NACCHO Funding News :Most groups funded under Indigenous advancement strategy non-Indigenous

Mick

Respectful engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples regarding these significant changes was conspicuous by its absence.If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are to have confidence in these outcomes, we must be able to understand the process,” 

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner, Mick Gooda

More than half the organisations granted funding under the Indigenous advancement strategy are non-Indigenous, a Senate inquiry has been told.

NACCHO thanks  Follow on Twitter @heldavidson

from The Guardian for permission to publish ORGINAL HERE

Of the $4.9bn available, “about half” had already been allocated to existing programs before the first IAS application round opened, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet told the inquiry.

The Senate standing committee is examining the “impact on service quality, efficiency and sustainability” of the IAS after widespread confusion and dissatisfaction at the announcement of successful applications in March. The inquiry has received and published 58 submissions, with varying views.

In its submission the department defended the tender process and provided funding breakdowns, including that 45% of the organisations granted funding were Indigenous.

The Greens senator Rachel Siewert said it added “insult to injury” after the confusing process.

“The clear message from community members and stakeholders was that they wanted genuine conversations with the government, they want to run their own services and decide their own fate,” Siewert said.

The department also revealed while $4.9bn was allocated in the federal budget over four years, “approximately half” was already tied up in “dedicated funding arrangements” before the tender process began.

These included contracts which predated IAS such as the remote jobs and communities program and working on country programs.

Extending the assessment process owing to the overwhelming response also took further money from the pool as the government continued to fund more than 900 services which had been set to expire in the interim, leaving $2bn eventually available for applications.

Of that, $860m was committed in the first year, and some funding was set aside for demand-driven applications and to fill gaps identified during negotiations. The IAS has since allocated $20.5m to youth services in the Northern Territory.

In its submission the department acknowledged the IAS was a “significant shift for government” but said its introduction was “an opportunity to better target investment to three key government priorities of getting children to school, adults into work and making communities safer”.

“While the IAS funding round has been a significant undertaking particularly for Indigenous communities and the service sector, it has for the first time in at least a decade enabled government to look holistically at the suite of activities being delivered at both a sectorial and regional level.”

The department said it offered certainty to service providers as more than half the successful applicants had been offered funding contracts for two years or longer.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner, Mick Gooda, said in his submission “respectful engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples regarding these significant changes was conspicuous by its absence”.

He said many questions remain unanswered, including the amount of funding to each organisation, how it compared with what was requested, the period of contract granted, and which organisations lost funding altogether.

Gooda said the IAS “marked a shift to a competitive tender process” for unsuspecting organisations, and suggested it could have a negative impact on Indigenous-controlled organisations.

“If Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are to have confidence in these outcomes, we must be able to understand the process,” he wrote.

Having got “many calls” after the announcement of the process, Gooda said some organisations did not have the capacity to put together the complicated applications, a suggestion also made by the – otherwise largely supportive – North Australian Aboriginal Family Violence Legal Service.

Other organisations hired expensive consultants, and uncertainty led others to believe they did not fit the criteria, said Gooda.

The Community Council for Australia said it did not support historical funding models but criticised the IAS process for limited consultation, “top-down imposition of requirements” and apparent disregard or lack of knowledge about the realities of running services.

It said the IAS’s attempt to improve the “dog’s breakfast” of human service contracting was “undermined by the way this task was approached” including failing to heed recommendations from the productivity commission.

Using drastically reduced federal funding, the IAS sought to streamline myriad Indigenous funding arrangements into five key programs: jobs, land and economy; children and schooling, which received a third of funding; safety and wellbeing, which received nearly half ; culture and capability; and remote Australia strategies.

Geographically, the largest share went to eastern New South Wales (18%), which has a quarter of Australia’s Indigenous population, followed by greater Western Australia (13%) and the Top End and Tiwi Islands region (11%). A 10th of the funding went to central Australia.

“Regions in more remote areas attracted a greater share of IAS funding than their share of the Indigenous population reflecting relative need,” the submission said.

The department is continuing negotiations with applicants and will have 14 days to publish the final details once each is completed.

 

wanted-stories

Have you got a good news story or comment to share with the 100,000 readers of our NACCHO Aboriginal Health Newspaper ?

Download our Advertising rate card here NACCHO Newspaper Advertising Rate Card

or online enquiries and contact info CLICK HERE

NACCHO National News: Indigenous issues address by Minister Nigel Scullion to Nationals Federal Council

untitled

“This is a mighty dream, full of risks, but we should never allow our expectations to lower because that would create two Australia’s – one with high expectations for a child’s future and another with low expectations.

That inequity is wrong. Indigenous Australians should have the same expectations that non-indigenous Australians have: a proper education for their children, a decent job and safety in their home and community.

Everything flows from meeting these three objectives.”

THE NATIONALS’ FEDERAL COUNCIL CANBERRA 30TH AUGUST 2014

ADDRESS BY THE MINISTER FOR INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

THE NATIONALS’ SENATE LEADER SENATOR THE HON NIGEL SCULLION

I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet.

Today I will make a few remarks on the state of the Senate and the contributions of my Senate colleagues. Then I will take you on the journey that is Indigenous policy and pay a visit to constitutional recognition

For Senate text see LINK

Indigenous Affairs

I would now like to take you on a journey into Indigenous affairs. This is important because so much is happening – and the Nationals have always taken a keen interest in Indigenous affairs because they share many of the rural and remote challenges and opportunities.

Like a few in this room I’m sure, I didn’t really think that the Apology we made in 2008 would matter.

I couldn’t see the apology helping at all to close the vast gap on vital issues such as Indigenous life expectancy, remote children’s education, housing, decent work for adults and community safety.
All the symbolic trumpeting was wonderful, but I could not see what difference it could make.

How wrong I was.

The changes to the way Aboriginal people as individuals and as communities saw themselves after that apology were extraordinary. Clearly, those who would diminish the importance of symbolism as something that doesn’t have a role to play in practical outcomes are quite wrong.

Symbolic change must happen if practical changes are to succeed.

They go hand in hand. The government’s response to the Forrest Report will give us the practical policy future while constitutional recognition of our Indigenous peoples will give the matching symbolic change. They are twin engines in a plane that we must bring in to land together.

