AIATSIS Seminar September 2008 Zero Tolerance to Evidence An Example in Indigenous Housing

1. AIATSIS Seminar September 2008 Zero Tolerance to Evidence An Example in Indigenous Housing Russell Taylor

2. Zero Tolerance to Evidence – An Example in Indigenous Housing • New Public Management (NPM) thinking: • ‘The Three Lenses of Evidence-Based Policy’ by Brian Head (The Australian Journal of Public Administration Volume 67, Issue 1, March 2008 edition) • These 3 different ‘lenses’ provide important and different perspectives for policy analysis and understanding • political know how; • rigorous scientific and technical analysis; and • practical and professional field experience.

3. Case Study The Community Housing & Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Review 2007

4. The CHIP Review Context • This Program (some $300 million) was the main national program specifically supported urban, rural and remote Indigenous community housing needs. • The Review was to provide:- • “a robust and up to date evidence baseon the current situation facing Indigenous Australians with regard to housing and housing related infrastructure, and • advice on a strategic and operational framework for the future delivery of housing and related infrastructure to indigenous Australians within awhole of government approach • Issues Paper was to be platform for the Review. This paper argued pre-emptively that: • CHIP should be focussed on remote areas and very remote areas, • the private sector and mainstream public housing is adequate to meet the housing needs of Indigenous people in urban and regional areas, and, • There were concerns about the role and ongoing viability of Aboriginal community housing providers (ACHPs)

5. Outcomes of the CHIP Review The final report of the CHIP Review was released on 8 March 2007. The Review made extensive recommendations focusing on: • the abolition of the CHIP; • the establishment and policy directions for a proposed Remote Indigenous Accommodation Service (RIAS) • addressing Aboriginal housing need in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, ACT; and urban/regional Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia through mainstream public housing funded under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement • the ongoing viability of Aboriginal community housing sector.

6. Non Government response • There has been no formal public Australian Government response to the CHIP Review Report. But… • The Australian newspaper on February 22, 2007, Federal Minister Brough described his intention to submit a Cabinet proposal to redirect funding for Aboriginal housing from urban to remote areas, the stated aim of this proposal was to abolish Aboriginal specific public housing in cities, with current and future urban Aboriginal housing needs to be met by mainstream social housing. • Minister Brough further reported in The Australian on February 23, 2007 as saying that 600 Indigenous housing bodies were mis-managing taxpayer money and that his proposal to divert funds from major urban centres to remote communities would only affect a small proportion of urban Aboriginal people. AND…

7. Federal BudgetResponse • The 2007/08 Federal Budget papers :_ • Abolition of CHIP and commencement of a new Australian Remote Indigenous Accommodation (ARIA) program from 2008/09. Total ARIA funding will was announced at $1.6 billion over four years. • The ARIA program will target funding for Indigenous housing and infrastructure to remote communities only, with the requirement that housing stock previously managed by Indigenous community housing organisations be transferred to State Housing Authorities and that home ownership be promoted. • Subsequently Federal Government budget appropriations to the ARIA program model have been enhanced and • The Northern Territory Emergency Response has also been initiated with other related budgetary appropriations.

8. Aspects of Indigenous Housing Need in NSW • The Aboriginal population of NSW is 138,506[1]. NSW contains 30.4% of Australia’s Aboriginal people. 31.4% of NSW Aboriginal people live in Sydney, and 84%[2] of Aboriginal people live in urban areas (Sydney and regional towns and cities[3]). • NSW receives approx $32million in Commonwealth funding per annum (allocated through bi-lateral arrangements to the programs of the NSW Aboriginal Housing Office {AHO}) • In contrast, the Northern Territory has 12% of the Aboriginal population and will receive $793 million[4] – almost half of the funding provided under ARIA - to address unmet housing need[5]. • On a per capita basis, NSW should receive $48 million in ARIA funding. Instead, with the cessation of CHIP has lost $13.25 million per annum.

