Budgeting for all Australians, except the indigenous ones

Professor Jon Altman of the ANU's Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) has commented under the title above at Crikey reminiscent of Miss Eagle's budget response at Aboriginal issues: no mention, no money? yesterday. The comment is available on Crikey's website here. Miss Eagle is not clear whether the site is available to the general public or only to subscribers. Someone might like to let Miss E know.





20070511

Following a request to Crikey, Miss Eagle is able to print, in full, Professor Altman's comment for Crikey. Thank you, Crikey.

While the Howard government boasts that it governs for all Australians, it certainly does not budget for all Australians on any equitable needs or evidence bases: here is another opportunity lost. Billions are being spent in the 2007-08 Budget on areas like higher education, on tax cuts, on the elderly, but such expenditures are inherently biased against Indigenous people who are under-represented in universities, in employment and among older age cohorts.

Systemic biases are perpetuated. The government does not get the simple message that historic backlogs and rapid population growth result in greater and greater unmet need. Neglect now will result in social damage that will get exponentially more costly to repair in the future.

The Budget included 26 initiatives totalling $816 million over five years focusing on the Howard government framework of ‘practical’ reconciliation in health, housing, education and employment. The $163 million per annum extra funding committed will go nowhere in delivering ‘A Better Future for Indigenous Australians’ because the quantum is inadequate, given the enormity of historical backlogs, and the initiatives are piecemeal and often ideologically rather than practically based.

The headline reform is in housing where $73 million per annum extra is provided to implement the new Australian Remote Indigenous Accommodation Programme. It is estimated that in the Northern Territory alone there is a housing shortfall of over $2 billion.

This new program, which doesn't start till 1 July 2008, has three aims: to shift Commonwealth expenditure to focus on remote Australia, where only 25% of the Indigenous population lives; to abolish the Community Housing and Infrastructure Programme (CHIP) that has provided community housing; and to shift or force Indigenous people instead into public housing (thus cost sharing with the States) or into private housing, conditional on traditional owners leasing their lands to the state and meeting negotiated behavioural conditions.

All commentators (except Minister Brough) suggest that this last measure faces a huge affordability hurdle. Having demolished ATSIC, Minister Brough now wants to demonise it: the Indigenous housing backlog is all ATSIC’s fault and the government of the day since 1996 (that set the CHIP funding level) bears no accountable at all! The Minister does not understand: ATSIC did not deliver CHIP, it just funded it.

On health, the aggregates commitment is $30 million per annum, about 7% of the $460 million that the AMA and Oxfam say is needed to start closing the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and other Australians. Health can’t be ATSIC’s fault, it is administered by Tony Abbott’s department.

On education, another non-ATSIC area, there is a focus again on remote regions, moving kids away to school rather than meeting massive education infrastructure shortfalls at home communities—state and policy failure looms large here. And on employment, there are 850 ‘real’ jobs created (with state subsidy) over four years to reduce CDEP participation by a minuscule 3% of 30,000.

A very positive measure here is ‘Working on Country’ which will provide payment to Indigenous rangers to provide environmental services on the Indigenous estate: $12 million per annum extra to manage 1.5 million sq kms where there has been chronic underinvestment that is counter to national interest.

There is $10 billion left in surplus, perhaps this will be committed to an Indigenous Futures Fund in the run-up to an election? That is the level of commitment that is needed unless Indigenous Australians are to just continue missing out and falling further behind as Australia booms.

Hicks, hair, and light

An artist depicts David Hicks' appearance in the US military courtroom in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, today.Photo: AP

Published in The Age, Melbourne.

David Hicks has grown his hair to chest length in an attempt to try to avoid the never-ending light in his cell.

The charges - or lack of them - against Hicks are noteworthy:

The charge sheet does not allege Hicks fired on US troops or attacked a US target, but says he conducted surveillance on the abandoned US embassy in Kabul and met Osama bin Laden as well as accused "shoe bomber'' Richard Reid.
Previous charges of attempted murder, conspiracy and aiding the enemy have been dropped, with defence lawyers saying the move shows US authorities have a weak case.

The prosecutor in this jumped-up, stuffed-up, kangaroo court proceedings at Guantanamo Bay has used the argument that Terry Hicks told David Hicks that taking up arms was wrong.

So this is to prove the guilt of David?

In that case what are we waiting for? Let's arrest Bush, Cheney, Rumsefield, Blair, Howard & Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. After all hundreds of thousands - at least - of their citizens have told them that they are wrong in what they are doing and how they are doing it. What is the measure of their guilt? Are their circadian rhythms interrupted? Do they sleep well at night?

They have proved themselves gun-totin' cowboys with no idea of nation building. Afghanistan is still a mess. Freedom loving democracy is not a reality there. It is not a reality in Iraq.

The US cannot build a decent democracy itself. The most powerful political figure in the world does not have and cannot prove that he has the majority of support of the citizens of his nation. Because it's a good day if more than half of the US population turn out to vote. The US cannot help its own. Hurricane Katrina proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt. And in the case of New Orleans many, so many of us, believe that the US will not help its own if they are black.

Nation building? The Government of the USA should try it some time.

Our unrepresentative democracy

So young voters aren't apathetic - but they do feel left out. I've got news for them. They're right. They are left out. Gen Y is ignored. Significant numbers of 16 year olds are in the workforce. Significant numbers of 16 year olds draw social security benefits because they are not in the workforce but want to be. Significant numbers of 16 year olds can look forward to a lifetime of debt as the price of a university education. Isn't it about time that 16 and 17 year olds were included in the democratic process so they can have a say in the economic power that is governing their lives. In spite of the conservative challenges to the education system, young people are well educated.

Let's give 16 year olds the vote.

'Onya, Einfeld J.

Justice Marcus Einfeld has a distinguished track record. He is one of Australia's most distinguished jurists and one of our most outstanding activists in the matter of human rights. Most recently he was part of the team who dealt - with great sagacity - with the Australian Government on the matter of Vivian Alvarez Solon and her compensation and her repatriation to Australia.

Last night, at the University of Western Sydney, he said

Apparently political transparency is a democratic ideal to which we only pay lip service these days.

He was speaking with particular reference to the support of terrorism by western democracies and with direct reference to the involvement of the Australian Government in the support of the regime of Saddam Hussain by AWB . However, political transparency is an issue for democratic governance in Australia whether it is at Federal level with a Liberal-National coalition or at State level where there is an ALP hegemony across the states. "Commercial-in-Confidence" has become a modern catch cry, a wall government puts up to hide its dealings from public view. This goes hand in hand where government has "de-regulated" and put many areas which once had direct government oversight into the hands of the private sector. This allows government to be at least one remove when accountability and transparency is sought and encourages a culture of deniability. And the Howard Government has become the master of deniability. The Tampa affair and the children overboard matter are areas where the Prime Minister was able to achieve a high level of deniability and was never brought to book by the Australian electorate.

Justice Einfeld asks:

...how far we can allow ourselves to be led away from fundamental liberal and democratic tenets in the name of the fight against terrorism. The anti-terrorism bill - in particular its anti-sedition laws - was, "a Pandora's box of possible abuses if used incorrectly". He added: "This is the hallmark of a society leaning towards an autocratic framework, one in which nationalism, homogeneity and a warped and misinformed concept of 'the other' are thrown together into a heady and volatile cocktail."