The case for recognition is very clear. Imagine there is a race and the winner is never acknowledged as having crossed the line first. In fact the second place getter gets all the accolades. The winner doesn’t even get to stand on the podium. That is quite wrong, obviously. And it is quite wrong for our Indigenous peoples to be left off the constitutional podium as well.

We started on the first day we were elected to change the future of Indigenous Affairs in the biggest shake-up of the bureaucracy in decades. One of the first acts of the new government was to bring the administration of more than 150 Indigenous programs and services from eight different government departments into the department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The Prime Minister effectively became the overall Minister for Indigenous Affairs, as well as having me as a Cabinet Minister dedicated to Indigenous Affairs and a Parliamentary Secretary. As for Labor, they gave the shadow portfolio to Shayne Neumann. The Member for Ipswich also has to shadow the large portfolio of Ageing. Following criticism of Neumann by aboriginal elders, the editor in chief of The Australian described Shayne Neumann as having “no idea what he is talking about”. The picture is of a Shadow Minister who is not across his brief and has lost both the support of elders, communities and the national media.

We faced dealing with 150 different programs and services. We inherited a structural mess. A former community organisation in Yuendumu had 34 separate funding agreements requiring a report on average once a week. There has been far too much waste for far too long in Indigenous Affairs.

Billions have been spent on housing under Labor but overcrowding remains chronic.

We turned those 150 lines of funding into five streamlined areas with total funding of $4.8 billion and named it the Indigenous Advancement Strategy.

The five areas are 1) jobs, land and economy; 2) children and schooling; 3) safety and wellbeing; 4) culture and capability; and 5) remote Australia strategies.

From this we distilled the essence of Coalition action, our mantra, which is: to get children into school – which is our number one priority, adults into work and the creation of safe communities.

They are the core of everything. We are already implementing the $46.5 million Remote School Attendance Strategy across 73 schools in 69 communities. Over 500 local indigenous jobs are also created in terms of School Attendance Supervisors and Officers. A key part of the Forrest Review is effectively already at work via our $45 million Vocational Training and Employment Centres (or VTECs) training for jobs model. These VTECs have guaranteed jobs for the people who undergo the right training. So it’s goodbye to training or training’s sake which has been the problem in many communities. Now we’ve linked up employers, trainers and Indigenous job seekers in a demand driven model. 4,074 jobs have already been created this way with another thousand expected by the end of the year. Indigenous people are entering the workforce in a range of industries – hospitality, tourism, construction, mining and transport.

Safer communities are essential for Indigenous families to be happy and healthy. We will continue to support the efforts of Indigenous communities to combat alcohol fuelled violence so all community members, particularly women, children and the elderly can live peacefully and safely. The government is helping end petrol sniffing by expanding the roll out of low aromatic fuel across Northern Australia and building storage tanks in Darwin. The government is also investing $54.1 million in police infrastructure so there is a 24 hours police presence for the first time in some remote communities. There is also $2.5 million for Community Engagement Police Officers and $3.8 million towards the ongoing Northern Territory’s Child Abuse Taskforce.

Already we are seeing these practical measures make significant inroads. But it’s a long and winding road, this highway to better lives for Indigenous peoples. Many have tried and failed despite major investments. The only way to succeed is to involve the Indigenous people at the decision making level. The Government committed to provide $5 million to support a nine month design phase of the Empowered Communities initiative. Indigenous leaders report encouraging outcomes, particularly in relation to community acceptance of the need to take increased responsibility in key areas such as school attendance and employment. Significant consultation with Indigenous groups across all eight Empowered Communities regions has been occurring.  I look forward to receiving the final Empowered Communities proposal from the Indigenous leaders later this year.

Unless Indigenous people own the reforms nothing will change. Engaging Indigenous people in delivering solutions and services is critical to empowering communities and doing business in the new way. So it’s a mindset thing on both sides. And they don’t happen overnight. But I believe that we have started well. We have a Prime Minister who believes passionately in improving the lives of Indigenous people on a practical level – children to school, guaranteed jobs for adults after training and communities where families have decent housing and the option to buy their own home, where substance abuse and domestic violence have disappeared.

This is a mighty dream, full of risks, but we should never allow our expectations to lower because that would create two Australia’s – one with high expectations for a child’s future and another with low expectations. That inequity is wrong. Indigenous Australians should have the same expectations that non-indigenous Australians have: a proper education for their children, a decent job and safety in their home and community. Everything flows from meeting these three objectives.

As The Nationals look to private enterprise as the solution to a healthy economy, so too is it the solution to Indigenous employment. Corporate Australia is offering many opportunities for Indigenous employment. The first example is that of Andrew Forrest who has just completed a report for the government on employment and training. Before this he established the Australian Employment Covenant that attracted over 60,000 job pledges from 338 employers. Over 15,000 of these jobs have been filled. A real breakthrough in pioneering a demand-driven approach where the employer provides the job and the job seeker is trained to do it. The Business Council of Australia membership placed 3,500 Indigenous people in jobs and traineeships in a year. Some of Australia’s best known companies are also engaged in providing real jobs and training, such as Woolworths, Coles, the Commonwealth Bank, Transfield and the CopperChem mine in Cloncurry. Then there are the business opportunities being built up by local Indigenous people. I tell you this because it’s important to get the message out that there are positive stories happening and lessons being learnt on how to make real jobs which is the ultimate solution to welfare dependency.

I’ve outlined what I believe to be a realistic way through the years of mismanagement and waste in Indigenous affairs. The key is relationships with people at the grass roots. The Nationals have always been good at that and naturally understand it because they too have experience in being a long way from decision makers. The Nationals’ seats are generally the poorest seats and contain significant numbers of Indigenous people. If we can stand up and say ‘Yes’ to constitutional recognition then we are saying ‘yes’ to recognising people who we’ve grown up with or worked beside or gone to school with.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the first inhabitants of this country, and recognising them in our Constitution presents an historic opportunity to acknowledge their unique culture and history, and their enormous contribution to this nation.

The vote of conservatives is of vital importance in the debate on constitutional recognition. It will only succeed with bipartisanship.