9. Aspects of Indigenous Housing Need in NSW • One third of the NSW Aboriginal population live in social housing, which is double the proportion of the non-Aboriginal population. NSW has a large and complex Aboriginal community housing sector with a backlog of repairs and maintenance. • The NSW Aboriginal housing sector is the largest in Australia, with 22% of the Aboriginal community housing dwellings and approximately 45% of Aboriginal community housing providers located in this State. • The Aboriginal Housing Office (AHO) owns approximately 4300 dwellings which are managed on its behalf by Housing NSW. Indigenous Community Housing Organisations comprise some 237 Aboriginal community controlled providers who manage a further approx 4650 dwellings (60% of these are Local Aboriginal Land Council assets).

10. Aspects of Indigenous Housing Need in NSW • NSW has a mix of urban, regional and remote area housing need, and experiences particular housing problems linked to its highly urbanised Aboriginal population. • Of all overcrowded Aboriginal households in NSW, 83% are located in major or other urban areas. Nearly 40% of the Aboriginal households in Australia in private rental who were finding it difficult to meet housing costs while also continuing to meet other basic living costs were located in NSW • Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people are leaving remote towns and settlements across rural NSW. There is a consistent pattern of ‘step migration’ (remote town/settlement to next town) and social and private housing stock in both rural and urban areas have to deal with an influx of mainly Aboriginal people from remote areas. • NSW supports the current focus on indigenous housing need in remote areas. However, this should not be to the exclusion of needs of Aboriginal people living in urban areas.

11. A NSW Perspective on the CHIP Review • NSW submission concerns: Direction of the Issues Paper - and that the majority of Aboriginal people NSW live in urban and regional settings and housing needs cannot be met solely by the public and/or private housing sectors. • Concerns raised by Aboriginal stakeholders: • Absence of any consultation with Aboriginal community housing providers in NSW ; • Failure to acknowledge the significant and effective efforts in NSW to achieve sector reform; • The lack of understanding of the effective utilising of CHIP funding in NSW; • Concerned that the analysis in the Review lacked a proper understanding of the history and current arrangements applying in the NSW Aboriginal housing sector, including the absence of any recurrent funding

12. A NSW Perspective on the CHIP Review • The already limited capacity of NSW mainstream public housing to address all urban Aboriginal housing need due to declining allocation rates, increased targeting to priority applicants with highest needs and a waiting lists of more than 50,000 households. • The limited capacity of the private rent market to address urban Aboriginal housing need due to: • Racial discrimination against Aboriginal households in the private sector; • The low income and poor employment situation of many Aboriginal households; • The acute shortage of affordable rental housing in many areas compared to the maximum level of Rent Assistance available; • The incidence of large families for whom little private market housing is adequate; and • In some locations in NSW, an absence of any tangible private housing market (inc former reserves)

13. The CHIP Review Methodology Shortcomings in its methodology reflected mainly in the lack of consultation with Aboriginal community housing providers in NSW (the largest component of the national sector).

14. The Community Housing & Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Review Critique of the CHIP Review and Specific Findings

15. Critique of the CHIP Review and Specific Findings • Does not acknowledge the successful administration and reform of the Aboriginal community housing sector in NSW • Overlooks the substantial housing and infrastructure achievements in NSW gained through the successful delivery of CHIP objectives • Prepared without consultation with any Aboriginal community housing providers in NSW • Provides inconsistent recommendations eg Acknowledges that public housing is tightly constrained by existing demand yet recommends public housing be used to meet Aboriginal housing need in urban and regional areas • does not identify substantial Aboriginal housing need in urban, regional and remote areas of NSW • does not recognise that ARIA remote and very remote areas cover most of western NSW Given these serious shortcomings, which are detailed below, the CHIP Review report constitutes an unreliable basis for decision making on future funding of Aboriginal housing in NSW.

