Government of Western Australia
Department of the Premier and Cabinet
Location Based Expenditure Review
2014
A review of all social, economic participation and
community services expenditure delivered in
Roebourne and outlying communities of Cheeditha
and Mingullatharndo; Jigalong and the Martu
Communities of Punmu, Parnngurr and Kunawarritji.
0 | P a g e Location Based Expenditure Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In December 2013, the Aboriginal Affairs Cabinet Sub-Committee requested the Department
of the Premier and Cabinet to undertake a Location Based Expenditure Review (Review) of
services delivered in Roebourne (including nearby Cheeditha and Mingullatharndo) and the
Martu communities of Jigalong, Punmu, Parnngurr and Kunawarritji.
The Review’s objectives were to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Identify the amount of funding allocated by all tiers of government to existing services,
programs, and projects within the Review locations;
Identify, where possible, additional (non-government) resources allocated by resource
companies (Industry), Aboriginal corporations and other non-government organisations;
Identify overlaps and gaps in service delivery; and
Develop recommendations on opportunities to bring about efficiency and effectiveness
in service delivery through policy reform and program implementation, for the Aboriginal
Affairs Cabinet Sub-Committee consideration.
The scope of the Review included all non-capital expenditure to social, community (including
community governance) and economic participation related services. Services included both
mainstream services as well as those targeting Aboriginal people, delivered in the Review
locations. Accordingly, services accessed by Review location residents in non-Review
locations were not included. Although some services delivered in the region would have
been accessed by non-residents passing through, this service use has not been quantified.
In February 2014, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet as the lead agency formed a
Project Team, with representatives from Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,
Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Department of Health (Western Australia) and Pilbara
Development Commission. The Project Team consulted Local, State and Commonwealth
government service providers as well as non-government organisations in the Review
locations to determine what services were funded and delivered there.
Completed Review templates were received from the following entities: Western Australian
Government (18 agencies); Commonwealth (9 agencies); Local Government Authorities (2
agencies) non-government organisations and Aboriginal corporations, including Prescribed
Body Corporates and their Trusts (65 agencies); and key resource companies (8
companies). Participants returned 452 Review templates.
In 2013-14, the Review found that $58.7 million was spent in Roebourne, $18.0 million in
Jigalong and $17.8 million in the other Martu communities. The combined $94.5 million of
funds provided services to a total population of 2,132 people, of whom 1,475 were Aboriginal
people.
The Review’s findings are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Poor outcomes for Aboriginal people in the Review locations despite high levels of
spending;
Clear identification of social and service delivery issues in the Review locations by local
stakeholders;
Scatter-gun approach to spending, with fragmented service delivery, inadequate
coordination and significant wasted effort;
Inconsistent balance of spending across Indigenous Expenditure Report categories,
including potential gaps; and
Inconsistent funding mix across levels of Government, and under reporting of Industry
and Aboriginal Corporation funding.
1 Location Based Expenditure Review
ROEBOURNE
Roebourne Services as a System
Roebourne has a diverse and complex service delivery structure. The Review notes a
number of weaknesses including a fragmented service system with limited service
coordination. There is evidence that despite an extensive array of services for the local
population, social issues persist.
While infrastructure was not in scope, the Review notes the recent construction of a youth
centre, aged-care facility, new residential housing and a community and cultural centre.
There are also plans to build an additional cultural centre and redevelop the local swimming
pool. An opportunity exists for service providers to maximise these assets for the benefit of
the community.
Other opportunities exist including the consolidation of service delivery, particularly in areas
where potential duplication occurs. One example is addressing fragmented service delivery,
such as youth services, due to multiple, uncoordinated funding sources.
The Review notes the community engagement and involvement by Aboriginal Corporations
and Native Title Trusts. These organisations have become increasingly economically
independent from government funding sources. Industry also played a significant role in
Roebourne, both as a funder of services and as a source of economic opportunity.
Roebourne: Headline Data (2013-14)
Summary
Total funding – all clients
Total funding Aboriginal clients
Number of services
Number of service providers
Average service funding level
Total population (2011)
Total Aboriginal population (2011)
Total
$58,719,372
$53,630,246
206
63
$285,045
1410
789
Table 1: Summary of Roebourne Funding (2013-14) and Population (2011)
2 Location Based Expenditure Review
5%
Aboriginal
Corporations
30%
Commonwealth
Industry
51%
Local Government
4%
State
10%
Figure 1: Funding by Sector, Roebourne 2013-14
During 2013-14, $58.7 million was spent on services in Roebourne. The State Government
was the largest funding source: $30.1 million, or 51 percent of total funding. The
Commonwealth Government was the next largest funding source: $17.4 million or
30 percent of total funding.
