Reinventing the Governance of Public Finances in Remote Indigenous Australia

Abstract

The economies of remote Indigenous settlements are dominated by public finances. The current system of governing public finance is highly saturated, fragmented and centralised, and this has a corrosive effect on local governance capability. The political accountability of leaders to their constituents is weakened in favour of an administrative accountability 'upwards' to higher authorities. New Public Management reforms have promoted administrative deconcentration, over political devolution, and this has been accompanied by an influx of public servants, Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and private contractors, and a decline in Indigenous organisations and local government. The end result in many settlements is a marked disengagement of Indigenous people in their own governance. There is evidence of considerable political capabilities existing within local government electorates. Decentralised financing arrangements can be used to catalyse these capabilities and then address deficits in administrative and technical performance.

Complexity and hybrid effects in the delivery and evaluation of youth programmes in a remote Indigenous community

“…This study supports findings elsewhere about the dependency of remote Indigenous communities on public finances (Moran & Porter, ) and the pervasiveness of government in remote Indigenous economies (Maddison, ; Pearson, ). In this study, 92% of the identified programmes were funded either wholly or partially by the State and/or Commonwealth governments.…”

“…Administration in Australian Indigenous Affairs has shifted dramatically over the past 50 years from a primary focus on devolution during the self‐determination era of the 1970s–1990s, to administrative centralisation and privatisation (Dillon & Westbury, ; Sanders, ). The latter era emerged during the Keating (1991–1996) and Howard (1996–2007) governments (Moran & Porter, ; Wright, Marston, & McDonald, ) and was rooted in the advent of New Public Management (NPM) reforms (Sullivan, )…”

“…In remote Indigenous communities, programmes are typically contracted out and delivered through a mixture of government and non‐government bodies, which may or may not be Indigenous led, owned and/or staffed. Remote Indigenous communities are, in this manner, predominantly financed through public monies (Moran & Porter, ). This typically occurs through programmes (where performance indicators are imposed by the funder) rather than through grants (which enable a greater degree of organisational and community influence over expenditure; Moran, Porter, & Curth‐Bibb, ).…”

Building capacity in indigenous governance: Comparing the Australian and American experiences

“…Indigenous corporations also have to compete with non‐Indigenous service providers in many areas of contracting (Moran & Porter, , p. 118; Moran et al., , p. 361). Contracts are structured, not with Indigenous capacity building in mind, but instead to support a service sector of competing providers.…”

“…Contracts are structured, not with Indigenous capacity building in mind, but instead to support a service sector of competing providers. Moreover, contracts are often narrowly tailored, with a focus on deliverable results that can be easily measured rather than criteria that would favour a local contender, such as local discretion and knowledge and maintaining a representative constituency (Moran & Porter, , p. 122; Moran et al., , p. 361). In the absence of plausible competition, this incentive structure works to dampen creativity among the small number of available organizations.…”