16. The Community Housing & Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Review Factual Errors • “Series of failures of the operation of Indigenous housing programmes resulting in poorly targeted and inappropriate housing” • “Poor construction of new houses” • “Constraints caused by community title over land and housing” • “The current system is vulnerable to incidences of financial and operational mismanagement, nepotism and favouritism” • “Significant funds are wasted through administration costs, overheads, bureaucratic red tape, poor governance and expensive, poorly designed houses unsuited to the needs of all their occupants”

17. The Community Housing & Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Review Omissions The Review did not consider some key information inputs: • Detailed information provided within the NSW Government submission to the CHIP Review consultation in August 2006; • feedback regarding NSW specific issues provided by AHO (and AHO Board) and SCIH during the consultation phase; and • In particular – detailed information and analysis of the specific funding, management and delivery arrangements applying in the Aboriginal community housing sector in NSW

18. The Community Housing & Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Review Inconsistencies with existing policy • Housing Ministers’ Conference resolutions • Commonwealth State Housing Agreement Evaluation • Bilateral Agreements • Need-based planning • Pooled funding • NSW Government Sector Reform Strategy • Broader Indigenous Policy Context

19. Conclusion - Evidence Based Critique According to Dillon and Westbury, the CHIP Review: • ignores the major generational impact of population growth • loses an opportunity to ‘streamline’ and better coordinate public administration in remote areas involving national/state governments • fails to fully and adequately consider the issue of the ‘culture of mobility’ and association to traditional country which applies in the Indigenous community housing context and finally • fails to adequately address the match between Indigenous housing circumstances and government Rental Assistance.

20. Conclusion - Evidence Based Critique ? Revisit the (David Head) three lens test as to whether the CHIP Review can be seen as being truly evidence based :

21. ‘political know how’ • Firstly, ‘this political form of knowledge inheres primarily in politicians, parties, organised groups and the public affairs media’ and that it is ‘dispersed in popular forms among the public and especially by and through the mass media’and further that policy seen through this political lens is ‘about persuasion and support rather than about objective veracity’(Head 2008:5). • No comment - but outcomes were absolutely predictable.

22. ‘rigorous scientific and technical analysis’ • ample evidence where the research aspects of the review – both in terms of methodology and analytical content, fall well short of acceptable standards - particularly from the perspective of those NSW Aboriginal people who are directly affected by the review findings and outcomes.

23. ‘practical and professional field experience’ • professional practices and experience in the sector were substantially ignored in the CHIP review. • This comment takes into account policy and program practice and experience applying at the national level and -specifically in the case of New South Wales- applying in the sector involving the reality of serious reform and of the improving and successful practices of ACHPs in New South Wales.

24. Final Comment About Evidence • Issue – A significant component of the nation’s social housing sector, namely Aboriginal community housing (irrespective of how the sector may be defined) has been chronically under-funded - an unavoidable conclusion. • The review is silent on this issue.

25. The Community Housing & Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Review Conclusion - Evidence Based Critique Dillon and Westbury the CHIP Review (1) ignores the major generational impact of population growth (2) loses an opportunity to ‘streamline’ and better coordinate public administration in remote areas involving national/state governments (3) fails to fully and adequately consider the issue of the ‘culture of mobility’ and association to traditional country which applies in the Indigenous community housing context and finally (4) fails to adequately address the match between Indigenous housing circumstances and government Rental Assistance.

26. The Community Housing & Infrastructure Program (CHIP) Review Very Remote: 2,318 Aboriginal People Conclusion - Evidence Based Critique Dillon and Westbury the CHIP Review (1) ignores the major generational impact of population growth (2) loses an opportunity to ‘streamline’ and better coordinate public administration in remote areas involving national/state governments (3) fails to fully and adequately consider the issue of the ‘culture of mobility’ and association to traditional country which applies in the Indigenous community housing context and finally (4) fails to adequately address the match between Indigenous housing circumstances and government Rental Assistance. Outer Regional: 25,922 Aboriginal People Inner Regional 43,697 Aboriginal People Remote: 6,178 AboriginalPeople Major Cities 56,773 Aboriginal People ABS Experimental Estimates and Projections, Indigenous Australians 3238.0 - Estimated Resident Indigenous Population 2001