Aboriginal
Corporations
20%
Commonwealth
Industry
Local Government
43%
17%
1%
2%
8%
9%
Figure 2: Expenditure by Sector, Roebourne 2013-14
Non-Government
Other
State
In 2013-14, the State Government delivered social services worth $25.3 million. This was
twice as much as the next largest sector, Aboriginal Corporations ($11.7 million). Industry
provided services though this is most likely to be underestimated due to the non-compulsory
participation of the Review for non-government stakeholders, as well as commercial-inconfidence considerations.
3 Location Based Expenditure Review
$30
Milions
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
Contracted Out 2013-14
Non-contracted 2013-14
Figure 3: Funding by Sector – Value and Proportion Contracted Out, Roebourne 2013-14
The State Government contracted 27.2 percent of its total social services funding to external
service providers, primarily to Aboriginal Corporations, and Non-Government Organisations
(NGOs). The Commonwealth Government contracted out 42.3 percent of its total funding.
A comparison of sectors own service delivery against contracted out services in 2013-14 is
shown in the above figure (Figure 3).
$12 50 40 35 Millions
$8 30 $6 25 20 $4 15 No. of Contracts
45 $10 10 $2 5 $0 0 Value
Number
Figure 4: Contracts - Value and Number by Sector, Roebourne 2013-14
Across the five sectors, 28 funding entities provided 109 contracts for services in
Roebourne. Figure 4 shows the total value and number of contracted services delivered by
each sector over the past financial year.
4 Location Based Expenditure Review
$35
$30
Millions
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
Aboriginal Targeted 2013-14
Mainstream 2013-14
Figure 5: Aboriginal Targeted and Mainstream Funding, Roebourne 2013-14
In 2013-14, $14.7 million was delivered on targeted services for Aboriginal people living in
Roebourne (Figure 5). The State Government provided the majority of Roebourne’s
targeted Aboriginal services. Local Government provided generic community-wide services
valued at $5.9 million but did not provide any Aboriginal targeted funded services.
$14
$12
Millions
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
Aboriginal Corporation
Commonwealth
Industry
Local Government
State
Figure 6: Service Delivery Funding by Indigenous Expenditure Report Category, Roebourne 2013-14
The Review also classified funding into seven expenditure areas as identified by the
Productivity Commission’s 2012 Indigenous Expenditure Report (IER). The IER identified
seven expenditure categories, being: Early Childhood Development1; Education
and Training; Healthy Lives; Economic Participation; Home Environment; Safe and
1
It is likely that not all expenditure on early childhood services has been captured under the Early
Childhood Development category, and services may be funded under other IER categories, such as
Healthy Lives, Home and Environment and Other Services (for example, Department of Human
Services direct payments). 5 Location Based Expenditure Review
Supportive Communities; and Other Services. The large proportion of Commonwealth
Government allocations directed to Other Services included Department of Human Services’
direct payments. (Figure 6)
In Roebourne, the Commonwealth and State Governments contributed similar amounts to
the Healthy Lives category, accounting for the total operational cost of the local Hospital and
nearby Aboriginal Medical Service. The State Government’s funding in the Education and
Training category accounted for the operation of the District High School (kindergarten to
year 12) and Training Institute. Similarly, amounts attributed to Safe and Supportive
Communities category is reflective of the State Government presence in the community
through the Western Australian Police and Department for Child Protection and Family
Support.
Aboriginal Corporation funding was primarily allocated to Education and Training, Economic
Participation and Healthy Lives. Those direct payments made to beneficiaries were
allocated under the IER category of Other Services. Such payments included funeral
payments and transport costs. JIGALONG Jigalong Services as a System Jigalong had a large number of funding providers and multiple agencies which delivered
services to this remote community. Several services to Jigalong were often an ‘add-on’
service from a regional hub such as Newman.
A number of features were evident in the provision of services to the community. One was
the larger role of Aboriginal Corporations in service delivery when compared to Roebourne.
Local Government had a relatively minor service delivery role in Jigalong, with the Jigalong
Community Incorporation undertaking municipal services that were funded by the
Commonwealth Government. This situation is partly explained by the community’s land
tenure arrangements and that it is not a gazetted town.
