The nightmare of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS) tendering process was laid bare in a report released by the Finance and Public Administration References Committee last night.
“The report confirms what many Aboriginal service providers have been saying: that the whole process was a sham,” says Centre for Independent Studies Research Fellow and Indigenous Research Program Manager, Sara Hudson.
“The government failed to consult with key Indigenous groups, and the process was poorly planned and executed.
“Rather than minimising bureaucracy and increasing transparency, it has resulted in widespread confusion throughout the sector.”
However, there was a case for reform, Ms Hudson says.
“Before the federal government’s decision to merge 150 programs into five, 820 organisations received funding under 84 different programs to deliver services to Indigenous people. In total, there were 20,671 separate performance, financial and acquittal reports — with each organisation having on average 4.5 funding agreements, although one organisation had 55 different funding agreements.”
“The actions undertaken by the federal government in implementing this reform were in direct conflict with the narrative they were spinning about putting Indigenous communities and people at the centre of the design and delivery of programs.
“As stated in the report, the competitive tendering process unfairly disadvantaged Indigenous organisations.
“Less than half (46%) of the successful applicants for funding were Indigenous organisations.
“Evidence suggest that the best programs are those designed and implemented in conjunction with Indigenous communities” Ms Hudson says.
“The widespread awarding of contracts to non-Indigenous organisations meant that many Aboriginal organisations providing essential services to Indigenous communities missed out.”
“The committee’s recommendations for a full internal review of the IAS process is much needed.
“Let’s hope the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet gets it right next time and the money goes to where it is needed most — and not into the pockets of non-government and philanthropic organisations, who often decided to implement a program without any assessment of need or consultation with communities.”
Sara Hudson is a Research Fellow and Indigenous Research Program Manager at the Centre for Independent Studies
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Indigenous Advancement Strategy tender process is a nightmare and a sham
Indigenous Advancement Strategy tender process is a nightmare and a sham
“The report confirms what many Aboriginal service providers have been saying: that the whole process was a sham,” says Centre for Independent Studies Research Fellow and Indigenous Research Program Manager, Sara Hudson.
“The government failed to consult with key Indigenous groups, and the process was poorly planned and executed.
“Rather than minimising bureaucracy and increasing transparency, it has resulted in widespread confusion throughout the sector.”
However, there was a case for reform, Ms Hudson says.
“Before the federal government’s decision to merge 150 programs into five, 820 organisations received funding under 84 different programs to deliver services to Indigenous people. In total, there were 20,671 separate performance, financial and acquittal reports — with each organisation having on average 4.5 funding agreements, although one organisation had 55 different funding agreements.”
“The actions undertaken by the federal government in implementing this reform were in direct conflict with the narrative they were spinning about putting Indigenous communities and people at the centre of the design and delivery of programs.
“As stated in the report, the competitive tendering process unfairly disadvantaged Indigenous organisations.
“Less than half (46%) of the successful applicants for funding were Indigenous organisations.
“Evidence suggest that the best programs are those designed and implemented in conjunction with Indigenous communities” Ms Hudson says.
“The widespread awarding of contracts to non-Indigenous organisations meant that many Aboriginal organisations providing essential services to Indigenous communities missed out.”
“The committee’s recommendations for a full internal review of the IAS process is much needed.
“Let’s hope the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet gets it right next time and the money goes to where it is needed most — and not into the pockets of non-government and philanthropic organisations, who often decided to implement a program without any assessment of need or consultation with communities.”
Sara Hudson is a Research Fellow and Indigenous Research Program Manager at the Centre for Independent Studies
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: