I'm looking at this article. Indigenous Services claims that the focus is going to be on things such as travel, consulting and grants and contributions.
To me, those are all directly connected to the delivery of services. I think that members of the public who are trying to understand these budget matters are wondering, if there's money just sitting there that's not being used efficiently, why that has been allowed to persist, and if it was being used to deliver services, why it is getting cut.
How should a member of the public distinguish between something that is unnecessary and something that is actually a cut to services that communities depend on?