WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer and Copyright Details
Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment
Bill 1999
Date Introduced: 30 March 1999
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Finance and Administration
Commencement: On Royal Assent
The Bill provides
the Commonwealth Grants Commission with the statutory authority to
investigate and make recommendations regarding the financing of
works and services for indigenous people.
The Second Reading Speech for this Bill is very
brief - comprising 400 words. It simply indicates the Bill is part
of the Government's current agenda in indigenous affairs and says
it represents a step in 'providing a better basis for the
distribution of funding for indigenous affairs' - a commitment
which is identified as being part of the Government's 1998 election
campaign.
The general issue of funding for indigenous
people has been the subject of controversy under the current and
previous Governments. Some more recent controversies have centred
on the role of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission
('ATSIC'), and others have involved broader considerations of the
philosophical and social basis for 'special' funding of particular
sections of the community.(1) The Second Reading Speech implicitly
raises these issues by referring to the Government's hope that the
Bill will 'further [its] aim of improving the situation of
Australia's indigenous people by ensuring that an independent
assessment of their need for services and programs is
undertaken.'(2)
The question of ATSIC's role and independence,
and issues of indigenous self-determination are not directly dealt
with in the Speech, however they are relevant to the policy issues
raised by this Bill, most particularly with respect to access to
information generated by the proposed independent authority.
The Commonwealth Grants Commission ('the
Commission') is an independent statutory authority which was
established in 1933 to assess claims made by States for financial
assistance. Early in its history the Commission was involved in
examining the need for 'special grants' for the States, but since
the introduction of uniform income taxation in 1942 Commonwealth
payments to the States (and Territories) have been more substantial
and regular. During the mid 1970's the pool of general revenue
assistance was distributed according to 'per capita relativities'
set in 1975-76, however these relativities are now reviewed
annually and the method by which they are calculated is also
reviewed on a five yearly basis.(3)
The Commission is an advisory body that responds
to terms of reference and does not have the power to initiate and
pursue inquiries on its own authority other than within limited
statutory provisions. However as part of its examination of
'relative disabilities' in determining the distribution of funding
between the States and Territories it takes into account issues of
indigenous disadvantage. At a Workshop organised by the Council for
Aboriginal Reconciliation in late 1998, Mr Bob Searle, the
Commission's Secretary explained that Aboriginality is one of the
'disability factors' behind the Commission's recommendations on how
Commonwealth General Revenue Grants should be distributed and
that Aboriginality is a specific disability
factor in 18 of the 40 State functions the Commission analyses as
it attempts to equalise the capacity of each State/Territory to
deliver the average standard service.(4)
This Workshop also identified problems with the
state of available data regarding indigenous disadvantage and said
that:
Since reliable data is an essential tool of
effective benchmarking, this is clearly an obstacle that must be
overcome as quickly as possible.(5)
The Workshop reflected that there has been
misinterpretation of the role of ATSIC and that:
Within current resources ATSIC is hard-pressed
trying to meet its core obligations as a source of policy advice
and as a monitor of program delivery to Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people. It is certainly not in a position, either
through its legislative charter or in terms of capacity, to fill
gaps left by mainstream providers at either the State or
Commonwealth level.(6)
These statements indicate that, arguably, there
are advantages to the Commission having statutory authority to
investigate the equities in the funding of works and services for
indigenous people. The Commission's role in determining the fair
distribution of Commonwealth funding between the States and
Territories is likely to be enhanced by recognising the need to
address the endemic disadvantages faced by sections of the
indigenous people in the Australian community. It is important to
note in this context that there is scope for the Commission to take
advice and evidence from interested parties (s. 20 Commonwealth
Grants Commission Act 1973). However the provisions of the
Bill do not address the policy question of whether funding should
be provided to ATSIC allowing it to adequately provide policy
advice and monitor program delivery.
Another issue to be noted regarding the Bill is
that the role of the Commission in monitoring issues of indigenous
disadvantage has been on the agenda for some time. In Going
Forward: Social Justice for the First Australians, a
submission presented to the then Prime Minister, the Hon Paul
Keating MP, on 17 March 1995 there was a recommendation that the
Commission should be given the power to establish measures to
assess the performance of State and Territory governments in
addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander needs.(7)
In 1995 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner said in his third report that:
The proposal for a Grants Commission review of
funding arrangements in regard to Aboriginal communities and
organisations is not new. During the Commonwealth Grants
Commission's 1993 review of the relativities for the distribution
of funds between the States and Territories, the Commission
received submissions from a number of Aboriginal organisations. A
number of Aboriginal people appeared before the Commission in
Darwin in December 1992. The Commission summarised the proposals
suggested by these people and the organisations as follows:
the Commonwealth Grants Commission should
recommend to the Commonwealth Government that fiscal equalisation
be applied to Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal local governing
bodies and other Aboriginal service organisations; and,
the Commonwealth Grants Commission should
establish an inquiry to investigate:
- how fiscal equalisation could
be applied to Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal local governing
bodies and Aboriginal service organisations;
- how a system of block funding
could be introduced in the context of the current multiplicity of
funding sources which involve different levels of government;
- how the relevant needs of
communities could be assessed;
- the extent to which block
funding should be extended to cover the range of services provided
to communities;
- what should be done about
funding for regionally provided services such as health, legal aid
and resource agencies; and,
- what financial,
administrative and accounting practices would need to be
implemented as part of any move to block funding.(8)
The Social Justice Commissioner went on to
recommend:
That the Commonwealth Government initiate:
A comprehensive study by the Commonwealth Grants
Commission of the potential application of the fiscal equalisation
principle among Indigenous communities in Australia. Such a study
to be undertaken in a manner which allows for the outcomes to be
broken down into both States/Territories and regions; and
A specific reference to the Commonwealth Grants
Commission to explore solutions to the enormous and inequitable
capital infrastructure needs of Indigenous communities.(9)
At the Australian Reconciliation Convention in
May 1997 a session was held regarding 'Accountability in Service
Delivery.' In a strongly worded speech Mr Aden Ridgeway, spoke
about cuts to ATSIC and the process by which indigenous Australians
are the 'most scrutinized and audited group of people in this
country.' (It should be noted that the Commission has powers of
reporting regarding funding arrangements and distribution rather
than being an auditing body). Mr Ridgeway also identified that
there were problems with the system of government accountability
and that while, the Commonwealth Grants Commission takes into
account indigenous disadvantage in determining the formula for
distribution of financial assistance grants, this is not always
reflected in the spending patterns of governments.(10)
Mr Searle, the Commission's Secretary, spoke at
the same session and reflected that:
The process of reconciliation would be enhanced
if the uncertainty at present associated with responsibilities to
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were removed from
the structure of public service provision.(11)
ATSIC are not on the record as having responded
to the introduction of this Bill, although it should be noted that
in their submission to the Keating Government Recognition
Rights and Reform: A Report to Government on Native Title Social
Justice Measures ATSIC recommended that:
The Commonwealth Government should, in
consultation with ATSIC, initiate a comprehensive inquiry into the
level and effectiveness of expenditure by the States and
Territories and local Government on service provision for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This inquiry should
be conducted by the Commonwealth Grants Commission or an
independent expert as a matter of urgency and be completed by the
end of 1995. The inquiry should have particular regard to current
assessments of State/Territory expenditure requirements and general
community standards, and would encompass, among other things:
a. recurrent and capital needs of indigenous
communities to upgrade and maintain service provision to an
acceptable and standard level, comparable to wider community
standards, by 2001;
b. the range of revenue sources for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander community service provision, including
community raised revenue and that currently provided or
administered at Commonwealth, State/Territory or local Government
levels; and
c. options for funding service provision on a
regional basis.
The Bill is quite brief. It amends the
Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 ('the Principal
Act') in four ways.
The explanatory part of the Principal Act's
Title is modified to include a reference to the Commission's
expanded role - i.e. its role in making 'recommendations concerning
the ...financing of works and services in respect of indigenous
persons' (item 1 of Schedule 1).
A definition of 'indigenous person' is inserted into the
definitions section (item 2). This definition
corresponds to standard definitions in use.
Item 3 inserts a new section
(proposed section 18) which enables the Commission
to make inquiries relating to indigenous persons when the Minister
refers a matter to the Commission. The matters which may be
referred by the Minister are quite broad and include works and
services for indigenous persons which are provided or funded
(directly or indirectly) by the Commonwealth, and other financial
assistance grants made to States and Territories.
Item 4 applies the Principal
Act's standard tabling procedures for reports to those reports made
under proposed section 18. These tabling
procedures provide the Minister with a discretion to table the
reports made by the Commission (subs. 25(1)), unless the Government
is to introduce legislation 'relating to the subject of a report,'
in which case the Minister is required to table the relevant report
(subs. 25(2)).
In the current climate of tension between
sections of the indigenous community, including ATSIC, and the
Government, it is difficult to see what impact this legislation
might have. Rlations between the Commonwealth Grants Commission and
ATSIC seem to have been productive and the data generated by the
Commission could be useful in improving funding arrangements. One
possible difficulty in the arrangements is that indigenous
self-determination does not seem to have featured as a policy
consideration in this matter. The Commission reports to the
Minister for Finance and while the Minister may choose to table the
reports in Parliament there is no requirement that this occur
unless legislation is to be introduced which is connected to a
report by the Commission. Amendments which would ensure public
access to the reports of the Commission might facilitate indigenous
participation in the policy debates which follow completion of such
reports.
-
- See for instance, 'A sorry saga of official neglect' The
Age, Thursday 27 May 1999; 'Howard breaks vow, fuels fires of
division: black leader' The Canberra Times Thursday 27
May, 1999; 'ATSIC head says Indigenous health needs overlooked' ABC
Newslink, 25 October, 1997; 'Aboriginal leaders condemn PM's
address to nation' ABC Newslink, 30 November, 1997; 'Accusations
fly as angry ATSIC censures Herron' Sydney Morning Herald,
March 25, 1998; 'Herron seeks ATSIC crackdown' Sydney Morning
Herald, July 11, 1998.
- Mr Slipper, Second Reading Speech, House of Representatives,
Official Hansard, 30 March 1999, 4694-4695.
- Commonwealth Grants Commission, Annual Report 1997-98,
see generally Chapter 2, 'The Historical Background', pp. 6-12.
- 'The Threshold of Benchmarking,' Bob Searle, Proceedings of the
Benchmarking Workshop, 18-19 November 1998, Council for Aboriginal
Reconciliation.
- Executive Summary, Proceedings of the Benchmarking Workshop,
18-19 November 1998, Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.
- Ibid.
- This submission was identified as the first major task of the
Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in its second term and its
recommendations were based on extensive consultations with
indigenous communities organised jointly by the Council for
Aboriginal Reconciliation and ATSIC.
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner, Third Report, 1995, p. 89.
- Ibid., p. 91.
- 'Human Rights and Indigenous Australians: Accountability in
Service Delivery', AD Ridgeway, May 1997.
-
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/car/arc/oview.htm
'Human Rights and Indigenous Australians:
Accountability in Service Delivery', RJ Searle, May 1997.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/car/arc/oview.htm
Kirsty Magarey
10 June 1999
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with
Senators and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 1999
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
1999.
Back to top