|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 4 - Accountability Requirements
4.1
This chapter discusses the accountability requirements
of representative bodies in fulfilling their statutory functions. The chapter
also reviews the progress made by NTRBs in developing their performance
reporting and strategic planning processes. In addition, the chapter reviews the
level of accountability and compliance required of representative bodies.
4.2
The Native Title
Act 1993 (NTA) requires NTRBs to be accountable to the Minister and to the
persons they represent in a number of ways. These accountability requirements
include the following features:
-
a representative body must prepare a strategic
plan;
-
a representative body must maintain accounting
records prescribed by the NTA;
-
payments that are made by a representative body
out of its monies must be correctly made and properly authorised;
-
a representative body must prepare an annual
report by 15 October each year (which is tabled in the Parliament); and
-
ancillary provisions provide for the inspection
and audit or investigation of a representative body.[143]
Strategic plans/performance reporting
4.3
The OIPC stated that strategic plans are central to the
prioritising, planning and reporting of activities of representative bodies. Each
representative body is required by the NTA to prepare a strategic plan (s.203D).
Strategic plans must cover a minimum of three years, and, without limiting the
content of the plans, must include:
-
a general financial plan;
-
a general statement of the objectives of the
body in relation to its representative body activities; and
-
a general statement of the strategies and
policies it proposes to adopt to achieve those objectives.[144]
4.4
Strategic plans must be prepared in consultation with
the OIPC and are subject to approval by the Minister. These plans are the key
means for the Minister to supervise the overall management of the
representative body program and to ensure that representative bodies remain
focussed on achieving the general purposes of the representative body regime.
4.5
The OIPC stated that strategic plans enable NTRBs to be
proactive in the way they provide services to their constituents by maximising
the use of funding and human resources and by establishing and documenting
criteria by which funding allocations will be prioritised.
The objective sought is a culture of performance budgeting and
reporting, based on the strategic planning process, and embedded in the
allocation of funds on a transparent and objective basis relative to
performance and requirements.[145]
4.6
Representative bodies indicated their support for the
concept of strategic plans. The Carpentaria Land Council stated that strategic
plans play a vital role in the prioritising, planning and reporting of its
activities and welcomes the support provided by the OIPC in improving the
quality of its strategic planning processes.[146]
The ATSI Social Justice Commissioner also noted that the strategic planning
process encourages the participation of Indigenous people in the native title
process particularly as strategic plans must include a statement on the
particular NTRBs' policies for consultation with Indigenous people about the
NTA's operation.[147]
4.7
The first strategic plans developed under the amended
NTA covered the period to the end of the 2003-04 financial year. All NTRBs have
subsequently developed new plans for the period 2004-07 and these have been
presented to the Minister.
4.8
The OIPC stated that it has worked closely with
representative bodies to assist their planning processes, including developing
templates to guide NTRBs in plan preparation. Workshops were held in 2003 by
ATSIC and ATSIS with NTRB managers and accountants to define the output and
outcomes reporting framework, the theory of outputs/outcomes budgeting and linkages
between operational and strategic plans and reporting requirements. To achieve
consistency NTRBs were asked to prepare their 2004-05 operational plans and
their 2004-07 strategic plans using the same outputs and outcomes framework.
ATSIS provided bodies with strategic and operational planning templates. The OIPC
stated that representative bodies should continue to be supported in improving
their strategic planning processes and integrating strategic plans, operational
plans and performance based budgeting and reporting.[148]
4.9
The Miller report made a number of recommendations to
improve the funding process for representative bodies including requiring
operational plans to be included in annual funding applications both to give
effect to strategic plans and to provide much needed performance information.
The report also recommended a continuation of the work done by ATSIC in
developing an outputs/outcomes budgeting framework for representative bodies,
and that the Capacity Building Program be used to assist in the implementation
of the recommendations.[149]
4.10
OIPC stated that it has implemented a number of
processes to meet the recommendations of the Miller report including:
-
the development of representative body
operational planning guidelines and template;
-
the requirement that representative bodies
prepare and submit an operational plan (this requirement commenced with 2003-04
funding applications);
-
the requirement that representative bodies
provide six-monthly performance reports (in addition to their existing annual
reporting obligations); and
-
the requirement that such operational plans and
performance reports be based on an outputs/outcomes framework.[150]
4.11
While all NTRBs adopted the new reporting frameworks
for 2003-04, the OPIC stated the task is only partly completed.
There is a considerable way to go before it is possible to be confident
that the information from representative bodies concerning workloads, outputs
and outcomes is sufficiently accurate and reliable to provide sound advice for
certainty about the allocation of funds. OIPC wants to continue to move to output
based funding.[151]
Annual reports
4.12
As noted above, NTRBs are also required to submit
annual reports which are tabled in the Parliament. ATSIS commented that the
annual reports are generally of a high standard, although it was conceded that
the production of these reports is a resource-intensive exercise for many
representative bodies.
