Aboriginal person as 'a person of the Aboriginal race
of Australia'.(7)
Comments made during the 1996 Federal election campaign prompted much
public debate on the above proposition. Arguments for the proposition
include(8):
- With only 1.6% of the total Australian population identifying as indigenous,
per capita Commonwealth expenditure on Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people is high and contributing to the spread of welfare dependency
among indigenous people.
- Some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific entitlements appear
to have more generous conditions than do their mainstream equivalents
(eg. the parental means test for Abstudy's living allowance and the
eligibility criteria for Abstudy's school/hostel directed boarding allowance).
Arguments against the above proposition include(9):
- By any socio-economic indicator indigenous Australians are, as a group,
far worse off than non-indigenous Australians. Numerous reports identify
massive unmet need, especially in the area of housing and infrastructure
for remote Aboriginal communities, and, as high as present expenditure
is, it is following decades of neglect and legal discrimination.
- Less than 10% of the Commonwealth's assistance to indigenous people
is in the form of payments to individuals.
- Nearly a third of Commonwealth wide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
specific expenditure (and nearly all ATSIC's expenditure) substitutes
to a large measure for expenditure on mainstream assistance programs
(eg. Abstudy for Austudy, Community Employment for Newstart, Community
Housing for housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing agreement,
Aboriginal Legal Aid for general legal aid, Aboriginal Medical Services
for Medicare supported services). A further 10% is for services which
are arguably the responsibility of other levels of government.
- Indigenous Australians utilise mainstream services and benefits such
as Pharmaceutical Benefits and Aged Care at a much lower rate than other
Australians. In fact, in 1993-94 the sum of mainstream and specific
health expenditure on indigenous people (1.6% of the population) was
only 1.26% of total Commonwealth health expenditure.(10)
- Most Aboriginal-specific programs are not generous in their entitlements
(eg the Community Development Employment Projects, nearly one third
of ATSIC's budget, offer working participants the equivalent of or less
than a Jobsearch allowance).
Since the election, allegations of favouritism and financial irregularities
within bodies funded by ATSIC (eg the NSW and Victorian Aboriginal Legal
Services), within ATSIC regional councils (eg over housing development
funds) and within the ATSIC board itself (eg over grants and conflict
of interest) have given rise to debate on the above proposition. Arguments
in favour of the proposition include:
- ATSIC's role as a representative political body needs to be separated
from its role as a service provider.
- The delivery of Government service on grounds of Aboriginality not
only generates resentment in the community which does not assist the
people the services are meant to benefit, but it may add to welfare
dependency.(11)
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific programs (other than
those concerned specifically with land and culture) could be run either
as such by mainstream specialist agencies (just as the Department of
Education has administered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student
assistance since 1988 and the Department of Health has had responsibility
for Aboriginal Medical Services since 1995) or, when they substitute
for easily accessible mainstream programs, could be abandoned in favour
of the latter.
- In some cases an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific program
(eg CDEP) could become a program open to all Australians.
Arguments against the above proposition include:
- Mainstream agencies lack the cultural sensitivity to deliver services
successfully to indigenous Australians.
- Indigenous control of these services is essential for the advancement
of Aboriginal self-determination and reconciliation.
- The accountability requirements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
organisations are strict compared with those imposed on the states and
territories for their use of relevant Commonwealth money.
- Many problems may be solved by changing, not ATSIC, but the Aboriginal
Councils and Associations Act 1976, presently under review, so
that corporate structures are not forced onto small bodies which are
supplying essential services.
The question for policy makers is how to find a way forward on the service
delivery front given the above arguments and given indigenous peoples'
wider aspirations in the not unrelated areas of human rights, land rights,
constitutional reform and recognition of customary law. It may be that
at many points the best way forward lies somewhere between the opposing
positions characterised above. It may also be that there are entirely
different ways forward.
An alternative to either tightening or loosening the administrative
definition of Aboriginality may be to have no definition. Eligibility
for a benefit or program could be in terms of descent from a traditional
owner, recognition as custodian, health, employment or educational need,
language used etc, depending on the particular purpose of the benefit
or program.
An alternative to both the ATSIC and mainstream model of service delivery,
may be regional bloc funding. Such funding might be an extension of administrative
agreements between interested parties, might involve establishing new
statutory regional authorities (along the lines of the Torres Strait Regional
Authority) or might involve setting up new regional governments (as happened
in the Norfolk Island Act 1979).
Endnotes
- Hanks, Peter: 'A National Aboriginal Policy?', UNSW Law Journal,
Vol. 16(1), 1993: 48-49.
- eg Aboriginal and Torres Strait (Queensland Discriminatory Laws)
Act 1975, Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976,
Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and
Communities Self-Management) Act 1978, Aboriginal Development
Commission Act 1980, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Aboriginal Land Grant
(Jervis Bay Territory) Territory Act 1986.
- eg Bowles, G., The Peoples of Asia, 1977: 2-3.
- From an as yet unpublished paper presented at the Aboriginal Citizenship
conference at the Australian National University in February 1996.
- Report by Brian Sweeney and associates for the Aboriginal Reconciliation
Branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, A New
Beginning: Community Attitudes towards Aboriginal reconciliation, January
1995: i.
- Cunneen, Chris and Libesman, Terry, Indigenous People and the
Law in Australia, Butterworths' Legal Studies Series, 1995: 238.
- Gardiner-Garden, J., 'Aboriginality and Aboriginal rights in Australia',
Mabo Papers, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Parliamentary
Research Service Subject Collection No.1, 1994: 43.
- For the many harder-to-substantiate but widely held beliefs which
help give the above proposition community acceptance, see the report
produced by Brian Sweeney and Associated for the Aboriginal Reconciliation
Branch of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, A New Beginning:
Community Attitudes towards Aboriginal Reconciliation, January
1996.
- For more on the issues of substitution and utilisation see Commonwealth
Government paper Social Justice for Indigenous Australians 1994-95,
especially pages 39-41, the 1994 ATSIC commissioned study entitled 'The
Substitution Factor in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Programs'
and the Parliamentary Library's Research Note No.16, 16 October
1995.
- Dodson, Michael, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner, Second Report 1994: 128.
- eg Pollard, David, 'Ending Aboriginal Poverty', Policy Autumn
1991: 9.
|
 |