Cross-funding existed between State and Commonwealth Governments, particularly in
Education and Health. Visiting or fly-in services represented a large part of specialist
services provided to the community. Some services delivered by smaller agencies could
possibly be delivered by an agency located within the community.
Opportunities for service delivery in Jigalong exist around decreasing fragmentation through
greater collaboration by existing service providers and/or coordinated cross-agency
contracting of future services, reducing the number of service providers to achieve improved
service delivery outcomes and cost efficiencies resulting from a reduction in travel and
administration costs. Risk factors include governance issues and whether there is local
capacity to provide high quality services.
6 Location Based Expenditure Review
Jigalong: Headline Data (2013-14)
Summary
Total
$18,056,155
$17,834,793
90
39
$200,623
358
325
Total Funding – all clients
Total funding Aboriginal clients
Number of services in the community
Total number of service providers
Average service funding level
Total population (2011)
Total Aboriginal population (2011)
Table 2: Summary of Jigalong Funding (2013-14) and Population (2011)
3%
Aboriginal
Corporations
48%
Commonwealth
45%
Industry
Local Government
State
2%2%
Figure 7: Funding by Sector, Jigalong 2013-14
As can be evidenced in Figure 7, in 2013-14, there was a relatively even balance between
State and Commonwealth Government funding on services in Jigalong. Both Governments
accounted for 93 percent of all funding: 48 percent by State Government ($8.6 million) and
45 percent by the Commonwealth Government ($8.1 million).
7 Location Based Expenditure Review
Aboriginal
Corporations
Commonwealth
34%
Industry
39%
Local Government
Non-Government
1%
Other
5%
6%
0%
15%
State
Figure 8: Expenditure by Sector, Jigalong 2013-14
Figure 8 illustrates the majority role of Aboriginal Corporations in service delivery to Jigalong.
In 2013-14, they delivered 39 percent of all social service delivery expenditure. This was
followed in second place by the State Government (34 percent) and then the Commonwealth
Government with 15 percent. This was broadly consistent with what the Commonwealth
delivered in Roebourne, at 17 percent.
$10
$9
$8
Millions
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
Aboriginal
Corporations
Commonwealth
Contracted Out 2013-14
Industry
Local
Government
State
Non-contracted 2013-14
Figure 9: Funding by Sector – Value and Proportion Contracted Out, Jigalong 2013-14
Figure 9 shows the proportion of services delivered alongside services contracted out by
sector. In 2013-14, there were 58 contracts valued at $9.9 million. This accounted for over
half of all funding for services. The Commonwealth Government was the largest source of
contracts (29), accounting for almost two-thirds of its total funding in this Review location. In
regards to the Commonwealth Government’s contracts, the Department of Human Services
accounted for $2.7 million which included direct payments to beneficiaries. Less than half of
the State Government total funding was contracted out, the majority of which was delivered
through its own agencies.
8 Location Based Expenditure Review
$12
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
$10
Millions
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
Value
No. of Contracts
Number
Figure 10: Contracts - Value and Number by Sector, Jigalong 2013-14 Aboriginal
In 2013-14, Aboriginal Corporations were the main beneficiary of contracts, followed closely
by the non-government sector. The ratio of funds to contracts for the non-government sector
is high. A likely indicator for this is that many service providers undertook small amounts of
service delivery in Jigalong. The role of Aboriginal Corporations in Jigalong is significant.
Nearly $7 million of contracts were delivered whereas the remaining proportion by other
providers was considerably less. Though the non-government sector had relatively few
contracts, it delivered $4 million worth of services.
$10
$9
$8
Millions
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
Aboriginal
Commonwealth
Corporations
Industry
Aboriginal Targeted 2013-14
Local
Government
State
Mainstream 2013-14
Figure 11: Aboriginal Targeted and Mainstream Funding, Jigalong 2013-14 Figure 11 shows that the Commonwealth and State Governments provided almost all of
Jigalong Community’s funding for Aboriginal targeted services. For 2013-14, smaller
amounts of funding were provided by both Aboriginal corporations and Industry. It is noted
that this result was likely due to under-reporting from those two sectors.