...every rep body has tabled an annual report....it has been late in
some cases, but when you think that we are dealing here with community based
organisations that, in many cases, do not have long histories and are operating
in remote parts of Australia, to ultimately produce annual reports that meet
the same standards that a government department does is a pretty good job.[152]
Level of accountability
4.13
Evidence from representative bodies acknowledged that they,
that like all recipients of public moneys, should be accountable for the way
they spend funds provided by the Commonwealth. Several submissions from
representative bodies and other evidence complained, however, about the level
and extent of accountability requirements expected of NTRBs.
4.14
The ATSI Social Justice Commissioner argued that NTRB
funding is more highly regulated and controlled than other areas of government
funding: 'the NTA contains a range of other provisions in relation to what NTRBs
must do, both in their substantive work and in their procedures'. The
Commissioner also argued that the degree of accountability required of NTRBs
should be the same as that required of other parties in the native title system
in receipt of public funds.[153]
4.15
The Goldfields
Land and Sea Council (GLSC) also
noted that 'while funding shrinks relative to our workload, accountability and
compliance requirements increase'. The Council added:
The current system causes many additional and unnecessary
problems, and places enormous stress and pressures on NTRBs. Much improvement
could be achieved to improve the arrangements without cost to government. It is
probable that more reasonable, consistent, streamlined and predictable
arrangements would result in savings that could be reallocated to assist NTRBs
better satisfy the requirements of the Native
Title Act.[154]
4.16
The GLSC described the amount of 'red tape' required as
"'meta-work": work about work, rather than work about getting out and
trying to win claims...it takes up considerable resources and energy, and can be
quite distressing'. The Council enumerated in some detail the various compliance
requirements imposed on representative bodies:
We have faced the considerable and increasingly rigorous
requirements of the Commonwealth...There are considerable requirements on rep
bodies in terms of governance. There is the annual report, which we have
tendered and which we have to file in parliament. There is a strategic plan
under the act. That is approved by the minister. Now there is a thing called an
"operational plan" that, under the grants agreement, needs to be
approved by OIPC. That is the minutiae of operational matters of the workings
of the land council, which are, after all, statutory functions.[155]
4.17
One submission noted that there are, however,
compelling reasons for stringent oversight of representative bodies, although
the level of oversight was questioned:
Because they [NTRBs] are, to a large extent, bodies comprised of
(or including) existing and potential claimants, there is a real potential for
conflicts of interest and corrupt practices. No doubt because of these dangers,
the Native Title Act (and other
legislation) subjects representative bodies to high (even extraordinary) levels
of oversight and regulation.[156]
4.18
The submission further noted, however, that every
dollar of public money spent on oversight and regulation 'is money which might
otherwise provide a direct benefit to Aboriginal Australians'.[157]
4.19
A similar argument was made by the ATSI Social Justice
Commissioner who argued that the need for accountability should be balanced against
the objectives of representative bodies in providing services to their client
base.
This submission is not advocating that NTRB funding be free of
conditions or government scrutiny. In the situation of limited funding, clearly
some systems need to be put in place to ensure equitable use of those funds
between NTRBs around the country. But in applying these conditions funding
bodies need to ensure the conditions are not impeding the very purposes for
which funding is provided.[158]
Conclusion
4.20
The Committee welcomes the continuing development of
performance reporting by representative bodies through the implementation of
strategic plans and other performance-based operational plans. Further, the
Committee supports the continued efforts of the OIPC to improve representative
bodies' strategic planning processes.
4.21
The Committee believes that rigorous accountability
mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that the considerable public moneys
expended on NTRBs is spent appropriately. Both the Indigenous constituency of
representative bodies and the public in general must have confidence in the
accountability and compliance processes.
4.22
Evidence to the inquiry indicates, however, that the
administrative demands in connection with compliance activities pose a
considerable burden on representative bodies. Time spent complying with
excessive documentation can significantly affect the time spent on the representative
bodies' core activities relating to native title applications – the very
purposes for which the funding is provided. The Committee believes that the
OIPC, in conjunction with representative bodies, should review the current
accountability requirements with the aim of streamlining the requirements where
possible without compromising the essential accountability requirements of representative
bodies.
Recommendation 15
4.23
The Committee recommends that the OIPC continue to
support NTRBs in improving the quality of their strategic planning processes
and especially in integrating strategic plans, operational plans and
performance based budgeting and reporting.
Recommendation 16
4.24
The Committee recommends that the OIPC, in consultation
with representative bodies, review the current compliance and accountability
requirements placed on NTRBs with a view to reducing unnecessary duplication of
reporting and streamlining reporting procedures.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 22 March 2006 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
