Is too much government funding being directed towards Aboriginal Australians?
Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
`When we go and argue the point (for increased funding) they say we are crying out and whingeing for more. We have no intention of getting more than the next fella, we just want to get to the stage of being level'
Mr Puggy Hunter, the Head of the National Aboriginal Community controlled Health Organisation
`If we can demonstrate that the whole procedure is tightened up, that the money is going to organisations that can account for it correctly, then there will be no basis for the complaints of people like Pauline Hanson that money is being wasted or thrown away'
Senator Herron, Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, commenting on his government's decision to audit ATSIC
The independent member for Oxley, Ms Pauline Hanson, has criticised the degree of government assistance being given to Aboriginal Australians. Ms Hanson's criticisms received particular public attention after her maiden speech in the Federal Parliament in September.
Ms Hansen has claimed, `Present governments are encouraging separatism in Australia by providing opportunities ... monies and facilities available only to Aborigines.'
Though this claim has met with significant popular support, it has also been widely criticised as inaccurate and divisive
The issue of the funding directed toward Aboriginal Australians had already attracted significant public attention after the Federal Government froze Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) funds in April, 1996, while it appointed an independent auditor to investigate how these funds were being spent.
Background
In 1967 a national referendum resulted in more than 90 per cent of Australian citizens voting that citizenship rights should be extended to Aboriginal Australians. It also enabled the Federal Government to legislate on their behalf.
This was widely interpreted at the time to mean that a majority of Australians wanted improvements made in the living standards of indigenous Australians.
Since then significant changes have occurred. Not least among these has been the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), which oversees the expenditure of over a billion dollars of government monies intended to assist Aboriginal Australians.
Another major development was the Mabo ruling which appeared to grant a legal basis for land claims by some Aboriginal Australians and at the very least removed the long-standing legal fiction that Australia was not an inhabited continent when European settlers came here.
However, there has been limited progress made in areas such as Aboriginal housing, health and education. Aboriginal mortality rates remain high and a host of social problems persist.
Recently criticisms have been levelled at ATSIC for the manner in which it dispenses its monies. An auditor was appointed in April, 1996, and the Federal Government froze ATSIC's funds. The Federal Court then ruled that the government did not have the power to act in this way.
An interesting indicator of popular opinion and a catalyst for further debate has been the recent election of independent federal MP, Ms Pauline Hanson.
Ms Hanson was elected to the Queensland seat of Oxley. She originally stood as a Liberal candidate, but her candidature was withdrawn after her outspoken and critical comments about aid given Aborigines and the extent and nature of immigration to Australia.
Arguments opposing the claim that Aboriginal funding is excessive
There are two primary arguments offered to support the claim that funding directed towards Aboriginal people in Australia is not excessive. The first of these starts from the question of need.
According to this line of argument, the general living standards of most Aboriginal people is so low that the Government has an obligation to direct more, rather than less, resources toward addressing the problem.
Critics seeking additional government funding point to the state of social, economic and physical disadvantage in which many Aboriginal people still live.
One of the principal criticisms of current spending priorities is that they have failed to alleviate the poor standard of health among many Aboriginal Australians.
On average, Aborigines have a reported life expectancy between 15 and 20 years lower than that of non-indigenous Australians. They also have a much higher incidence of many diseases, including diabetes, which is becoming more prevalent.
The poor standard of health among many Aboriginal people has been stressed by the president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Keith Woollard.
In early September, 1996, Dr Woollard visited the Kimberley to observe first-hand the health status of the people who live there. He travelled from the towns of Kununurra, Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing to the remote communities of Beagle Bay and Bidyanga.
One of the subsequent reports of his trip claims he found `communities living in Third World conditions, plagued by death and disease.'
The reason for the low level of health in these areas has been said to include an extremely poor standard of accommodation.
It has been claimed, for example, that many people living in the Mardiwah Loop community at Halls Creek, have only tin sheds in which to live. These dwellings have dirt floors and are without toilets or water.
It has further been claimed, that frequently, where accommodation standards are better, there is unacceptable overcrowding.
An incidence cited is that of the Bidyanga community, south of Broome, which, it is claimed, has 650 people living in just 47 houses.
In addition, it is claimed that complicating the picture are issues of unemployment and poor education which, it has been said by some, contribute to problematic mental health and a high level of alcoholism, substance abuse and domestic violence.
On the question of mental health, it has been claimed that six young Aboriginal men committed suicide in the Kimberley region just in the month of August, 1996.
Supporters of increased rates of funding being directed toward Aboriginal people argue that this is not a matter of unfairly advantaging these groups.
Rather it is argued, Aboriginal people experience living standards so far below those of most Australians, that more monies must be directed toward them as a way of trying to correct the imbalance.
Mr Puggy Hunter, the Head of the National Aboriginal Community-controlled Health Organisation, has claimed, `When we go and argue the point (for increased funding) they say we are crying out and whingeing for more. We have no intention of getting more than the next fella, we just want to get to the stage of being level.'
Underlying this argument is the belief that one of the primary functions of government is to guarantee a decent minimum living standard for all its citizens.
Some community leaders have argued that the Australian government and the Australian people as a whole have a moral obligation to help make it possible for Aboriginal Australians to live in conditions of equity with other Australians.
Bishop Bruce Wilson addressing the Anglican Synod in Bathurst, stated, `Until we learn to treat black men and black women equally, we are a people without a soul.'
The second major argument is that, though Aboriginals need support to help them overcome depressed living standards, this does not mean they are treated in a way that places them at an advantage relative to other Australians.
According to this line of argument, many of the claims made about special, favourable treatment being received by Aboriginal people are either false or ignore the fact that similar treatment is received by disadvantaged non-Aboriginal Australians.
One of the claims made by Ms Pauline Hanson about the unfair advantage Aboriginals supposedly have relative to other Australians relates to housing loans. Mrs Hanson noted that Aboriginals can obtain housing loans with three and five percent interest.
The first countering argument offered in relation to this claim is that only a very small number of Aboriginal people actually receive home loans and become home-owners. It is claimed that only 28 per cent of Aboriginal Australian actually own their own homes, whereas 67 per cent of non-indigenous Australians do.
It has further been noted that the scheme being referred to, the ATSIC Home Loan Scheme, established in the 1970s, is now self-funding, which means that it does not impose a burden on taxpayers.
It is claimed that under the scheme disadvantaged Aborigines are entitled to a loan fixed at between 3 and 5 per cent for the first year. After that the interest rate rises by 1 per cent a year to a maximum of 8 per cent.
It is further argued that not only is this assistance not excessive, it is no greater than that received by some other disadvantaged groups within Australia. For example, several states have government-funded schemes, such as the Home Start scheme in South Australia and the Homes West scheme in Western Australia. Both provide home loans for low income earners at between 3 and 5 per cent.
A further claim made by Pauline Hanson regarding preferential treatment for Aboriginals is that Aboriginal students are said to receive more financial assistance than non-Aboriginal assistance.
The only specific additional assistance referred to was that Aboriginal students under Abstudy can receive a fares allowance not available under Austudy.
It has, however, been countered that such assistance is available under both schemes and that last year 48,500 students received this assistance under Austudy while 23,000 students were so assisted under Abstudy.
Further, in regard to claims that Aboriginal students receive accommodation assistance not available to other Australian students it has been counter-claimed that such assistance is also available to non-Aboriginal students under the `Assistance for Isolated Children' program.
In terms of the total assistance received by Aboriginal people, it has been claimed that though some 60 per cent of Aboriginal people derive their income from Government pensions and other payments, as part of the entire social welfare program, payments made to indigenous people account for only 3.3 per cent of all Department of Social Security payments.
Arguments supporting the claim that Aboriginal funding is excessive
There are three main arguments offered against the amount of government monies directed toward Aboriginal Australians.
One of the arguments offered is that many of the problems confronting Aboriginal Australians will not be solved by Government funding.
According to this line of argument many of the social and health problems faced by Aboriginal Australians require a change of attitude among the people concerned, rather than an injection of funds.
Age columnist, Padraic P. McGuinness, has cited an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey, which he claims indicates that `housing and poor access to public utilities is not at all the most significant [Aboriginal] health problem.'
Mr McGuinness refers to a range of health problems among Aboriginal Australians which he claims are not attributable to insufficient Government funds.
Mr McGuinness claims, `Nearly 60 per cent of the 197,500 Aborigines [surveyed] over 13 see alcohol as the biggest problem, followed by drugs and other substances at 38 per cent. Diabetes is the next most recognised problem, at 22 per cent, followed by heart and diet-cum-nutrition problems.'
Referring to the high incidence of diabetes as a perceived problem, Padraic McGuinness suggests that the cause of this problem is in significant measure diet-related and in particular is related to the high level of obesity among Aborigines. Mr McGuinness cites one of the findings of the ABS survey that `of those who were weighed, about 60 per cent of the males and 57 per cent of the females were found to be overweight or obese ... about 45 per cent of the 18-24 age group was found to be overweight or obese, compared to 20 per cent in the general population.'
Padraic McGuinness goes on to claim, `Violence is a pretty important health risk for Aborigines, 44 per cent of whom perceived family violence as a common problem.'
The conclusion Mr McGuinness draws is `Clearly, more government money is not the solution to all these problems.'
A further argument offered against the level of government funding being directed toward Aboriginal Australians is that the majority of Australian citizens is not prepared to sustain it.
The Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Herron, has claimed that taxpayers would not be prepared to pay what it would cost to find a solution for Aboriginal health problems.
`[We are] talking in the vicinity of at least $1000 a year or more than what you are paying now,' Senator Herron told a gathering of health workers and researchers in Darwin.