Our own former Nationals’ Party Leader John Anderson has been recruited to head a panel to conduct a review into public support for Indigenous constitutional recognition.

The review panel will work with the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to progress the government’s commitment towards a successful referendum.

The joint select committee, chaired by Ken Wyatt, the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives, was formed to work towards a parliamentary and community consensus on referendum proposals, and report on how to achieve a successful referendum.

The review panel is required to provide a report to me by September 28.  When the time is right and informed by these two reports, the government will release a draft amendment. We must get it right because if the referendum fails, it would be a body blow to our fellow Indigenous Australians. Indeed, the whole nation would falter, would be diminished.

When you leave this Council, I would like you to ask yourself this question:- Is it honourable to support Indigenous recognition in Australia’s founding document? If it is, (and I strongly believe it is), then I will do everything possible to see that it succeeds in my local community.

It will quite literally take a ‘National’ sense of honour to see this through.

If we get this right as a nation, we will be able to work together to write a new story for all of us.

Thank you.

NACCHO smoke free news: Aboriginal smoking program cuts risk widening the gap

safe_image

 

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable disease and early death among Indigenous Australians, with smoking responsible for about one in every five deaths.

FROM THE CONVERSATION subscribe here

Among Indigenous Australians, tobacco use contributes to 80% of all lung cancer deaths, 37% of heart disease, 9% of all strokes and 5% of low birth-weight babies. And in central Australia, rates of pneumonia among children are reported to be the highest in the world, reaching 78.4 cases per 1,000 children every year.

Although we are seeing reductions in smoking rates across Australia, 42% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (TSI) people are daily smokers, compared to 16% in the non-Indigenous population. In some remote communities this estimate is as high as 83%.

Smoking is also higher among vulnerable groups: up to two-thirds of Indigenous women continue to smoke during pregnancy, and around 39% of young people aged 15 to 24 years are smoking daily.

You’d think governments would be redoubling their efforts to address the problem. Not so. In fact, the Australian government has recently announced funding cuts of A$130 million over five years to the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program, which amounts to more than one-third of the program’s annual funding.

Tackling Indigenous Smoking funds teams of six health workers to run tailored anti-smoking programs. Each is designed with input and involvement from each community and employ local quit-smoking role models who help other smokers quit by offering advice and support.

Benefits of quitting

We know that quitting smoking reduces the risks of heart disease, lung cancer and other smoking-related issues.

But there are also significant benefits for the health-care system and Australian longer-term budget’s. A recent South Australian study led by Professor Brian Smith, for instance, helped smokers to quit while in hospital and found a direct saving to the hospital budget of A$6,646 per successful quitter within just 12 months.

Another study estimated that the economic impact from just an 8% reduction in the prevalence of tobacco smoking in Australia would result in 158,000 fewer incident cases of disease, 5000 fewer deaths, 2.2 million fewer lost working days and 3000 fewer early retirements. Overall, an 8% reduction in smoking would reduce health sector costs by AU$491 million.

Assessing and funding what works

One of the complicating factors is that the success of Indigenous anti-smoking programs has been patchy. A review I recently published in the Cochrane Collaboration found significant shortcomings for Indigenous quit smoking and youth tobacco prevention programs.

Only one quit smoking study, which was performed in the Northern Territory by Dr Rowena Ivers, met the quality criteria. Dr Ivers’ study found that free nicotine patches might benefit a small number of Indigenous smokers. But none of the study participants completed the full course of nicotine patches and only seven people from the original total of 111 reported that they had quit smoking at six months.

This study suggests programs using nicotine patches can help Indigenous smokers to quit. But much more evidence is needed to determine what options really are the most effective.

Likewise, another review of tobacco prevention programs among young people found potentially harmful results, with one of the three identified studies showing lower smoking rates in the control population. This means that children who received the tailored tobacco prevention program did worse than the youth in the control group who received nothing at all.

It is important to continue evaluating Tackling Indigenous Smoking programs so we know whether or not they work and can direct funding to programs that make a difference. So it’s concerning that part of the funding that is being cut from the budget relates to reviewing these programs.

A long way to go

Five years into the Tackling Indigenous Smoking project, the government has invested a substantial amount of time and money into developing these culturally-tailored programs. Preliminary data released by the government in April found a 3.6% fall in Indigenous daily smoking rates between 2008 and 2013 and a reduction in smoking during pregnancy of 3%.

But cutting resources will make it impossible to meet the program’s ambitious goal of halving Indigenous smoking rates by 2018.

There is still a long way to go. Research shows many health-care workers and some doctors who treat smokers do not believe they have the skills or ability to offer effective preventive health advice. Worryingly, they also admit to the attitude of “even if I did, it’s not going to work, so why bother”.

This response tells us that much more work and subsequently funding is needed to really address the health gaps that remain between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Tobacco use will remain a problem within our society for as long as we continue to allow it to be one.

NACCHO 2014 budget funding news: Aboriginal controlled health services get 12 month funding lifeline

 

Press club

The extension recognised the significant contribution Aboriginal-run health services were making to closing the health gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

“This means we will be able to continue to provide high quality, culturally appropriate health care to our people for another 12 months,’’

 NACCHO chairman Justin Mohamed 

DOWNLOAD NACCHO Press Release here:

INDIGENOUS-run health services will receive a 12-month lifeline in next week’s federal budget and a further five programs will be funded until June next year at a total cost of $431 million.

The Australian can reveal Health Minister Peter Dutton has approved funding of $333m for 2014-15 for the 150 National ­Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations across the nation.

From The Australian: Funding lifeline for indigenous health  by: PATRICIA KARVELAS

“Many funding agreements for indigenous health programs were due to expire at the end of June. Extending the funding to June 2015 provides the continuity for these organisations to deliver important services to indigenous people over the next 12 months,” said a spokesman for Mr Dutton.

The spokesman said 90 organisations funded through five specific programs — Primary Health Care, Healthy for Life, Australian Nurse Family Partnership, New Directions: Mothers and Babies and Stronger Indigenous Health Services — would get funding of $98m for another year.

“This government is committed to improving indigenous health,” he said.

“The government examines all funding from time to time as part of the budget process to ensure that it is spent as effectively as possible with improving health outcomes.”

The NACCHO welcomed the 12-month lifeline, but warned a long-term plan was desperately needed.

NACCHO chairman Justin Mohamed said the extension recognised the significant contribution Aboriginal-run health services were making to closing the health gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

“This means we will be able to continue to provide high quality, culturally appropriate health care to our people for another 12 months,’’ Mr Mohamed said.

“Yet there remains a level of uncertainty about what we will be able to continue to provide after the 2014-15 financial year.”

He said demand for the services was increasing at a rate of more than 6 per cent a year.

You can hear more about Aboriginal health and Close the Gap at the NACCHO SUMMIT

summit-2014-banner

The importance of our NACCHO member Aboriginal community controlled health services (ACCHS) is not fully recognised by governments.

The economic benefits of ACCHS has not been recognised at all.

We provide employment, income and a range of broader community benefits that mainstream health services and mainstream labour markets do not. ACCHS need more financial support from government, to provide not only quality health and wellbeing services to communities, but jobs, income and broader community economic benefits.

A good way of demonstrating how economically valuable ACCHS are is to showcase our success at a national summit.

REGISTRATIONS NOW OPEN

SUMMIT WEBSITE FOR MORE INFO

abstract-blocks

 

 

NACCHO political alert: Commission of Audit: Aboriginal health would suffer

Peter

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be exempt from any health co-payments to prevent any backward steps in Aboriginal health, said the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) today.

NACCHO Chair Justin Mohamed said the introduction of co-payments for basic health care such as GP visits and medicines, as recommended by the Commission of Audit, would increase barriers for many Aboriginal people to look after their own health.

“Improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health remains one of Australia’s biggest challenges,” Mr Mohamed said.

“Increasing barriers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people seeking appropriate health care will only increase this challenge.

“We need initiatives that will encourage Aboriginal people to seek medical attention and seek it early, not make it even harder for them to get the care they need.”

Mr Mohamed said Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders often had a range of complex health issues so even a low co-payment charge could make health care unaffordable for many.

“For people who only visit their GP once a year a small co-payment is likely to be manageable,” Mr Mohamed said.

“However for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with more complex health needs even a $5 charge for each visit would add up very quickly.

“A large Aboriginal family could be out of pocket hundreds of dollars after just a few GP visits.

“This would put basic health care out of reach and be detrimental to the health of many Aboriginal people.

“I urge the government to carefully consider the implications before implementing this recommendation and to ensure any decision is not going to mean a backward step for the health of Aboriginal people.”

NACCHO at National Press Club April 2 : Investing in Aboriginal community controlled health makes economic $ense

NACCHO0032 Press Club Brochure Concept2__190314_Page_1

On 2 April the NACCHO chair Justin Mohamed will be appearing at the National Press Club in Canberra

Watch live on ABC-TV at 12.30 pm (see below)

healthy-futures-great

New Microsoft Word Document (5)

 

 

“Investing in Aboriginal Community Control makes economic $ense”

The good news is that ACCHS deliver the goods – not only health gains, but also substantial economic gains.

 In all the rhetoric about Closing the Gap, what is missing from the picture is this —  the ACCHS network of clinics, community health centres and health-based co-operatives throughout Australia generates substantial  economic value for Aboriginal people and their  communities. ACCHS are a large-scale employer of Aboriginal people. This provides  real income and economic independence for many people. They contribute enormously to raising the education and skill levels of the Aboriginal workforce.

Investing in ACCHS is a good business proposition. It provides value for money and is highly cost-effective for four main reasons:

ACCHS deliver primary health care that delivers results

 Like your local GP does but more effectively for Aboriginal people because  the ACCHS model combines the best of clinical know-how with culturally enriched local knowledge and wisdom. It takes care of the whole person, not separate body parts. People work as part of a team that includes Aboriginal Health Workers, allied health,  and social and emotional wellbeing counsellors   in the front line. GPs as well, although not always. It runs health promotion and health screening to identify and treat health problems before they get serious. It organises access to medical specialists and hospitals if necessary. The ACCHS model considers individuals and families as part of a community and it responds effectively to community-based needs and issues.

This model of health care works for Aboriginal people. Evidence-based inquiries and reports show that ACCHS outperform mainstream services in terms of treatment and prevention. They reduce the need for highly expensive hospital-based services. And they  save lives.

ACCHS employment boosts Aboriginal education and training levels

 ACCHS employ people with high skill levels. Most have tertiary level qualifications and several have multiple qualifications. This increases the  education and skill base of the Aboriginal workforce.  Organisational  pathways in ACCHS are based on continuing and further education.  The message is that ACCHS have education benefits. A single investment by government in ACCHS  deals effectively with the  two main problems in Aboriginal communities – high unemployment and low levels of education.

BOOKINGS

NACCHO Close the Gap Day : Warren Mundine: “The Future of Aboriginal Health” Address To Lowitja Institute

Lowitja

“Decades of Indigenous controlled health service delivery have seen the Aboriginal community controlled health sector become a leading provider of primary health care services and a significant employer of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

This sector has mature organisations with a depth of expertise and capabilities, particularly in remote and regional areas, surpassing the level of mainstream health services in some areas.

I see no reason why organisations in these positions should not be able to leverage their capabilities and positioning to provide health services more broadly, thereby expanding their ability to generate extra income and funding. Opening the door to entrepreneurship, independence and self-sufficiency could present great opportunities.”

Opening Address by Nyunggai Warren Mundine:

“The Future of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Health”

Pictured above with  Lowitja O’Donoghue

Thank you Aunty Di Kerr for the Welcome to Country on behalf of the Wurundjeri Nation.

I too would like to acknowledge and pay respect to the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and also to acknowledge and pay respect to my own Bundjalung, Gumbaynggirr, Yuin and Irish ancestors.

I wish also to thank you the Lowitja Institute for inviting me to give the Keynote Address at this Congress and to Lowitja O’Donoghue for her introduction.

And thank you Deborah Cheetham and the Indigenous Dance Troupe, Koori Youth Will Shake Spear, for your terrific performances.

I also acknowledge the Deputy Chair of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, Professor Ngiare Brown.

I am honoured to be here today addressing you.

The Future of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Health? The short answer is the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council sees a healthy and prosperous future for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander health. I see great leadership, innovation and vision when I look at the community controlled Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Medical Services and their national advocacy organisation, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, and the Australian Indigenous Doctors’ Association.

As people would appreciate, after reviewing the recent “Closing the Gap” report there is much more work to be done.

To get an understanding of the Council and the work of the Council I’ll give a brief outline.

The Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council was created to provide advice to the Federal Government on Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs, with a focus on practical changes to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The Council provides ongoing advice to the Government on emerging policy and implementation issues related to Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Affairs covering, but not limited to:

  • improving school attendance and educational attainment
  • creating lasting employment opportunities in the real economy
  • reviewing land ownership and other drivers of economic development
  • preserving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures
  • building reconciliation and creating a new partnership between black and white Australians
  • empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, including through more flexible and outcome-focussed programme design and delivery
  • building the capacity of communities, service providers and governments
  • promoting better evaluation to inform government decision-making
  • supporting greater shared responsibility and reducing dependence on government within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
  • achieving constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The Council also has another role of being the Deregulation Committee for Prime Minister and Cabinet as part of the review by Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Josh Frydenberg into deregulation including cutting red tape and addressing the overburden of compliance costs.

The Council is supported by a Secretariat based within Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The Chair meets at least monthly with the PM, currently I have weekly conversations with the Prime Minister, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and other Ministers. The Council meets 4 to 6 times a year. Our 3rd meeting is being held in Sydney on the 2nd April.

As you can see, the Council has a broad Terms of Reference and is an independent body that gives advice. That means we give advice whether the Government agrees or not. A good example of this is the Anti-Discrimination Act Section 18C debate. Council members didn’t agree with the policy taken to the last election by the Coalition and we gave advice to the Prime Minister of our views not to repeal Section 18C. The Government and the general public are very aware of the Council’s view on this matter.

The Council is the Prime Minister’s advisory group not an elected representative body. It is an advisory group like the Commission of Audit, the Gonski Education Review, the Henry Tax Review, the Banking Inquiry Review and many such other bodies. So, when people say we are not an elected body, we don’t represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people – I say “correct”. We are a group of people who bring a range of expertise, skills and experiences together to advise the Prime Minister and Government. Council meetings are full of robust and frank discussion and new ways of thinking and that is reflected in the advice we give to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister wants the Council to focus primarily on the three areas of Jobs, Education and One rule for all. The third area is essentially around upholding community standards and the rule of law in all communities. My term for this is “social stability”.

Broadly, the Council operates within a reform agenda based with an economic and commerce focus. We want to see a focus on outcomes and on the experience of the people who receiving or relying on services; we look for innovative and entrepreneurial approaches; we want service delivery that is integrated and eliminates duplication; we expect service deliverers – including States and Territories – to be accountable and we will hold them to their accountabilities; we want to see less red tape more Bang for the Buck and efficiencies in cost and delivery; we also want to see investment in Indigenous communities. Above all, we want to see simple and practical approaches that really deliver.

That is the lens through which all or our deliberations and recommendations are made and it is the lens through which I will talk about the future of Indigenous Health this morning.

*              *              *

In preparing this speech I received a detailed briefing with pages and pages of statistics on Indigenous health and health risk factors. And these were just a sample. I am all too familiar with the data which paints a dire picture of Indigenous health and wellbeing in Australia.

Of course, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people it’s not just about statistics; it’s about our family, friends and communities; it’s about our parents and our children and our own selves. It’s my sister who died at aged 50 from heart disease. It’s the man who was stabbed in front of me enraged with alcohol and drugs Musgrave Park when I was a youth. It’s the regular emails I receive letting me know about “sorry business”. It’s the fact that almost every Indigenous person I know over the age of 40 has Type 2 diabetes. It’s my own brush with death in 2012 from cardio-vascular disease.

Indigenous people live these statistics every day and we experience the real impact – not just on individuals and their specific health problems – but also on our communities and families who are being hollowed out by things like low life expectancy, chronic and communicable diseases, and mental health problems, alcohol related disease and assaults, Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, suicide and child mortality. These problems have an ongoing social, cultural and psychological impact on communities and families.

When it comes to Indigenous health policy and health services, the greatest challenge is bureaucracy, waste and red tape.

Health is one of the most governed of all the public services. Constitutionally, health services are provided by the States. However, the Federal government has considerable influence and control because it provides substantial funding.

Indigenous health policy and the delivery of health services to Indigenous people involves multiple administrators and decision makers at multiple levels. There are at least two portfolios – health and Indigenous affairs – in the Commonwealth and in each State and often other relevant portfolios such as community services and human services. Each portfolio has a Minister and a department and often Assistant Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries as well.  All of this is before you get to the front line health services, such as State operated hospitals and other medical services and specialised Indigenous health services such as Aboriginal community controlled health services, each of which has their own administrative staff and obligations.

The previous Federal government also had a Minister for Indigenous Health. Prime Minister Abbott chose not to continue with this portfolio and these responsibilities have been rolled into the Department of Health and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which is responsible for Indigenous affairs.

Some people criticised this, arguing that not having a dedicated Indigenous health portfolio would set back Indigenous health policy and delivery. I disagree. One of the reasons we are spending billions on Indigenous people and not achieving material improvements in closing the gap is because the funding is poorly targeted and wasted on red tape and bureaucracy. The most recent Productivity Commission indicates that the majority of funding allotted specifically to Indigenous Australians is spent on bureaucrats, advisers, contractors and the like, many of whom are non-Indigenous. Shortly after the last election Minister Scullion and I did a preliminary review of the spending figures and we estimated that at least a third of Government funding for Indigenous programs doesn’t even make it past the front doors of office buildings in Canberra and other cities.

Every additional Minister and department or other entity involved in Indigenous health results in additional reporting, handoffs and intra-government dealings. The different groups have to consult and report to each other and handle demarcation issues and duplication. Inevitably this means funding must be being consumed by bureaucratic process.