9 Location Based Expenditure Review
$6
$5
Millions
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
Early
Childhood
Education Healthy Lives Economic
Home and
Safe and
and Training
Participation Environment Supportive
Communities
Aboriginal Corporation
Commonwealth
Industry
Local Government
Other
Services
State
Figure 12: Funding by Indigenous Expenditure Report (IER) Category, Jigalong 2013-14
Figure 12 shows 2013-14 funding by IER category. Healthy Lives received the highest
amount of funding, provided by the State and Commonwealth Governments. This funded
services delivered by the Aboriginal Medical Service and WA Country Health Services
(including Population Health). The Safe and Supportive Communities category was primarily
funded by the State Government, largely for services from Western Australian Police and the
Department for Child Protection and Family Support. Funding for Early Childhood was the
smallest category, less than 2 percent of total expenditure, and was primarily funded by
Industry. Additionally, Aboriginal corporations received funding to deliver services across all
IER categories, except Early Childhood.
OTHER MARTU Other Martu Communities Services as a System
The ‘Other Martu’ communities of Punmu, Parnngurr and Kunawarritji had a large number of
funding providers and agencies that delivered services. The ‘Other Martu’ are mostly
serviced by larger regional centres such as Port Hedland, Newman or Jigalong. Despite
this, there were a large number of service providers for relatively small populations located
across this very remote part of Western Australia. Service delivery to these locations was
expensive.
The local school and Remote Area Nurse are considered by the communities to be the most
important full-time service. Largely funded by the Commonwealth Government, Aboriginal
Corporations were a prominent sector in delivering services.
Local Government was a minor sector when it came either to funding or service delivery
across the Other Martu communities. Individual Aboriginal community councils dealt with
delivery of municipal and essential services through funding sourced from the
Commonwealth Government.
The ongoing viability of individual communities is a factor in the delivery of services in Other
Martu communities. The communities were limited by their ability to generate income that is
independent of Government and Industry. However some limited opportunities exist for
increased collaboration between entities and for fewer service providers.
10 Location Based Expenditure Review
Other Martu Communities: Headline Data (2013-14)
Summary
Total
Total funding
Total funding Aboriginal clients
Number of services in the community
Total number of service providers
Average service funding level
Total population (2011)
Total Aboriginal population (2011)
$17,809,061
$17,506,352
78
35
$228,321
364
361
Table 3: Summary of Jigalong Funding (2013-14) and Population (2011)
11%
Aboriginal
Corporations
22%
Commonwealth
0%
5%
Industry
Local Government
State
62%
Figure 13: Funding by Sector, Other Martu 2013-14
In 2013-14, the Commonwealth Government was the main funding source by sector in the
Other Martu communities: $11.1 million (66 percent). The Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet was the largest single funding entity ($4.4 million) and included municipal
services, power supply and employment programs that superseded the former Community
Development Employment Program.
Conversely, the decreased level of State Government funding in these very remote locations
was apparent: $3.8 million (22 percent). Local Government provided minimal funding across
these Review communities across the Shire of East Pilbara, the majority of its funding was
related to road maintenance between the Other Martu communities. Aboriginal corporations
and Trusts provided significant funding: $1.8 million.
11 Location Based Expenditure Review
4%
Aboriginal
Corporations
8%
Commonwealth
2%
5%
0%
Industry
Local Government
20%
Non-Government
61%
Other
State
Figure 14: Expenditure by Sector, Other Martu 2013-14
In 2013-14, 35 service providers delivered 78 services at a value of $17.8 million. Aboriginal
corporations provided the majority of services (34) at a value of $10.8 million. This
represented 61 percent of all funding and accounted for just under half of all the 78 services
provided across these Review locations.
The State Government was a smaller service provider, with 12 agencies delivering 21
services, or 8 percent of expenditure. Several State Government service providers which
delivered services into the Other Martu communities also had this area linked to existing
services in nearby regional hubs such as Jigalong and Newman. Two examples were the
permanent presence of Western Australian Police and Department for Child Protection and
Family Support in Jigalong who provided a visiting service to the Other Martu communities.
12
10
Millions
8
6
4
2
0
Aboriginal
Corporations
Commonwealth
Contracted Out 2013-14
Industry
Local
Government
State
Non-contracted 2013-14
Figure 15: Funding by Sector – Value and Proportion Contracted Out, Other Martu 2013-14
Figure 15 compares the proportion of available funds with the contracted funds; this
represents over 70 percent of all funds spent in the community. The Review notes this
12 Location Based Expenditure Review
aligns with the increased role of Aboriginal Corporations and Trusts, as well as community
groups in funding and delivering services.