`Australians as a whole, the whole community, is not prepared to pay higher taxation for a greater quality of health care or delivery of health care and, in turn, I don't believe they are prepared to pay specifically for what you are proposing,' Senator Herron claimed.
The third argument put in favour of reduced expenditure on Aboriginal Australians is that what is required is that the monies being devoted to improving living conditions for Aborigines be effectively meted out to address carefully identified areas of need.
The implication is that if the money were spent more carefully less expenditure would be involved and results would be better.
This position has been put by Senator Herron who has claimed that what is needed is not simply a continuation of current government expenditure, nor an increase in expenditure, rather, he has claimed, money directed to support Aboriginal health and education has to be carefully targeted and the effectiveness of the expenditure carefully monitored.
Senator Herron has claimed, for example, that a formula needs to be developed to assess the different costs of funding health services in rural and urban Aboriginal communities.
A related area of concern has been the manner in which the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) has spent the government funding directed to it.
ATSIC allocates more than $1 billion worth of Government funding annually.
In April, 1996, Senator Herron directed that ATSIC could not distribute any of its money unless financial information was made available to an independent auditor.
Senator Herron directed that grants or loans could only be made if the auditor found that the body receiving the funds was fit and proper to receive public funds.
The Federal Court has since ruled that the Federal Government exceeded its powers when it appointed an auditor to investigate the finances of ATSIC.
Senator Herron has not, however, reciled from his government's decision to appoint an auditor. Instead he has claimed that the audit process, though halted by the Federal Court ruling, is largely completed and that its findings will result in valuable economies.
`Various organisations will be de-funded as a result of the special audit,' Senator Herron has claimed. `I don't have a final report, but it will more than justify the expense of the process.'
Senator Herron has further claimed, `If we can demonstrate that the whole procedure is tightened up, that the money is going to organisations that can account for it correctly, then there will be no basis for the complaints of people like Pauline Hanson that money is being wasted or thrown away.'
Further implications
The current debate as to what should be the level of government funding for Aboriginal welfare is not likely to improve Australia's international standing.
The United Nations has just issued its draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. ATSIC has argued in response to this that indigenous peoples should be given a permanent seat in the United Nations. This appears a clear statement that significant Aboriginal leaders want both a high level of self-determination and do not believe their interests are being adequately represented within the Australian political mainstream.
At the same time the pressure within the federal government toward budget economies in all areas, including Aboriginal spending, is likely to make bids to control spending such as that of ATSIC particularly attractive.
It is interesting to note that the Federal Court has ruled that the Federal Government did not have the power to freeze ATSIC funds and appoint an auditor.
Given that the Federal Government still appears to endorse its actions with regard to ATSIC it will be interesting to note just what mechanisms it attempts to put in place to allow it to regulate ATSIC spending.
It would also be interesting to know the extent to which the populace at large shares Ms Hanson's views with regard to Aboriginal funding.
The more popular support there is for Ms Hanson's views, the more likely it is that Aboriginal spending, even in sensitive areas, will be at least frozen, if not actually
reduced.
In a period of high unemployment, where economic rationalism and financial accountability are the order of the day it seems likely that means will be found to institute control measures.
Relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians threaten to deteriorate.
Sources
The Age
17/9/96 page 9 news item by Ben Mitchell, `Indigenous peoples need seat at UN: O'Donoghue' (Does not relate directly to Australian Aboriginal funding, however, it indicates some of ATSIC's broader objectives)
17/9/96 page 15 comment by Gerard Henderson, `Putting ill-informed bigotry on the record'
19/9/96 page 7 news item by Ben Mitchell and Laura Tingle, `Audit was illegal, court finds'
2/10/96 page 15 comment by Padraic P McGuinness, `Money won't fix all Aboriginal problems'
The Australian
16/9/96 page 3 news item by Michelle Gunn, `Rosie's lone protest spotlights a national shame'
17/9/96 page 4 news item by Georgina Windsor, `ATSIC urges support for indigenous rights code' (Does not relate directly to Australian Aboriginal funding, however, it indicates some of ATSIC's broader objectives)
19/9/96 page 1 news item by Trudy Harris and Georgina Windsor, `ATSIC: Judges block Herron'
19/9/96 page 8 editorial, `ATSIC does the right thing'
19/9/96 page 9 comment by Frank Devine, `How Hanson got it wrong'
1/10/96 page 6 news item by Maria Ceresa, `Public unwilling to pay $1000 for blacks: Herron'
2/10/96 page 3 news item by Maria Ceresa, `$1m ATSIC audit justified: Herron'
2/10/96 page 17 comment by Barry Cohen, `Charm, with reason, can work for blacks'
4/10/96 page 3 news item by Hawes and Ceresa, `International aid for blacks sobering: MP'
The Herald Sun
20/9/96 page 18 editorial, `Watching where the money goes'
19/10/96 page 21 analysis by Michelle Coffey, `Facts lacking in Hanson's claims'