I recently saw a rerun of an episode of Yes Minister called “The Economy Drive”. In it, Sir Humphrey, Permanent Secretary of the fictional Department of Administrative Affairs, must deal with Minister Hackett wanting to eliminate waste and improve efficiency. Explaining to the more junior public servant, Bernard Woolley, why this is a bad thing, Sir Humphrey explains:

“There has to be some way to measure success in the Civil Service. British Leyland can measure success by the size of their profits, or rather they measure their failure by the size of their losses. We don’t make profits or losses so we have to measure our success by the size of our staff and our budget. By definition, Bernard, a big department is more successful than a small one.”

Even though it is fiction and satire, the scary thing about Yes Minister is that people who have worked in Government very much relate to it.

Whenever funding cuts to Indigenous services or programs are made, the vocal protest and criticism simply assumes that defunding will undoubtedly lead to bad outcomes for Indigenous people. In doing so they are measuring success by the size of budgets and staffing. But if funding to date has not had a material positive impact on Closing the Gap statistics, we can’t simply assume that a funding cut will have an adverse impact. It depends whether what is being cut is actually contributing to improvements or if it is wasted spend. Knee-jerk reactions of outrage without regard to the actual outcomes (if any) the defunded services have achieved, ultimately weaken the voice of criticism.

To me it is a very simple proposition. The success of government service delivery in Indigenous health should be measured by the outcomes achieved.

It’s not about the volume of services or who provides them or how much the Government is spending or how many people are involved or how much activity occurring on a day to day basis. It’s not about the size of the department or how many departments there are or whether we have a dedicated Minister for Indigenous Health. It’s about the outcomes and results achieved for Indigenous people.

We need to get bang for our buck. I do not want to see a single cent of funding wasted on administration, bureaucracy, reporting or other red tape that isn’t contributing to outcomes. Every cent wasted is a cent denied to Indigenous people and not being used to close the gap.

In this country we pride ourselves on our universal health system – a system where everyone gets access to top rate medical treatment in public hospitals with delivery prioritised based on health needs, not on ability to pay or other factors. No one wants to see a two-tiered health system, one for Indigenous people and one for non-Indigenous people. Our health system should deliver the world class medical services to everyone and Indigenous people should benefit from that as much as everyone else. The purpose of special Indigenous health services and policy is to close the health gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

In the current Federal ministerial structure we have one Health Minister who is responsible for the funding and funding arrangements for health for everyone.

The job of the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet (which houses the Indigenous Affairs portfolio) is to focus on what is needed in addition to the mainstream health system to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous health. This may involve funding additional health services or bodies. It also involves looking at the totality of different services and resources that are targeted towards, or that impact, Indigenous health – including housing, sanitation – and holding States, Territories and other bodies to account to deliver real outcomes.

Groups like the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation are critical to delivering health services that cater to the additional needs of Indigenous people and communities to close the gap and recognise the importance of having Indigenous involvement in health policy and service delivery. The Indigenous Advisory Council’s Deputy Chair, Professor Ngiare Brown, who is a doctor, is an Executive Research Manager at NACCHO.

Decades of Indigenous controlled health service delivery have seen the Aboriginal community controlled health sector become a leading provider of primary health care services and a significant employer of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This sector has mature organisations with a depth of expertise and capabilities, particularly in remote and regional areas, surpassing the level of mainstream health services in some areas. I see no reason why organisations in these positions should not be able to leverage their capabilities and positioning to provide health services more broadly, thereby expanding their ability to generate extra income and funding. Opening the door to entrepreneurship, independence and self-sufficiency could present great opportunities.

*              *              *

At one level, it is very easy to become overwhelmed by Indigenous health statistics, not only the data itself but also the immensely complex interconnectedness of health problems, health risk factors and social issues.

At another level, Indigenous health problems are not complex to understand at all. If you step back from the tangled web of data and statistics, what you are really looking at is poverty.

Across the world, the conditions under which people are born, grow up, live, work and age shape their health.  As the World Health Organisation points out: ‘the poorest of the poor have the worst health’. Most Indigenous people of my generation, and many of those in the generations after that, grew up in poverty or not far above it. Poverty is both a cause and a consequence of poor health.

It is estimated that socioeconomic disadvantage – in things like education, employment and income – account for one-third to one-half of the health gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

If we only achieved two things – eliminating poverty and eliminating smoking – we would close the gap in Indigenous health for good.

It is very important to remember this as we talk about Indigenous health service provision and health policy. Both are vitally important. But even the best policy and the best service provision will not close the gap if Indigenous people continue to live in poverty, or indeed if we make choices, like the choice to smoke, which damage our health.

The solution to poverty is not a mystery. Poverty is solved by economic development and commerce. Between 1990 and 2010 the number of people living in extreme poverty globally halved. That’s one billion people lifted out of poverty in just 2 decades. Two-thirds of poverty reduction comes from economic growth. The most astonishing example is China. Since it began economic reform 30 years ago its extreme-poverty rate fell from 84% to 10%.

For economic development we need our people to be educated and get into jobs and we need social stability in our communities or people will never invest in them.

So – the reason why I talk so much about economic and commercial development, about getting kids to school, about getting Indigenous people into real jobs and about safe communities, is because these are the key to eliminating poverty and therefore they are key to closing the gap in health. And therefore they are priority areas for the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council and for the future of Indigenous Health.

Nyunggai Warren Mundine is Executive Chairman of the Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce

You can hear more about Aboriginal health and Close the Gap at the NACCHO SUMMIT

summit-2014-banner

The importance of our NACCHO member Aboriginal community controlled health services (ACCHS) is not fully recognised by governments.

The economic benefits of ACCHS has not been recognised at all.

We provide employment, income and a range of broader community benefits that mainstream health services and mainstream labour markets do not. ACCHS need more financial support from government, to provide not only quality health and wellbeing services to communities, but jobs, income and broader community economic benefits.

A good way of demonstrating how economically valuable ACCHS are is to showcase our success at a national summit.