$12
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Millions
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
Value
No. of Contracts
In 2013-14, of the 53 contracts provided in the Other Martu communities, the
Commonwealth Government funded 27 contracts at a value of $7.6 million. The Department
of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was the largest funding entity with 12 contracts, followed
by the Department for Social Services with 7 contracts. Industry provided 9 contracts valued
at $882,500. The State Government contracted-out the majority of its services: 12 contracts
valued at $3.6 million. Number
Figure 16: Contracts - Value and Number by Sector, Other Martu 2013-14 In Figure 16, Aboriginal corporations were the main contract recipients. They delivered 29
contracts valued at nearly $10 million. State and Local Governments, and NGOs, delivered
relatively smaller value contracts.
12
10
Millions
8
6
4
2
0
Aboriginal
Corporations
Commonwealth
Industry
Aboriginal Targeted 2013-14
Local
Government
State
Mainstream 2013-14
Figure 17: Aboriginal Targeted and Mainstream Funding, Other Martu 2013-14 13 Location Based Expenditure Review
In 2013-14, the Commonwealth Government provided 22 funding streams for Aboriginal
targeted services valued at $7.5 million (Figure 17). The State Government provided 17
funding streams valued at $3 million. Aboriginal corporations provided 12 Aboriginal
targeted funding streams valued at $1.9 million.
$7
$6
Millions
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
Early
Childhood
Education and Healthy Lives Economic
Home and
Training
Participation Environment
Aboriginal Corporation
Commonwealth
Industry
Safe and
Supportive
Communities
Local Government
Other
Services
State
Figure 18: Service Delivery Funding by Indigenous Expenditure Report Category – Other Martu 2013-14 The Commonwealth Government provided a higher proportion of funding across five IER
categories than any other sector. However, in regards to the IER category of Safe and
Supportive Communities, the State Government was the majority provider of funding. This
was the Western Australian Police and Department for Child Protection and Family Support
services which provided visiting staff from Jigalong.
Early Childhood was solely funded by Industry. Taking into consideration the methodological
limitations, there appears to be an over-reliance on Industry to fund Early Childhood services
despite the short-term nature of many programs and there being no obligation to continue
funding.
14 Location Based Expenditure Review
FINDINGS Finding 1: Poor outcomes for Aboriginal people in the Review
locations despite high levels of spending
For the first time, this Review provides a detailed picture of the amount and composition of
expenditure on services in specific remote locations in Western Australia.
In 2013-14, annual expenditure in the three Review locations was $94.5 million which
provided services for approximately 2,132 residents in the Review locations, of whom 1,475
(69 percent) were Aboriginal. Of the $94.5 million, the State Government contributed $42.6
million (45 percent) of the annual expenditure. These findings are consistent with the
Productivity Commission’s 2012 Indigenous Expenditure Report (IER) for Western Australia
which found that the Commonwealth and State Government collectively provided $50,978
per Aboriginal person compared to $19,512 per non-Aboriginal person. Despite this
expenditure, data from various sources indicated outcomes for Aboriginal people in the
Review locations remain poor.
Poor outcomes have been linked to socio-economic disadvantage. The Australian Bureau of
Statistics (ABS) 2012 Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas Index of Disadvantage rated the
Review communities amongst the most disadvantaged in Australia. Jigalong and the three
other Martu communities were in the lowest 0.5 percent. Another social measure, the
Aboriginal Early Development Indexes (2012), showed that 25 percent of children in
Roebourne were developmentally vulnerable in two or more domains, compared to 11.2
percent across the State. 2011 ABS Census data showed that all Review locations do not
meet State averages for housing, education and employment.
Stakeholder consultation identified housing over-crowding and poor education outcomes
among major socio-economic issues of concern. This indicates that the above data sources
which identified the same issues, are still apparent and are having an impact on the health
and well-being of many residents living in these communities. Finding 2: Clear identification of social and service delivery issues
in the Review locations by local stakeholders
Stakeholder consultation identified various challenges that impacted on social and service
delivery. These complex issues included:
•
•
•
drug, solvent and alcohol abuse;
mental health and suicide; and
violence, including domestic violence (particularly in Jigalong) and family feuding.
These issues had an adverse impact on Aboriginal outcomes as well as the broader
community. These responses are consistent with feedback from the community. Many
participants stated that they have experienced one or more of these issues.
Feedback from the location-based State Government agencies identified a range of issues
as necessary for improving service delivery in the Review locations. The top-three were:
•
•
•
coordination, particularly between government agencies;
cultural appropriateness of services and programs; and
governance (particularly in Jigalong and other Martu communities).
15 Location Based Expenditure Review
Theme and Issue
No. of Agencies
Mental Health & Wellbeing
Drugs; Solvent and Alcohol Abuse
Mental Health & Trauma
Suicide
Health issues/well-being
Justice/ Safer Communities
Domestic Violence
Juvenile Crime and Justice
Economic Development & Participation
Unemployment
Limited Economic Development
Service Delivery
Uncoordinated service delivery; lack
of capacity
Substandard services
Child Protection & Family Services
Child Abuse
Lack of parenting skills
Total
7
3
2
1
1
4
3
1
4
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
1
Table 4: Themes and Issues regarding Service Delivery
The issues identified by State Government agencies are represented in the figure below.
Number of Times Identified
Roebourne
Jigalong
Martu
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 19: Issues by Location as Identified by State Government Agencies
16 Location Based Expenditure Review
Finding 3: Scatter-gun approach to spending, with fragmented
service delivery, inadequate coordination and significant wasted
effort
Lack of coordination and collaboration among many service delivery entities were identified
as key issues. In 2013-14, Roebourne had 206 services delivered by 63 organisations,
valued at $58.7 million, servicing a population of 1,410.
Examples of some of the many service delivery entities that operate within portfolio areas
include:
•
•
•
Health – 17 service providers delivering 47 health services, valued at $11 million;
Family support services – 15 providers delivering 25 services, valued at
approximately $5.2 million; and
Youth – 17 providers delivering 35 services totalling $4.3 million per annum to
247 young people aged 15-24.
The Review also found examples of Aboriginal Corporation and Non-Government
Organisation service providers receiving multiple sources of funding from both
Commonwealth and State Government agencies.
Multiple contracts increase the administrative burden for an NGO and amount to
administrative duplication across tiers of Governments. Multiple contracts do not necessarily
mean that there is service duplication.
Finding 4: Inconsistent balance of spending across IER categories
in the Review locations, including potential gaps
The 2012 Indigenous Expenditure Report (IER) by the Australian Government’s Productivity
Commission identified seven expenditure categories. Review location service delivery
expenditure data were categorised by sector against the seven expenditure categories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Early Childhood Development;
Education and Training;
Healthy Lives;
Economic Participation;
Home Environment;
Safe and Supportive Communities; and
Other Services.
The balance of expenditure across the IER categories was uneven. For example, whilst
Education and Training expenditure was relatively consistent at 21-23 percent across the
Review locations, Healthy Lives expenditure varied from 24 percent in Jigalong to 12 percent
in the other Martu communities. Similarly, Safe and Supportive Communities expenditure
varied from 21 percent in Roebourne to 2 percent in other Martu communities. Early
Childhood expenditure was low in all Review locations, particularly in Jigalong and other
Martu communities (less than 2 percent). Of the total Early Childhood expenditure in
Jigalong and other Martu communities, 75 percent comes from Industry.
17 Location Based Expenditure Review
Finding 5: Inconsistent funding mix across levels of Government
and under-reporting of Industry and Aboriginal Corporation funding
In 2013-14, the balance of expenditure from the three tiers of Government to the Review
locations was inconsistent. This is demonstrated in Table 5, which shows Government
contributions to aggregate expenditure for each Review location.
For example, the Commonwealth contributed 62.3 percent of expenditure in the Other Martu
communities; primarily allocated to independent schools, health and local municipal services
as well as Department of Human Service’s benefits. However, the Commonwealth’s
contribution in Roebourne was considerably lower at 29.7 percent. This situation is broadly
reversed for State funding in these respective locations, which is 21.7 percent and
51.3 percent respectively.
Of note is the diminished role of Local Government in the Jigalong and Other Martu
communities. The Shire of East Pilbara primarily takes responsibility for the maintenance of
community access roads. It is considered that these works are project-based and ‘ad hoc’.
The Commonwealth Government and Industry fund many municipal services.
Due to the non-compulsory nature of participation in the Review by Industry and Aboriginal
Corporations, reporting on expenditure by these sectors is likely to not be fully disclosed.
The available data indicates in 2013-14, Industry and Aboriginal corporations provided
funding for health, transport, education, sport and infrastructure, refer table 5 below.
