Opinion & Commentary
Competitive disadvantage is hardly the healthiest option
Determining the appropriate level of government responsibility is a vexed issue. Nowhere is this more apparent than in remote indigenous communities. Years of welfare dependency have demoralised communities to such an extent that few take responsibility for meeting their food needs.
During the era of the outback missions, many Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders used to grow their own fruit and vegetables and gather and hunt traditional foods, but few do so now.
A study by the National Health and Medical Research Council found 90–95% of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders’ dietary intake consists of packaged food and drink.
One reason for the lack of fresh produce in indigenous diets is that most stores in remote communities do not stock much fruit and vegetables, and when they do these items are expensive and of poor quality. In one store in Torres Strait a yellow and ageing bunch of broccoli cost $9, or $17 a kilo.
Concern at the continuing poor diet of remote indigenous Australians led the federal government to launch a $48 million Outback Stores program to improve the quality of community stores.
Under this program, the stores continue to be owned by the community but are managed by the Outback Stores company under a long-term fee-for-service agreement. But the program has been plagued by complaints it is anti-competitive. Many feel Outback Stores has an unfair advantage over other community stores.
In an attempt to address these concerns, the federal government established an inquiry on remote indigenous community stores. Its report, Everybody’s Business: Remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Community Stores, was released in November. One of the recommendations was that rather than support particular stores, the government should support a diversity of stores that suit the needs of individual communities.
Many submissions to the inquiry highlighted the conflict of interest that has arisen with the licensing of stores following the Northern Territory Intervention and the compulsory quarantining of welfare payments.
The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs administers Indigenous Business Australia, the statutory authority responsible for funding Outback Stores. FaHCSIA, along with Centrelink, is also responsible for the licensing and supervision of stores under the NT Intervention. Licensing enables stores to accept Centrelink’s BasicsCards issued for spending managed income and have access to half of residents’ welfare payments quarantined under the Intervention.
Because it has a corporate licence, Outback Stores faces less onerous reporting requirements. Communally or privately run stores are required to open their books to FaHCSIA annually and some have more than 30 conditions attached to their licence.
Proposals to move the administration of Outback Stores from IBA to FaHCSIA have increased people’s concerns. At hearings, FaHCSIA tried to reassure people the different arms would be firewalled, with ‘very clear protocols’ for separate governance of licensing, food security and Outback Stores management. These arrangements are unlikely to work. And they don’t address the main problem: FaHCSIA is subsidising some stores and not others, creating an unlevel playing field.
If the federal government is to be responsible for food security in indigenous communities, then all stores should be treated equally, with the same rights to top-up funding as Outback Stores.
Sara Hudson is a Policy Analyst with The Centre for Independent Studies and author of Closing the Accountability Gap: The First Step towards Better Indigenous Health.