REGISTRATIONS NOW OPEN

SUMMIT WEBSITE FOR MORE INFO

abstract-blocks

NACCHO Close the Gap day :The Portrayal of Aboriginal Health in Selected Australian Media

sovereign

One of the factors impacting on the relationship of Indigenous Australians with mainstream society is the way in which the media portray Indigenous people and issues. There is growing research that suggests negative media portrayals in relation to Indigenous Australians perpetuates racist stereotypes among the wider population and that this type of racism has a major impact on the health of Indigenous Australians

Portrayal of Indigenous Health in Selected Australian Media Melissa J. Stoneham Curtin University

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (herein referred to as Indigenous Australian) comprise three percent of the Australian population (Australian Government, 2013). Distributed across the continent, Indigenous Australians are one of the most linguistically and culturally diverse populations in the world. It is commonly acknowledged that health outcomes for this group are lower than those of non-Indigenous Australians.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE  : The Portrayal of Indigenous Health in Selected Australian Media Melissa J. Stoneham Curtin University

NACCHO Aboriginal health and racism: Marcia Langton the nature of my Q and A apology to Andrew Bolt

Photograph above Australia Day Canberra 2012 Colin Cowell

Although progress has been made in closing the gap, Indigenous Australians continue to experience a lower life expectancy with the current gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous estimated at 11.5 years for males and 9.7 years for females (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Traditionally, the responsibility for tackling ill health has fallen to the health sector. While delivering health to those in need is one of the social determinants of health, the high burden of illness in many cases is due to the poor environmental conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age.

These unequal conditions are, in turn, a product of bad politics, poor social policies and programs, and unfair economic arrangements (World Health Organisation, 2008).

According to Calma (2013), the poor health of Indigenous Australians is a result of a failure to realise the right to health for Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have not had the same opportunities to be as healthy as other Australians or been able to take effective action to remedy long-standing and substantial health inequalities due to the relationship with mainstream society and services.

Making sense of the cultural health status of Australian Indigenous peoples requires an understanding of the relationship between the colonisation process, trauma, and its impact on health. The trauma, grief, pain, and anger that have resulted from the assimilation, segregation, and protectionist policies of the past are still present in the lives of Australian Indigenous people (Hearn & Wise, 2004).

A parallel consideration is the definition that Australian Indigenous peoples have of health. The Social and Emotional Wellbeing Framework, developed by the Australian Government, acknowledges that wellbeing is part of a holistic understanding of life, integrating the life-death-life cycle. It recognises this whole-of-life view of health is essential to achieve positive life outcomes for Australian Indigenous peoples (Department of Health and Ageing, 2004).

Although not recognised as a specific wellbeing factor within the above document, land has a powerful and persuasive underlying influence on Australian Indigenous wellbeing (Garnett & Sithole, 2007). The dispossession of Australian Indigenous people from their land and the subsequent loss of social, cultural, and financial capital has had a devastating effect on the health of Indigenous people worldwide (Hearn & Wise, 2004).

One of the factors impacting on the relationship of Indigenous Australians with mainstream society is the way in which the media portray Indigenous people and issues. There is growing research that suggests negative media portrayals in relation to Indigenous Australians perpetuates racist stereotypes among the wider population and that this type of racism has a major impact on the health of Indigenous Australians (Coffin, 2007; Larson, Gillies, Howard & Coffin, 2007; Sweet, 2009).

Similarly, in New Zealand, a number of mass media studies identified that Mãori health is often framed in the deficit model (Robson & Reid, 2001); the media are routinely reporting that the Mãori peoples are over-represented in national disease statistics (Rankine et al., 2008) and are persistently constructed as sicker and poorer than members of the dominant cultural group (Moewaka Barnes et al., 2005). Nairn, Pega, McCreanor, Rankine, and Barnes (2006) also looked at media representation of Māori peoples in New Zealand and highlighted a number of examples where the media perpetuated racist discourse by using language that framed stories in a particular way (e.g. Stoneham: Portrayal of Indigenous Health Published by Scholarship@Western, 2014 needy, passive objects of settler help), using only selective facts while leaving out crucial information, and excluding or conforming Mãori stories to fit a certain ideology.

This study aimed to examine the media portrayal of Indigenous Australians’ public health issues in selected media over a 12-month period. The objective was to determine the extent to which the portrayal was negative, positive, or neutral.

You can hear more about Aboriginal health and Close the Gap at the NACCHO SUMMIT

summit-2014-banner

The importance of our NACCHO member Aboriginal community controlled health services (ACCHS) is not fully recognised by governments.

The economic benefits of ACCHS has not been recognised at all.

We provide employment, income and a range of broader community benefits that mainstream health services and mainstream labour markets do not. ACCHS need more financial support from government, to provide not only quality health and wellbeing services to communities, but jobs, income and broader community economic benefits.

A good way of demonstrating how economically valuable ACCHS are is to showcase our success at a national summit.

REGISTRATIONS NOW OPEN

SUMMIT WEBSITE FOR MORE INFO

abstract-blocks

NACCHO Aboriginal health :Four Aboriginal Doctors – Closing the Gap on Palm Island by establishing new medical centre

untitled

Our whole team is made up of diverse people, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff and our achievement comes from being connected. Whilst we are all different people, from different backgrounds, we have a commonality in our commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and this enables our success,”

“My links are to Palm Island. I love Palm Island and that we are now able to offer equitable health services.”

Dr RB

Dr Raymond Blackman (pictured above)

Four Aboriginal doctors have started practicing at a new general practice, child and family-focused medical centre on Palm Island, Queensland, streamlining healthcare in the region and creating a blueprint for Indigenous healthcare across Australia. The move heralds a new dawn in healthcare in the remote corner of Australia, a fantastic milestone for the community.

The centre named The Palm Island Children and Family Centre was established by Dr Raymond Blackman with his colleague Dr Vicki Stonehouse. A key focus of the centre is to encourage all kinds of professionals to work in Aboriginal health and to work on Palm Island.

Dr Blackman said he was relieved the people of Palm Island no longer had to endure “second-class medical treatment” as he believes primary healthcare, one where there is an on-going relationship between GP and patient, has been proven to have better medical outcomes over time, something that he is now realising within the Palm Island community.

He also said that until now, tertiary hospital system medical care was all that was available.

“We have GP skills, an interest and understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and in our clinic we have the necessary support structures to enable better outcomes on Palm Island and this needs to be replicated throughout the country,” Dr Blackman said.

Dr Blackman’s leadership and commitment  to his peers was officially recognised last week when he won the 2014 Wakapi Anyiku Doctor Oomparani Award  (Warramungu language for ‘Aboriginal doctor for everybody’).

The award was presented on Wednesday 5 March 2014 by the Indigenous General Practice Registrar Network (IGPRN) at the Future of General Practice conference in Canberra, held annually by General Practice Registrars Australia (GPRA).

The award was announced by IGPRN Chair Dr Aleeta Fejo, who applauded the team for their leadership and commitment to improving the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

“I would like to acknowledge the significant contribution that Dr Blackman has played in both setting up this centre and in supporting and encouraging his GP registrar peers across Australia.

“The new centre on Palm Island is for everybody within the community but its real strength and focus is in its significant impact providing culturally appropriate primary health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families,” she said.

Dr Blackman, on receiving the award, prepared the following comment:”There wasn’t a GP clinic on Palm Island before November 2013. We have created a clinic as part of the Child and Family Centre with four Aboriginal male doctors working together with two non-Aboriginal female doctors. To my knowledge, this centre is the first of its kind in Australia.

“Each of the four Aboriginal doctors working in the newly created clinic have been participants of the IGPRN and have been instrumental in getting the centre off the ground.

“Our whole team is made up of diverse people, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff and our achievement comes from being connected. Whilst we are all different people, from different backgrounds, we have a commonality in our commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and this enables our success,” Dr Blackman said.

“My links are to Palm Island. I love Palm Island and that we are now able to offer equitable health services.”

You can hear more about Aboriginal health and Close the Gap at the NACCHO SUMMIT

summit-2014-banner

The importance of our NACCHO member Aboriginal community controlled health services (ACCHS) is not fully recognised by governments.

The economic benefits of ACCHS has not been recognised at all.

We provide employment, income and a range of broader community benefits that mainstream health services and mainstream labour markets do not. ACCHS need more financial support from government, to provide not only quality health and wellbeing services to communities, but jobs, income and broader community economic benefits.

A good way of demonstrating how economically valuable ACCHS are is to showcase our success at a national summit.

SUMMIT WEBSITE FOR MORE INFO

abstract-blocks

NACCHO Aboriginal health : Radical rethink of housing is key to a healthy future in remote communities: Scullion

Picture-043

Opinion article by NIGEL SCULLION Minister for Indigenous Affairs

As published in The Australian March 2014

PICTURE ABOVE from THE STRINGER TONY ABBOTT MUST DO  :Inspection of Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Programme work in Santa Teresa, Northern Territory, April 2011. Tony Abbott with Adam Giles, Alison Anderson and Nigel Scullion.

The National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing initiated by the former government in 2008, has not delivered on the promise of being a ‘long-term fix to the emergency’ in remote Indigenous housing.

 The byzantine national agreement arrangement is unwieldy and does not reflect the very different environments that need to be dealt with across the country.  Bilateral agreements with states and the Northern Territory may be a better way to go.

In very remote Australia, housing is central to meeting our priorities of getting kids to school, encouraging adults into work and providing for safe communities where the rule of law applies.

More than $2.5 billion was spent by the Rudd/Gillard government from 2008 through the national agreement.  Indigenous Australians tell me that they have not got value for money.

Delivery of housing in remote communities has been marked by delays, cost blowouts and bureaucracy.

New houses can cost more than $600,000 and have an average lifespan of only 10 to 12 years.  There have been poor standards of construction, unsatisfactory rental payment arrangements and sub-standard tenancy management.

Despite this massive expenditure there can be no argument that overcrowding remains chronic in remote Australia where there is no regular, functional housing market. There are no private rental options and no home ownership opportunities in most of these places. Most of these communities are dependent on Commonwealth funded public housing and this has been badly managed.

Residents of remote communities need to have the option, as others in Australia enjoy, of private rental and home ownership. Any strategies that we adopt must work towards that goal.

A radical rethink is overdue.

The states and Northern Territory governments must manage remote Indigenous housing just as they do other public housing.  Rental agreements should be in place and enforced; rents should be collected; any damage caused by occupants should be paid for by occupants; and, municipal services should be delivered to acceptable standards by the jurisdictions.

This is how social housing operates in non-remote areas.  Why should it be any different in remote Indigenous communities?

Why have we come to expect lower standards from housing authorities and residents in remote areas? Is it another layer of passive racism to accept less for Indigenous people in remote Australia?

Why are we building houses in places where land tenure arrangements prevent people from ever buying the house?

One aspect that I will be focusing on is how we can offer housing in a way that encourages mobility for those who want to move to areas with better employment opportunities.

I will be working with the states and Northern Territory governments to reform the current arrangements that are clearly failing residents of Indigenous communities.

In negotiations, I will want to set some conditions that might include:

  • moving relatively quickly towards building social housing only in those places that have appropriate land tenure arrangements in place for home ownership;
  • attractive mobility packages for remote residents, including portability of special housing and home ownership eligibility for those who want to move to areas with stronger labour markets;
  • ensuring rents are set at mainstream social housing rates and requirements of tenants are specified, understood and complied with;
  • a requirement for states and territories to apply their usual sale of social housing policy, as occurs in urban and regional areas, based on realistic market values; and
  • priority for the allocation of social housing to families in employment or where children are regularly attending school.

We also need to ensure that people in social housing are not adversely affected when taking up employment opportunities. This however is mainly an issue for mainstream social housing rather than remote Indigenous housing.

I know that a number of jurisdictions are focused on reform and I look forward to working with them.

However, if a state or territory is not up to the task, the Commonwealth might have to step in and take over delivery of social housing or contract providers with significant Indigenous and community involvement to do the job.

 

You can hear more about Aboriginal health and social determinants at the NACCHO SUMMIT June Melbourne Convention Centre

summit-2014-banner

The importance of our NACCHO member Aboriginal community controlled health services (ACCHS) is not fully recognised by governments.

The economic benefits of ACCHS has not been recognised at all.

We provide employment, income and a range of broader community benefits that mainstream health services and mainstream labour markets do not. ACCHS need more financial support from government, to provide not only quality health and wellbeing services to communities, but jobs, income and broader community economic benefits.

A good way of demonstrating how economically valuable ACCHS are is to showcase our success at a national summit.

SUMMIT WEBSITE FOR MORE INFO

abstract-blocks