Source
Aboriginal
Corporation
Roebourne
%
Jigalong
%
Other Martu
%
$2,930,000
4.99
$541,000
3.00
$1,865,000
10.47
$17,477,844
29.77
$8,173,410
45.27
$11,104,187
62.35
Industry
$2,326,000
3.96
$435,000
2.41
$912,500
5.12
Local
Government
$5,850,525
9.96
$304,000
1.68
$63,031
0.35
State
$30,135,003
51.32
$8,602,745
47.64
$3,864,343
21.70
TOTAL
$58,719,372
100.00
$18,056,155
100.00
$17,809,061
100.00
Commonwealth
Table 5: Sources of Funding, All Review Communities, 2013-14
$35
80
$30
70
Millions
50
$20
40
$15
30
$10
No. Streams
60
$25
20
$5
10
$0
Aboriginal Corporations
Commonwealth
Total funds 13/14
0
Industry
Local Government
State
No. of funding streams 13/14
Figure 20: Funding into Roebourne, 2013-14
18 Location Based Expenditure Review
$10
45
$9
40
$8
35
Millions
$7
30
$6
25
$5
20
$4
15
$3
$2
10
$1
5
$0
Aboriginal Corporations
Commonwealth
Total funds 13/14
No. Streams
0
Industry
Local Government
State
No. of funding streams 13/14
Figure 21: Funding into Jigalong, 2013-14
$12
40
35
$10
Millions
$8
25
$6
20
15
$4
No. Streams
30
10
$2
5
$0
Aboriginal Corporations
Commonwealth
Total funds 13/14
0
Industry
Local Government
State
No. of funding streams 13/14
Figure 22: Funding into Other Martu Communities, 2013-14
Next Steps
This Review, which followed directly after the targeted review of Aboriginal Youth Services
and the policy review of Aboriginal School Attendance, completes the first phase of a series
of expenditure reviews requested by the Aboriginal Affairs Cabinet Sub-Committee in 2013.
Based on findings of this Review, there are four main considerations for the next phase of
research and policy development. They include consideration of an enhanced Information
Technology (IT) system that tracks government expenditure, scoping of an expenditure
review in an urban setting, as well as local and state-wide systemic responses to the
Review’s findings.
While the expenditure reviews provided unprecedented insight into investment in Aboriginal
services and service delivery relationships, the current data gathering process is labour
intensive and time consuming. It is therefore not recommended to continue with a rolling
program of ‘point in time’ expenditure reviews as each review would require substantial
resources, such as a dedicated project team and extended lead times. The Review notes
that the data collected only has a use for a finite period of time.
19 Location Based Expenditure Review
Despite this, the Review provides comprehensive and detailed data to support previously
anecdotal evidence regarding ineffective spending in Review locations. It is likely that the
Review findings are applicable in other regional, remote and urban locations across Western
Australia. Applying similar methodology is proposed in order to identify variations within
regional and remote area findings.
Additionally, the Review’s Project Team recommend the consideration of developing a
whole-of-government data collection system which can assist in informing long-term
investment decisions regarding funding for Western Australians including Aboriginal people.
The development of an IT system-based approach would be a powerful tool to track and
monitor expenditure against outcomes and performance, as well as achieve the reduction of
service and administrative duplication.
Responding to the systemic issues identified by the Review will require structural change
both in the Review locations and across the State. Any such change should encompass the
following elements:
•
•
•
•
•
governance – consistent, effective coordination between and within Governments;
funding – including consolidated control of Government resources;
engagement – community, family and individual input into funding prioritisation, and
service design and delivery;
measurement – improved measurement and evaluation of the impact of service
delivery at both individual program and collective level; and
collaboration – between local stakeholders, both Government and non-Government.
While the detailed design of these elements would need to be tailored to specific locations,
there would be common themes applicable across locations.
The Review’s Project Team therefore recommend the following projects to explore structures
for more effective investment by the State Government in delivering community outcomes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Location Based Expenditure Review in an urban location;
development of a business case for an IT based data collection system;
develop and implement a local response to the Review findings; and
development of initiatives to bring State-wide human services expenditure reform.
20 Government of Western Australia
Department of the Premier and Cabinet
ISBN 978-0-7307-0268-9
Department of the Premier and Cabinet
Dumas House, 2 Havelock Street, West Perth 6005
Telephone: (08) 6552 5000
Fax: (08) 6552 5001
Email: [email protected]
www.dpc.wa.gov.au 21